FW 26 June WRAB Prioritization mitigation projects.From:Huntley, Sarah
To:WRAB; Taddeucci, Joe; Coleman, Brandon; OSBT
Subject:FW: 26 June WRAB Prioritization mitigation projects.
Date:Friday, July 7, 2023 10:00:34 AM
Forwarding this correspondence from a constituent. It is at the discretion of city staff and OSBT
members as to whether to respond to the questions contained in the email.
From: Lynn Segal <lynnsegal7@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 12:39 AM
To: WRAB <WRAB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Taddeucci, Joe <taddeuccij@bouldercolorado.gov>;
Coleman, Brandon <colemanb@bouldercolorado.gov>; OSBT <OSBT@bouldercolorado.gov>;
Gordon McCurry <gmccurry@mccurryhydro.com>
Cc: norbycw@gmail.com
Subject: Re: 26 June WRAB Prioritization mitigation projects.
External Sender
I need answers before this is in the rear-view mirror.
Lynn
From: Lynn Segal
Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2023 2:37 AM
To: WRAB <WRAB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Taddeucci, Joe <taddeuccij@bouldercolorado.gov>;
colemanb@bouldercolorado.gov <colemanb@bouldercolorado.gov>; OSBT
<OSBT@bouldercolorado.gov>; Gordon MCCurry <gmccurry@mccurryhydro.com>
Cc: norbycw@gmail.com <norbycw@gmail.com>
Subject: 26 June WRAB Prioritization mitigation projects.
Go to about 39:12 on the video.
It's interesting, the lexicon used on the color-coded bars. #12 Bluebell 02 didn't have much of
a Life Safety component (HHZ and 500yr.) but high Effectiveness with 304 (or 340?) structures
removed from the 100 yr. FP. So, look at #6 Skunk 07 which has good Effectiveness with 46
structures removed, .6 on a scale of 0-1 "quite high" "Social Vulnerability" (SV) which "made
all the difference". But that's low. The aqua blue bar, Equity, which IS Social Vulnerability, is
good sized, which doesn't make sense. Counterintuitively, there is a very small bar for Equity
on Bluebell 02 that Vicky did not point out, the smallest on all 36 projects, actually.
I consider Social Vulnerability a negative. But I consider Equity a positive. So, I don't
understand how to equate the two. Is there something here I am misinterpreting?
Also, the viewer has no way of knowing what the 0-1 scale ranking is with all the others
because there is no graphic for that, just Vicky, the presenter's voice, for this one example
she is pointing out on Skunk 07. This may be evident for someone reading the packet, but is
not clear to the more casual observer. Is there no obligation to be clear to the public observer
as well as the board itself?
I had to figure out what she was saying, because at first, I thought Social Vulnerability was Life
Safety (LS), since those two parameters (Life Safety and Equity) were what were compared on
Bluebell, but she switched on the Skunk drainage using Social Vulnerability, which was not
the ID on the color code, it's Equity. Social Vulnerability equated to Equity but you can't
figure that out without backing up to a previous slide. She should stick to the code ID's. Also,
the percentages should have been loaded on to the individual color code palate. The code of
Life Safety should also be ID'ed with HHZ and 500 yr. FP removals, and Effectiveness (E) with
100 yr. FP removals.
SBC Phase 1 of course, had a very high Life Safety metric, but I question how it had any
Effectiveness, because it is adding structures. Is it actually removing structures from the 100
yr. floodplain? Can someone please answer to this?
At 1:09, for SBC, why is a small orange bar the highest cost for all the projects? Why is the
Life Safety high on it without just displacing a lower Life Safety to portions of the alluvium
below it?
With the highest Life Safety index, SBC was not brought up. What HHZ (60%) and 500 yr.
(40%) critical facilities, residential (40%) and road level of service (20%) are removed? Aren't
these being loaded on, as part of the built environment of the campus and housing and
increasing risk of life? Or is the excavation and fill ("earth work") $3M on the OSO and
diversion projects protecting the CU South space at the expense of owners downstream?
I remember residents using sandbags and diverting flow to neighbors downstream of them
who were out of town in 2013. Can you do color bars to illustrate impact to farther reaches of
the convergent aspects of the alluvium at the high level?
Joe, I really don't understand how you can guarantee the safety of the water treatment plant
in an extreme and unpredictable event on semi-arid impermeable land. Maybe there will be
atmospheric rivers after a 1000 yr. rain next time?
At the risk of stating the obvious, Boulder is the highest flood risk in CO, but not because of
any peculiar geographic contour, because of the cost in human life and property from the
built environment in this peculiar contour. It's a matter of actuarials.
Lynn