Parks & Recreation Study Session - Boulder Reservoir Master Plan
CITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Members
FROM: Kirk Kincannon, CPRP, Director, Parks and Recreation
Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent
Bev Johnson, Planner, Project Manager
Stacy Cole, Boulder Reservoir Manager
Matt Claussen, Urban Parks Resource Manager
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Coordinator
Michelle Wind, Drinking Water Program Supervisor
RE: Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Study Session
DATE: April 26, 2010
PURPOSE
The purpose of the study session on April 26, 2010 is to provide the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board (PRAB) with an update on the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan project and to
collect feedback from the board on the preliminary options for the following recreational and use
policies at the reservoir:
Management areas and uses
Circulation, access and trails
Boating
Special events
Alcohol use
The role of the PRAB at this stage of the master planning process is to provide feedback to staff
on the development and analysis of master plan policy options. Comments from the board at the
study session will be used to refine the policy options before they are presented to City Council
at a May 11, 2010 study session. After the May 11 study session, staff will evaluate the options
and bring them back to the PRAB for a public hearing and recommendation to council on the
preferred policy options. The following are questions to guide the PRAB discussion:
1. Does the PRAB have any continents or questions on the preliminary:
a. Management area designations and uses (page 4 and Attachment C)?
b. North Shore and Coot Lake use options (page 5 and Attachment E)?
c. South Shore boating policy options (page 6)?
d. Circulation, access and trail plan (page 7 and Attachment D)?
e. Special event policy (page S and Attachment I}
t
e. Alcohol use policy (page 8 and Attachment J)
2. Does the PRAB have any comments or questions on the proposed evaluation criteria
(page 9)?
ATTACHMENTS:
A Vision and Goals for the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan
B Site Conditions
C Preliminary Management Areas and Uses
D Circulation, Access and Trails
E North Shore and Coot Lake Use Options
F Tom Watson - Existing Conditions
G Water Quality Monitoring Information
H Current Boating Patterns and Restricted Areas
I Preliminary Special Events Policy
J Preliminary Alcohol Use Policy
K Public Comment
L Process and Timeline Chart
MEETING AGENDA:
Introductions and staff presentation 15 minutes
Board discussion and comments 1 hour 30 minutes
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan project is to establish management goals and
objectives for Parks and Recreation Department managed land and activities at the Boulder
Reservoir (including Tom Watson Park and Coot Lake) that will guide long-term investment
strategies. An interdepartmental staff team, led by the Parks and Recreation Department,
includes representatives from multiple city departments, including Public Works-Utilities, Open
Space and Mountain Parks, and Transportation. The plan is being developed in the following
three phases (Attachment L):
I: Vision, Goals and Issues (May -January 2010)
II: Policy Options (January - July 2010)
III: Draft and Final Master Plan (July - September 2010)
Staff completed the initial phase of the project last January after providing several opportunities
for public input on the plan including two public meetings, a user survey and three focus group
discussions. Attachment K includes public comments received since the PRAB meeting in
2
December 2009. Please see the following Web site for a link to the user survey and focus group
reports:
www.bouldercolorado.gov > Parks & Recreation > Recreation Facilities > Boulder Reservoir >
Reservoir Master Plan Project
Staff is in Phase II of the project which involved identification and evaluation of options to
address key policy issues including boating policy, management and use areas, special event and
alcohol use policy. A public meeting was held on April 7, 2010 to get feedback on the
preliminary options. Public continent from the meeting is included in Attachment K.
COUNCIL AND BOARD FEEDBACK:
Staff introduced the project to City Council at a study session in December 2009. City Council
finalized the vision and goals for the plan (Attachment A) at a public hearing on January 19,
2010. A study session with City Council is scheduled for May 11, 2010 to present the
preliminary policy options for council comment. After that meeting, the options will be
evaluated and presented to the public, the boards and council this summer for selection of the
preferred policy options for recreational use, circulation, access, boating, special events and
alcohol use.
On April 19, 2010, Public Works-Utilities Division staff presented a status update on the BRMP
to the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB), focusing on boating policy, water quality and
water management related issues that will be considered in the BRMP for input and comment
from the board. The WRAB provided the following comments to staff:
1. Maintain and increase the water quality monitoring for fuel-related constituents
(BTEX, PAH) and, more specifically:
• Include the sediment monitoring of fines; and
• Consider taking multiple samples over the July 4a' weekend
2. Consider having at least one day on the reservoir without motorized boating.
3. Consider additional user fees for non-Boulder users.
4. Consider incorporating best management practices in the plan (under any option) for
protecting water quality.
ANALYSIS:
To begin Phase II of the planning project, staff identified the key policy areas that involve a
wide-range of community viewpoints and drafted preliminary options for each the following
policy areas:
• Management areas and uses
o West Shore use
o North Shore and Coot Lake use
o South Shore and Boating
• Special Events
3
• Alcohol Use
A public meeting was held on April 7, 2010 to collect feedback on the preliminary options and
policies. The following is a discussion of each of the policy areas and options proposed by staff
and some of the primary feedback received from the public.
Management Areas and Uses
Staff is proposing that land in the study area be divided into separate management areas with
designated allowed uses for each area (Attachment C). Management areas are land use
categories that identify key objectives and permitted uses for different areas around the reservoir.
The primary purpose of a management area approach is to create:
1) a common understanding of the priority uses and management objectives for each
area around the reservoir, and
2) a framework for developing and prioritizing strategies for facility improvements and
service delivery.
The proposed designations are intended to provide a balance among the multiple goals for the
reservoir area established in Phase I and are based on the current use and the physical
opportunities and constraints of the study area (Attachment B). Key site conditions that guided
development of the preliminary options included ownership, adjacent land uses, natural features
(e.g. wetlands, sensitive wildlife species, hydrology) and current uses and facilities.
West Shore Use
Staff is proposing that the West Shore be designated as a habitat conservation area and that
recreational use of the area be restricted to wildlife viewing, fishing and aeromodelling. (The
current aeromodelling activity would be grandfathered in under the current lease agreement but
would not be replaced by another activity once the club is inactive). The majority of the West
Shore is a diverse wetland system that is considered to be one of the eleven most exemplary
wetlands in the city due to its size, diversity, lack of fragmentation from human use, and role in
protecting surface water quality from the Dry Creek and Little Dry Creek drainageways. Several
sensitive animal species of local, county or state concern including Bald Eagles, Osprey,
American Bittern and Northern Harriers are found in this wetland complex. Land area in the
West Shore area that is not wetland is either private land, prairie dog habitat or currently used by
the local aeromodelling club. The adjacent prairie dog habitat provides a food source for many of
the bird species that nest, roost or forage in the area.
Although some environmental groups and members of the public have expressed support for
limiting trails and access on the West Shore, others have expressed an interest in a multi-use trail
system connection through this area and outside of the 51" Street right-of-way. A multi-use trail
in this area would have a direct impact on existing wetlands and potentially high impact on the
sensitive wildlife species in the area. Staff is not recommending that multi-use trail use be
specifically designated for this area but that the city work with the county to study the feasibility
of better accommodating non-automobile use within the current county right-of-way.
4
Another issue of concern to some members of the public is the proposed elimination of Jet Ski
Cove in the West Shore area. Staff is proposing to eliminate all personal water craft (e.g. Jet
Skis) from the reservoir and expand the "no wake" restrictions into Jet Ski Cove (Attachment H).
The purpose of this change would be to reduce the number of two-stroke engines on the reservoir
and add further protection to the sensitive shoreline and wetlands in the Dry Creek inlet area.
North Shore and Coot Lake Use Options
Staff is proposing that the North Shore and Coot Lake areas be limited to passive recreational use
only (see passive and active use definitions in Attachment C). Site conditions and concerns that
are guiding this proposed designation include limited public land area for facilities or additional
parking, the extent of wetland habitat, the adjacency of the area to the sensitive habitat in the
West Shore, a sensitive shoreline and the risk of aquatic nuisance species infestation from
watercraft.
Staff has received some input from the public expressing interest in allowing swimming on the
North Shore. In response to public comment, staff is outlining three options for the North
Shore/Coot Lake area for further evaluation (Attachment E). Each option would emphasize
different goals for the Boulder Reservoir and support different types and levels of use. The three
options include the following:
Option 1: Reduced access and use (to increase habitat protection and reduce ANS
risk)
Option 2: Current access and use
Option 3: Expanded access and use (to support swimming)
Under all the options, staff is proposing the following policies and actions for the North Shore
and Coot Lake:
(North Shore)
1. No watercraft access from the North Shore
2. No trail access to the West Shore wetland area from the North Shore
3. Improved bridge crossing over the Boulder Feeder Canal
(Coot Lake)
4. Improved pedestrian/bicycle crossing on 63rd St.
5. No swimming (people) in Coot Lake
6. Lyons-to-Boulder regional trail connection and related improvements
Tom Watson Park
Currently, Tom Watson Park provides active recreational facilities for softball, tennis and
volleyball. It also provides parking for visitors accessing the Coot Lake and North Shore trail
systems. Members of the public have expressed an interest in the city providing space at this
park for an arts and crafts studio complex.
Tom Watson is a unique park in the city's system because of the current ownership and
management conditions (Attachment F). The land and current facilities are owned by the IBM
5
Corporation and the park is on a parcel that is zoned for industrial-manufacturing use. The city
maintains the property under an easement agreement that was adopted by city ordinance as part
of a site plan agreement with IBM. Under this agreement, all significant changes to the site must
be agreed to by IBM and meet both the current zoning regulations and the provisions of the
easement agreement.
Because of the limitations on the use and development of Tom Watson Park, staff is not
proposing any changes to the site at this time. Instead, proposals for this site (e.g. covered tennis
courts and arts studio complex) will be explored at a future date to be determined.
South Shore - Boating Policy
Staff has received numerous comments from the public about boating at the Boulder Reservoir.
The reservoir has been a popular venue for both motorized and non-motorized boating for many
years and is an important source of revenue for the department. Many of the facilities and
services provided on the South Shore primarily support boating and water-based activities.
Some concerns have been raised, however, about the impacts of motorized and non-motorized
boats at the reservoir in terms of drinking and swimming water quality, noise, turbidity and the
risk of aquatic nuisance species (zebra or quagga mussel) infestation.
Before developing preliminary boating policy options, staff listed the following objectives and
strategies for a departmental boating policy.
Preliminary Boating Policy Objectives
• Provide for a diversity of water-based recreational activities
• Balance water quality protection with boating opportunities
• Minimize risk of ANS infestation
• Ensure safety of all visitors on the water
• Manage potential noise impacts
• Protect sensitive aquatic and wetland habitat areas
Potential Approaches
• Limit types of watercraft and engines allowed
• Limit number of boats on the water at any one time
• Balance "no wake" and "wake allowed" time periods and locations
• Control watercraft access
• Inspect all watercraft before entering the water
The following preliminary options were developed to address the different interests and concerns
expressed by the public and meet the above objectives:
Option 1: Status Quo
a. No limitations on engine size
b. Current "no wake" periods:
o Tuesdays, 5:30 am - 10:00 am (city adaptive ski programs)
o Wednesdays, 5:30 am - 9:00 am
o Thursdays, 5:30 pm - 9:00 pm
6
c. Limit the number of motor boats on the water at any one time at staff
discretion based on:
o Safety
o Weather
o Programming or other events taking place
Option 2: Increased Limitations
a. Limit engine size to a maximum of 500 horsepower.
b. Limit the number of watercraft on the water at one time to a maximum of
201 Class I watercrafe (No limitations on the number of all other
watercraft.)
c. Limit the type of watercraft allowed to Class A3 and Class I watercraft
only. (Motorized Personal Watercraft prohibited except Lake Patrol and
City programs. Current permits grandfathered in.)
d. Add more "no wake" periods to the status quo. (Consider one full "no
wake" day in addition to the current "no wake" periods)
Option 3: Prohibitions
Either:
a. All watercraft
or
b. Fuel-powered watercraft only
Under all the above options, staff is proposing the following policies:
1. No fueling on the water.
2. All watercraft must launch from the South Shore.
3. No watercraft allowed in Coot Lake (including belly boats).
4. Water quality monitoring thresholds.
5. Phase out of two-stroke engines that do not meet current EPA exhaust emission
standards. (Two-stroke engines that meet EPA standards would be allowed.)
6. Prohibit personal water craft (e.g. Jet Skis) and eliminate "Jet Ski Cove" - expand the
"no wake" zone at the Dry Creek inlet.
Circulation, Access and Trails
A preliminary conceptual plan for circulation, access and trail use is included in Attachment D.
Similar to the preliminary management area designation, the preliminary plan is based on the
current use and the physical opportunities and constraints of the study area. Due to limited land
area and the extent of wetlands and wildlife habitat and other city facilities in the study area
(water treatment and fire training), staff is proposing to maintain and improve the existing trail
system in the reservoir area. Future use and access of the 55 h Street parking lot will be
i roughly equivalent to one boat per 15 acres of surface water
2 Class I: Vessels 16 to 25 ft. (less than 26 ft.) in length
3 Class A: Vessels less than 16 ft, in length
dependent on the final policy for use on the North Shore. Staff will also refine the proposed trail
system for the final plan by assessing the feasibility of alternative trail alignments where noted in
Attachment D.
Water Quality Monitoring
Last year, the Public Works - Utilities Division began water quality monitoring for boating-
related pollutants in the reservoir. In February 2010, staff sent a non-agenda memorandum to
City Council which provided information about the city's water quality standards and protocol
(Attachment G). Most recently, a council membef has requested that staff develop a monitoring
protocol that exceeds current standards and incorporates EPA water quality standards for water
fowl protection and include it in the May 11, 2010 council study session packet. Staff is currently
developing a draft protocol and will forward the information to the PRAB when the council
study session packets are distributed the week of May 3, 2010.
Special Events Policy
Special events are planned activities (for-profit or non-profit) involving 50 or more participants
that are open to the general public (with or without a fee). The Boulder Reservoir is an important
venue for many regional and local events and a source of revenue for the Parks and Recreation
Department. For the most part, special events have been managed to minimize impacts on the
reservoir and its neighbors. Most events are permitted to begin and end on the South Shore in
order to reduce the impact on natural resources around the reservoir and to route traffic and
parking away from the North Shore and Coot Lake where facilities are limited.
Attachment I includes a preliminary special event policy for PRAB comment. Highlights of the
policy include the following:
• Designating events involving 1200 or more participants as "Signature Events" and
limiting Signature Events to no more than one per month;
• Restricting special events to the South Shore, the reservoir (water), the north and
south dam roads or the multi-use trails in the North Shore and Coot Lake
management areas;
• Requiring all special events to begin and end on the South Shore; and
• Limiting special events involving 100 or more participants to one per day.
Alcohol Use Policy
Currently, alcohol consumption is allowed at the Boulder Reservoir and Coot Lake without a
permit between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Alcohol regulations at Tom Watson Park, however,
are consistent with all other city park regulations which require a group permit for any alcohol
consumption. Some concern has been expressed by the public about the inconsistencies in city
alcohol use regulations among various parks and between Parks and Recreation and Open Space
and Mountain Parks departments' regulations. Staff is proposing to move to consistency in city
regulations by requiring a group alcohol use permit for any alcohol consumption in the North
Shore, Coot Lake and dam areas (similar to all other parks) and requiring a group alcohol permit
for groups of 15 or more participants on the South Shore (Attachment J). For example, if a
8
group of families involving 15 or more participants meets at the reservoir for a picnic, an alcohol
use permit would be required.
NEXT STEPS:
After the April 26, 2010 PRAB meeting, staff will make final revisions to the preliminary
options for the May 11, 2010 City Council study session packet. The purpose of the May 11
study session is to collect feedback from council members on the preliminary options before they
are finalized. Staff will evaluate the final policy options in May and June in preparation for a
selection of the preferred policies for management areas and use, boating, special events and
alcohol use. The proposed questions staff will use to evaluate the options are as follows:
Proposed Evaluation Criteria:
1. How does each option help to achieve the City's environmental, economic and social
sustainability goals?
2. How does each option help to achieve the vision and goals for the Boulder Reservoir
and Coot Lake area?
3. What are the impacts of each option to capital facilities and infrastructure? (relative to
capital needs identified or planned under current master plans)
4. What additional facilities and services would be needed to meet current service
standards under each option?
5. What would be the cost of new facilities and services and would current revenue
sources adequately pay for those facilities?
6. What are the impacts to other existing or planned services (transportation, utilities,
police, fire, open space, etc.)?
7. What are the impacts to visitors to the Boulder Reservoir area?
8. What regulatory changes would need to be made to implement each option?
A public meeting will be held in June 2010 to collect input on a preferred option before returning
to the WRAB and the PRAB in June or July for a recommendation to City Council. Staff will
ask City Council for the final direction on the preferred policy options in July or August before
continuing on to Phase III of the project. Phase III will involve development and review of a
draft master plan and will address additional management issues and operational procedures
including those listed below:
1. Other recreational use policies (e.g. hours of operation, concession policy, dog
leashing, programs and camps, swimming, picnics)
2. Wildlife, resource and habitat protection and enhancement strategies
3. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) management (aquatic and terrestrial species).
4. Facility and infrastructure needs
5. Water quality monitoring protocols, thresholds and a drought response plan
6. Services needs and operational policies
7. Safety and security procedures
8. Interdepartmental management and coordination
9. Costs and funding plan
9
10. Public/private financing strategies to address the gap.
11. Phasing/strategic investment plan for public improvements and infrastructure
12. Actions, responsibilities and timeline to implement the plan
10
Attachment A:
Vision and Goals for the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan
Vision:
Recognizing that the Boulder Reservoir is first and foremost a source of clean water
and valuable natural resources, the community envisions a reservoir where high
quality and appropriate recreation activities are managed and sustained in a manner
consistent with preserving and enhancing the environment.
Goals:
1. Balance multiple City goals in the sustainable development and use of the
reservoir area including:
• Waste reduction;
• Carbon emissions reduction;
• Water conservation; and
• Reduction of single occupancy auto trips, encouragement of alternative
transportation options and management of parking.
2. Provide for a range of high-quality recreational uses, events, facilities and
services that support the local community.
3. Identify sensitive wildlife and plant species and protect, enhance and restore their
natural habitat.
4. Develop and implement strategies and partnerships to reduce and manage the
risks of aquatic nuisance species infestation.
5. Identify and minimize water pollutant sources from recreational uses.
6. Promote and support the safety of visitors to the reservoir area.
7. Develop and implement a business model for long-term sustainable management
of the reservoir area, including the use of public/private partnerships.
8. Endeavor to be a good neighbor to adjacent properties.
9. Promote visitor and community awareness and stewardship of the reservoir
through on-going education and outreach.
10. Ensure the security and maintenance of the facilities and infrastructure in the
reservoir area.
11. Collaborate with other agencies and departments to effectively leverage resources
to accomplish mutual goals.
1
Attachment B:
E /et/andsInforatro
OSMP Wetiand Vegetation
--ti - - mNfIFIC>~td f - - =p Short Stature
WiWUFL1~8tAT ®Tall Stature
1T .G1YC,n. ~r
Coot Wetlands - Regulatory
PRIVATE: e}Rrr,4e take
Strewn Category
High Functioning
r boulDr•R aft
FteDGR Low Functioning
poe + 4 c, ouTi->rT Wetlands -Regulatory Area
a (Wetland + Buffer)
z FFA, Ri
h High Functioning Inner
t t i High Functioning Outer
JPPdc1Rl>y DOCa i r,~
~i''. - }~y1c~ITAT~ I<'4s~`•.~~ LowPunctioning
Creek
~k1Wrf>~ ~`t r; Intermittent Creek
-Ditch
~ -O ~~`FSr j Study Area
W
~`J + ~~V 1/!A f City Limits b
41, Bau1C8J Reaervolr
x I ,7
i MULTI-uSF, TskL-
f'
+ t,~IE05 or- (~ONCEW
L f Tr
r y WI. ~_1
X r iii 1:e• ,
S
at `v r k : i a$' h Y r. .a,r~M4n~rRasc1.vd `,r / f91 0 560 1.000 Feet
Aerial Photography Spring 2008
1
Attachment C:
Preliminary Management Areas and Uses
What are Management Areas?
Management areas are land use categories that identify key objectives and permitted uses for
different areas around the reservoir. They are based on the physical opportunities and constraints
of the study area. The primary purposes of a management area approach are to create: 1) a
common understanding of the priority uses and management objectives for each area around the
reservoir, and 2) a framework for developing and prioritizing strategies for facility improvements
and service delivery.
What is Passive Recreation?
Passive recreation is defined as non-motorized activities that:
• Offer constructive, restorative, and pleasurable human benefits that foster an appreciation
and understanding of the natural environment and its purposes
• Do not significantly impact natural, cultural, scientific or scenic values of the land
• Require only minimal facilities and services directly related to safety and minimizing
passive recreational impacts
Examples of passive recreational uses include hiking, dog-walking, bird watching, bicycling
(non-motorized), and horseback riding
What is Active Recreation?
Active recreation is defined as activities that require infrastructure or built facilities, or do not fit
the criteria for passive recreation.
Examples of active recreational uses include boating, softball, tennis, and volleyball.
1
V MAN BA~
COO
NTH Tom
(b ACA R
v~T
INA
S HOKE
M
~ iuar~ uLDE+~ ~wM
use!
~uIT
s
M
u ~LIM IT'f-b ti
a;
I bth
2
South Shore - Active Use Area
Management Emphasis:
• Provision of high quality facilities and services to support a diversity of water and
land based recreational uses
• Provision of facilities and services for large and small, public and private
organized events, outdoor entertainment, recreational programs and camps.
• Management of aquatic nuisance species inspection program
Recreational Uses:
Picnicking, swimming, motorized and non-motorized boating, running, biking,
special events, programs and camps, skydive landing, fishing, commuter bike route,
volleyball courts, food concessions, public restrooms, playground, horseshoes, group
shelter, ropes course, boat inspection and boat storage, and outdoor performance
venues.
North Shore/Coot Lake - Passive Use Area
Management Emphasis:
• Balancing increasing levels of passive recreational use with wildlife habitat and
resource protection
• Maintenance and enhancement of trails, trailheads and other facilities to support
passive recreational use and adjacent multi-use trail system connections
• Protection and enhancement of sensitive wetland areas
Passive Recreational Uses:
Hiking, running, biking, horseback riding, dog walking, wildlife viewing, picnicking,
public restrooms, fishing and access to a potential Lyons-to-Boulder regional trail
system
North and South Dams - Limited Use Area
Management Emphasis:
• Provision of a pedestrian and bicycle link between the north and south shores
• Support for the security of the water utility and fire training facilities
• Management of access to the South Shore recreational facilities
• Road access for permitted special events
• Protection and enhancement of wildlife and wetland habitat areas
Recreational Uses:
Pedestrian and bicycle trail connection, fishing and wildlife viewing
3
West Shore - Habitat Conservation Area
Management Emphasis:
• Protection, enhancement and restoration of wetland, grassland and aquatic habitat
areas and functioning ecological systems
• Protection of nesting areas for bird species of concern
• Protection of drainage areas to minimize water pollutant sources
Recreational Uses:
Wildlife viewing, fishing and aeromodelling
Tom Watson Park - Active Use Area
Management emphasis:
• Provision of high quality facilities and services to support active and passive
recreational uses.
• Management of wetland and prairie dog habitat
Uses:
Softball, volleyball, tennis, hiking, bicycling, picnicking, group shelter, basketball,
pottery kiln, playground, handball, parking, group and special events, public
restrooms, storage building and prairie dog conservation
Attachment D:
4T~PAIL6
CA KCU LAT 10 N E! 5t > ~j o
<-PoTENT1b L LYOW5-Tb- It~
~pUU~R MULTI-~-
pp,LKiN& MMOVEp
UN1f-r- Nor;r O
~~tos~- aP3'ZoN l
P
~
rE4TRIAN
UADK b,T I.a°K
+glLrrY OFI~IIITY
N1Ul.Tl~~` -"AQ- or- lDuwDINrq q~ it+
A~LONCa gIPaAT- DF• WAY NEW $RITYAf- T~
,
URI
h
Ar
EA6jVL.ITCAF N ;
,YN
AON& 1>W
~ t~oDK aT k , . .
e IBIl,IT`(OF ~ v ~
Attachment E:
North Shore and Coot Lake Use Options
Option 1: Reduced Access and Use
(to increase habitat protection and reduce ANS risk)
• Improve condition of existing trail system for pedestrians, runners, off-
road bikes and horse
• Close 55th St. parking lot to vehicles (maintain trail pass-through
only) and focus access at Coot Lake to reduce risk of aquatic nuisance
species infestation
• Prohibit swimming (people and dogs) along North Shore (allow dogs
to swim at designated areas on North Shore and Coot Lake)
Option 2: Current Access and Use
• Improve condition of existing multi-use trail system for pedestrians,
runners, off-road bikes and horses
• Add a pedestrian-only trail along the North Shore of the reservoir
• Maintain 55th St. parking lot at current capacity
• Prohibit swimming along North Shore (allow dogs to swim at
designated areas on North Shore and Coot Lake)
Option 3: Expanded Access and Use
(to support swimming)
• Improve condition of existing trail system for pedestrians, runners, off-
road bikes and horses and add additional trails to separate uses
• Close the 55t` St. parking lot and expand parking off 63rd St. (to route
all access through an entry gate at Coot Lake)
• Allow swimming along the North Shore and facilities to support
necessary staffing (e.g. lifeguards, enforcement)
• Add a beach access trail (that accommodates small vehicles for staff
maintenance of beach)
• Add an entry or parking fee station at Coot Lake
i
Under All Options:
• No watercraft access from the North Shore
• Improved bridge crossing over the Boulder Feeder Canal
• Improved crossing on 63rd St.
• No trail access to the West Shore wetland area from the North Shore
• No swimming (people) in Coot Lake
• Lyons-to-Boulder regional trail connection and related improvements
2
Attachment F:
Tom Watson Park - Existing Conditions
Size: 31 acres
Ownership: IBM Corporation
Management: Parks and Recreation Department
Parking lot capacity: 182 spaces
Current facilities: 5 softball fields, volleyball court,
4 lighted tennis courts, renovated playground, shelter, picnic
tables and grills, trails, wood-fired pottery kiln, restrooms.
History: In 1997, the City Council adopted a site plan agreement with
IBM that turned over management of Tom Watson Park to the
Parks and Recreation Department through a "Park and
Recreational Easement" agreement. Under this easement, the
city manages the existing facilities on the site, however, IBM
retains the underlying ownership and must agree to any
changes to the facilities or uses.
Utility services: Sewer: Current connection to IBM sewer system
Water: Left Hand Water District (No city water)
Stormwater: No current connection to city system
Environmental
features: Wetlands
Prairie dog habitat
Community interests
for this site: Trailhead facilities
Arts and Crafts Studio Complex
Covered tennis courts
Land use designation: Light Industrial - Uses are primarily research and
development, light manufacturing and other intensive
employment uses.
Zoning: Industrial Manufacturing - Allowed uses are primarily related
to research, development, manufacturing and service industrial
uses in buildings on large lots. Complementary uses may be
allowed in appropriate locations.
1
Attachment G:
Water Quality Monitoring Information
Concerns have been raised about the potential impacts of motorized boating on water quality and
public health in the reservoir and the drinking water from the Boulder Reservoir Water
Treatment Facility (BRWTF). Motorized boating has the potential to impact water quality by
introducing fuel-related chemicals to the water in the reservoir. Specifically, the two primary
water quality concerns associated with fuel-powered boating on the reservoir are:
1. Introduction of Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene and Xylene (BTEX) from gasoline.
2. Introduction of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) from oil.
The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission establishes water quality standards for state
surface waters to ensure water is suitable for beneficial uses (e.g., drinking water supply and
recreation) and treated drinking water standards to enforce the standards set by the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Under the SDWA and State of Colorado Primary Drinking Water
Regulations, BTEX compounds are regulated in drinking water but PAH compounds are not
regulated. Under the SDWA, drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) standards
and goals were developed for BTEX. The city does not have internal water quality standards for
either BTEX or PAH compounds.
MCL standards, goals, health concerns and analytical detection limits for BTEX compounds are
listed in the table below. Method detection limits for the BTEX compounds are less than MCL
and MCL goals except in the case of benzene. Cancer causing compounds like benzene always
have an MCL goal of zero. State of Colorado Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface
Water also identifies standards for BTEX and 13 PAHs. The surface water standards include the
MCLs and lower standards for fish consumption.
BTEX Com pound Drinking Water MCLs and Health Concerns
Compound MCL MCL Goal Surface Water Method Health
(mg/L) (mg/L) Standard for Water Reporting Concern
Supply and Fish Limits
a
Ingestions (mg/L m
Benzene 0.005 0.0 0.0022 0.0005 Cancer
Ethyl 0.7 0.7 0.53 0.0005 Kidney and Liver
Benzene function
Toluene 1.0 1.0 0.51 0.0005 Kidney, Liver
and Nervous
System function
Xylene 10.0 10.0 0.001 Nervous System
function
lower limit of quantitation
z mg/L = milligrams per liter concentration.
1
The city's Department of Public Works - Utilities Division (Utilities) monitors Boulder
Reservoir water quality to help inform the operation of the BRWTF and to evaluate potential
impacts of recreation and other activities on or around Boulder Reservoir. Utilities monitors
water quality on a monthly basis in the reservoir tributaries near the water treatment facility
intake. Monitoring includes physical (e.g., temperature, oxygen, pH, clarity), chemical (e.g.,
nutrients, metals, alkalinity, organic carbon), and biological (e.g., E. coh, algae) components.
This source water monitoring is not required or regulated. In addition, Utilities monitors finished
drinking water for all constituents regulated under the Colorado Primary Drinking Water
Regulations.
In 2009, Boulder Reservoir water samples were collected for BTEX analysis prior to the boating
season, before and after the 4t' of July weekend and in September, just after the Labor Day
weekend. Samples were collected just below the water surface at the following locations: 1)
marina area; 2) above the water intake structure for the BRWTF; 3) raw water influent pipe to
the BRWTF; and 4) finished (treated) water from the BRWTF.
Results of the BTEX analyses were "non detectable" for all samples collected in 2009. This
means the 2009 monitoring showed no evidence that BTEX compounds are in the water supply
based on current approved analytical techniques and detection limits. The city will continue to
monitor for BTEX compounds during the 2010 boating season.
BTEX compounds could be detected in Boulder Reservoir. BTEX could most likely be detected
near the marina where boats launch and engines are started. BTEX compounds are also volatile
and not persistent when exposed to air. The cities of Fort Collins and Westminster monitor for
BTEX in Horsetooth and Standley reservoirs and have detected these compounds, at times,
where boats are launched. Neither Fort Collins or Westminster detect these compounds in the
surface water above their reservoir intakes or in the raw water entering the treatment facility, so
under normal boat operations, it is unlikely that Boulder would observe BTEX compounds in
Boulder Reservoir above the treatment facility intake. BTEX compounds have a tendency to
float, and the Boulder Reservoir water treatment intake near the reservoir bottom provides
another barrier against these compounds entering the treatment facility. If BTEX compounds are
detected, motor boat operations could be temporarily modified to determine the source, increase
monitoring frequency, and to temporarily monitor treatment operations (e.g., shut down or
change source).
PAH can be introduced into the water from oil-burning two-cycle engine emission. PAH is
considered to be a health concern because it is a known carcinogen. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has designated 16 PAH compounds as priority pollutants, but none of these
compounds are regulated in drinking water.
There is a tendency for PAH compounds to sink and accumulate in lake sediments. Currently,
the city does not monitor the quality of Boulder Reservoir sediments for any regulated or
unregulated PAH compounds due to sampling and laboratory analytical complications and the
fact that there are very few two-cycle engines in use on Boulder Reservoir. All newer outboard
motor boats are four-cycle engines and create less pollution than older two-cycle engines.
2
The City of Boulder implements a comprehensive water quality monitoring program to
evaluate the quality of water flowing into Boulder Reservoir and in Boulder Reservoir.
This monitoring program also evaluates possible impacts from reservoir activities and
provides support to the operation of the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility.
Water quality monitoring activities are summarized below.
Monitoring Locations
Tributaries to Boulder Reservoir Monitoring
• Little Dry Creek
+ Dry Creek
• Boulder Feeder Canal
• Farmers Ditch
Purpose of monitoring: Evaluate trends, sediment/nutrient loads, and health related
contaminants
Boulder Reservoir
• Surface water near the dam
• Bottom water near dam
Purpose of monitoring: Evaluate historic and seasonal trends, evaluate recreational
impacts and inform water treatment facility of raw water quality.
Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility
• Raw intake water from Boulder Feeder Canal
• Raw intake water from Boulder Reservoir
• Treated water prior to distribution system
Purpose of monitoring: Evaluate treatability of raw water, raw water quality trends,
health related contaminants and quality of treated water.
Constituents Monitored
Constituents monitored vary by sample location. Monitoring is performed either
weekly, monthly, or twice per year depending on the location and constituent.
Special studies are also performed, as needed, and may change each year.
Constituents monitored include:
• Field measurements: dissolved oxygen, temperature, secchi depth, pH, specific
conductance
• Total suspended solids, turbidity, total dissolved solids, total organic carbon
• Alkalinity and hardness
• Sulfate, sodium, chlorine, fluoride
• Phosphorus, nitrate, ammonia, chlorophyll a, phytoplankton
• Metals
• Bacteria
3
• Gasoline products: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene
There are multiple sources of potential contamination to Boulder Reservoir throughout
the Boulder Reservoir watershed. Through the Source Water Assessment and Protection
Program (SWAP), which was mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency and
implemented by the State of Colorado, the city of Boulder identified potential sources of
contamination. Potential contaminant sources and actions to protect water quality are
summarized below.
Potential Contaminant Sources
• Raytheon/Beech ground water cleanup
• Boulder Reservoir marina (above ground fuel tank, maintenance shop, boat
mooring and sewage lift stations)
• Boulder Reservoir swim beach
• Lake Valley golf course
• Boulder Valley Ranch (land activities)
• Businesses along Highway 36
• Multiple (approximately 200) septic systems in the watershed
• Lake Valley Estates stormwater runoff
• Recreational trails
• Boulder Feeder Canal - The canal provides 90% of water to Boulder Reservoir
and multiple potential sources of contamination exist along the canal.
• Left Hand Creek watershed, which is part of the Boulder Reservoir watershed.
Multiple activities have or still occur in the watershed
Source Water Protection Efforts
• Set buoys to protect intake to Water Treatment Facility
• Implemented aquatic nuisance species boat inspections and tagging program
• Installed permanent porta-let in north/west corner parking area
• Coordinate with Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District for better control
of recreational events using the Boulder Feeder Canal right of way and to
eliminate contaminant sources to the canal
• Working with Lyons to Boulder trail planners to protect water quality
• Monitoring water quality trends in Boulder Reservoir
• Coordinate on efforts to control ash-laden runoff from the Overland Fire
• Coordinate with entities involved in Left Hand Creek watershed restoration and
remediation activities
• Installed ten foot curtain around Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility
intake in 2005 to avoid high dissolved manganese and reservoir bottom sediment
• Implementing public education and outreach to protect storm water quality
• Track Raytheon/Beech ground water clean up and contamination plume
4
Attachment H:
Current Boating Patterns and Restricted Areas
Of Bo(j
't16 Boulder Reservoir Area Map
otice: For the protection of nesting and roosting ospreys the area known as Wlntlsurfer s Point
Y~ and the water within 100 yards of the nesting platform will be closed. Violations may result in
' fines of up to $1000.00 andfor 90 days In )all. Area is patrolled by park rangers and monitored
Parks & Recreation by volunteers. All wildlife Is protected. Thank You for reso"Ontr closures. For additional
Boulder Reservoir information please call the Parks and Recreation Department at 303-413-7200.
5565 N. 51 st St.
(303) 441-3461
55th St.
Indefinite Shoreline: Trallhead Canal
Do not Inlet
Disturb
Wildlife Inlet
t Spillwa
Jet Ski s
Cove
t
i
Q
t,.= CENTERLINE '
- - - Z
/ t - ; ~l'I Fisherman's
Point
i s
~ 1 s 1 /
Closed
/ Area
S 10 0,
. w
NO watercraft ® • R Q~ N
• r
Sailboarders ® Beach & ® ~OJ W a
West Beach Swim s
yr Area
Entrance / - Legend (not to scale)
A s
Concessions 01 Beach GuarollstAid
Telephone No wake zones
Permits Lockers
Season Passes Restrooms Park Maintenance Centerline Bouys
51st Administration Ramp Boat House Ramp ski rafts
Street -Sailboards -Rentals -Motorboats only
-Jet skis -Lake Patrol s Shallow water
.Sailboats -Restrooms
Docks
I
Attachment I:
Preliminary Special Event Policy
What are Special Events?
Special Events are planned activities (for-profit or non-profit) involving 50 or more
participants that are open for participation (with or without a fee) to the general
public.
What are "Signature" Events?
Signature Events are those Special Events involving 1200 or more participants or
requiring public entryway restrictions (gate closure).
Where are Special Events permitted?
• In general, Special Events may be permitted for activities using the South Shore,
the reservoir (water), the north and south dam roads or the multi-use trails in the
North Shore and Coot Lake management areas.
• All Special Event activities must be consistent with the objectives and uses of the
management area as outlined in the master plan.
• A Special Event may not begin or end in the North Shore or Coot Lake
management areas unless it is a previously permitted event.
• Pedestrian-only trails and habitat conservation areas may not be used for Special
Events.
When are Special Events permitted?
• Special Events may be permitted throughout the year.
• No more than one Special Event will be permitted per day unless the event
involves less than 100 people:
• Special Events involving 100 or more participants will not be permitted on the
July 4th or Memorial Day holidays.
• Only one "Signature" event may be permitted per month on weekend days from
May through August.
• Preferences will be given to returning events.
• Applications must be received 45 days in advance of the event date
1
Attachment J:
Preliminary Alcohol Use Policy
Current Alcohol Use Policy:
• Alcohol consumption is allowed at the Boulder Reservoir and Coot Lake without
a permit between 8:00 am and 11:00 pm
• Alcohol consumption at Tom Watson Park is only allowed by a Parks and
Recreation Department group permit (similar to most other parks in the city)
• A "City of Boulder Alcohol Permit" must be obtained from the Parks and
Recreation Department and a "Special Event Permit for the Sale of Liquor"
permit from the State of Colorado if a group wants to sell or dispense alcohol as
part of its event
• No glass containers are allowed
• There is a 3-hour time limit to all group permits issued by the city
Proposed Changes to the Alcohol Use Policy:
• North Shore, Coot Lake and dam areas - Require a group alcohol use permit for
any alcohol consumption in these areas (similar to Tom Watson Park and most
other parks within the city)
• South Shore - Require a group alcohol use permit for groups (including picnics)
of 15 or more participants
1
Attachment K:
Public Comments
Comments from the April 7, 2010 Public Meeting
Comments on the draft management areas, trail system or North Shore options:
• Possible boathouse on North Shore as Option 2 if the Cove site needs protection - or, if
some other facility (or none) is better for the Cove.
• Create a multi-use trail around the reservoir. Allow various types of trail races. All this
assumes that impacts to wildlife are minimal
• Ok with prohibiting any boat access from the North Shore. All boats should go through
the main gate and pay (I'm a boater too)
• A trail around the Rez is a good idea - the same with a connector trail (planned) across
the Diagonal to the Cottonwood trails and Gunbarrel - Nice!
• I suggest refining the West Shore management area to allow study of trail routes. Do not
limit trails to only the right-of-way - instead use a term such as "appropriate location" or
something similar. The right-of-way doesn't mirror wetlands, is arbitrary somewhat,
doesn't account for creativity and on-the-ground conditions, future ownership changes,
etc.
• Please don't build any trails on the West Shore - it's all extremely important endangered
bird species area (harriers, osprey, rails, bitterns). Harriers only nest in Boulder County.
One good possibility (the only) is to narrow 51st St. and paved it with a hard, multi-use
trail next to it (all within the present right-of-way and fences), from the main entrance to
the north end of 5I st St. That would keep birds and wetlands protected and give great
experience to all - no more flying gravel - and create the feeling of a national park. Also
reduce the speed limit to 20 mph.
• It seems appropriate to keep the South Shore swim beach and not expand swimming to
the North Shore or other areas. Keep swimming and other facilities on the South Shore
and keep other shores natural. It would also conserve finances and resources.
• I think current access and policy is sufficient. OSMP should not be allowed to regulate
the North Shore or other areas. Their policy tends to impose unnecessary restrictions on
public use.
• Why should swimming be allowed on the North Shore? Won't that increase costs?
Current access seems to be a reasonable compromise.
• Biking around the reservoir is a great way to exercise and should stay open.
• I see the widening of the bridge across the feeder canal on the North side of the reservoir
as being very important to allowing for emergency vehicle access, ability to get bike
trailers through, etc. I don't think that a trail alongside 5ISt St. is as important, however,
as long as the street remains unpaved with relatively little traffic. It's also important to
keep free trail parking access for people not boating or swimming.
• Don't restrict trail usage beyond present levels (in particular, with regard to horse and
bike access).
• I did like having access from the east side for certain wind conditions. I miss it!
S
• Biking trails would be fun.
• How about a self-pay option for the North Shore? It does not seem to get a great deal of
use.
• The order of goals should be changed. #2 recreational uses should be #1. Sustainability
should be further down the list.
• Move the parking from the front of the entry gate to the Eagle Trailhead and away from
Valhalla.
• Loop event traffic one way - in off Jay Rd. and out up 5155 St. to Niwot Rd. or Monarch
Rd. to 63rd St.
• Why is aeromodelling in a protected area? Is there some other area that would
accommodate them so the noise doesn't disrupt the birds?
Comments on the preliminary boating options:
• I'd like to see a combo of Option 1 and 2 to include "no wake" days, a limitation on the
number of boats at one time (like 20) and a lower horsepower limitation (I don't know
what number - 50?) I think that would keep many people happy - a good compromise.
• A modified Option 1 would be ideal. Expand the "no wake" hours to include around 5
pm to 9 pm on one weekend day. Consider "no wake" if the wind is above 15 kts. Limit
the number of jet skis on the water.
• I'm against the prohibition of power boats. Limiting the number of Class I water craft to
20 seems low for weekends and holidays. I'm curious about the number of boats on the
Rez on an average weekend/holiday.
• I'm okay with the plan to be wakeless on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. This is
good. It's also okay to limit older two stroke engines.
• I support increasing restrictions (Option 2).
• Limiting the horse power to under 500 hp may be a good idea and limiting the number of
boats at one time may also be fine. I don't know how you could regulate how many
boats are running around the lake at any certain time. But, boats aren't always running.
Maybe try to self-regulate the numbers that are traveling at any one time?
• I am 100% for keeping motorboats at the Rez. I've been skiing there since the early 80's
and am now out there every summer with my family and friends. It is such a great
experience for everyone I've had out there - it means so much to us. These memories
will always be with us and each year more are made. It's such a great opportunity for all
types of use and it's in our backyard. I support all endeavors to make it safer and look
forward to helping where I can. Thanks!
• Status quo - I'm afraid by limiting the number of craft or even the size of the craft would
limit revenue, which would ultimately limit access for everyone. My main objective is to
regain sunrise to sunset access (year-round). For an additional $2K to $3K per year, this
could be accomplished.
• The Tuesday "No Wake" period should be split into two parts: 1) a true "no wake"
period and 2) adaptive ski program time. This will eliminate any misunderstandings.
• Keep Option 1 - motorboat users need access to water in Boulder. Everyone can share
the water responsibly if the current rules and restrictions are enforced. Jet ski cove needs
to stay open as it gives those riders a safe place to ride away from the bigger boats.
2
• The Rez is the only public option available to motorboats in Boulder. Baseline Reservoir
is private. Keep Option #1 but, if you have to add additional power restrictions, please
make sure they are manageable and enforceable. Having a 20 boat limit on the water
would be an enforcement nightmare! Since all boaters pay the same amount for a boat
pass, limiting access to whoever can get their boat on first would be unfair.
• I own and use a powerboat on Boulder Reservoir. I also am a triathlete and like to sail.
We need to share the lake at all times. Restrictions are not necessary. Option 1 is the
lesser of the three evils.
• We need to keep jet ski cove open. It is the safest option.
• The 20-boat rule is not necessary! There are plenty of "no wake" areas already. There
have been many restrictions on power boats but not to any other segment. To have a "no
wake" period in affect at night is completely unfair. Power boaters pay a lot to use the
reservoir - the most of any segment.
• My primary concern is access times. I've windsurfed at the Rez since 1983 and have
often sailed until dark. If you work until 5pm, then you can't get to the Rez, get
inspected, get rigged and get on the water and then off by 6pm. This is too restrictive.
• Since 1983, we've always sailed at our own risk and never assumed otherwise. However,
on occasion over the last two years, the Rez was restricted to water access during high
wind. I would like the policy of "sail at your own risk" to continue. When I mountain
bike on Boulder trails, I also assume it is at my own risk. No one restricts access to trails
during bad weather.
• Full access again until dusk.
• No high wind limit for sailing sports.
• A good balance can likely be achieved by competing interests.
• I am a windsurfer. My primary concern is to have access to water when the wind blows,
generally afternoon and evenings. Closing at 6 pm or earlier during spring and fall is a
real inhibiter. Limiting water access during special events is also a pain. We need to be
able to sail even when it's too windy for other boaters.
• I do not support limits on the number of boats on the water at a time, unless it is a much
higher limit. Many boats only are running % of the time - as many will anchor or beach
for periods. Please keep boating open - it's the only public option around Boulder power
boats. Keep Option 1.
• In all meetings so far, overwhelming support for Option 1 - Status Quo. Option 3 should
not even be considered. Remove as an option.
• "At your own risk" access policy for wind sports. No closure for high winds.
• Leave boating alone
• Before you worry about water quality, remember the Rez is on top of the "Boulder oil
field" with 200 wells pumping away in 1910. There is already a lot of oil in the ground
• Stay with Option #I
• Restrictions are not necessary - Let's share - Option #1 is the lesser of the evils
• It would be great to have no motor boats at all - to avoid ANS and help water quality (but
maybe that's not possible politically).
• Create a healthy balance so that motor boaters and non-powered boats can all enjoy the
beauty at the reservoir.
3
• Keep Option 1 - I would support the 500 hp limit and engines having to meet EPA
standards.
• Keep Option 1, but with limitation on horsepower to below 500 hp and number of boats
on the water to below 20 (or whatever), and "no wake" limits - so a combo of options 1
and 2 might keep many people happy.
• Audubon and BCNA would like the space now protected by buoys expanded east, so that
motor boats (no hand or wind-propelled) would be excluded, in that area near coves and
up to 1/3 of the western North Shore line - That leaves a lot of the lake for motor boats
and also allows kayak and sailboat access. Doing so would protect threatened breeding
grounds for waterfowl - they've been diminishing and need more protection, especially
for breeding and foraging.
• Boulder Reservoir is the only option available to motor boats so keep Option 1. We can
all enjoy the water responsibly.
• Any thoughts on making a 2-tier/level of "no wake" periods? The city adaptive ski
program is great but their use of no-wake time, while beneficial to them, makes it not a
no-wake period for others. Not sure of a solution, but just a thought... Maybe they start
later like at lam so rowers can still benefit from a true no-wake period.
• I support keeping Option 1. There are very few boating alternatives.
• We need to keep all current activities happening at the Rez. There is a nice balance that
has worked for years. We need to keep powerboats on the water. Keep jet ski cove
open! It is the safest option.
Comments on the preliminary Special Event and Alcohol Use policies:
• I like the proposed ideas.
• No comment. It's fine how it is.
• I'm okay with the proposed permit requirement for groups of 15 or more - that's a good
idea.
• I'm okay with the proposed large event limitations to 12/year - It could be even less (8-
10).
• Minimize closures to everyday users.
• I'm in favor of a more restrictive alcohol use policy.
• One "mega" event per month seems reasonable. Applications for mega events should be
more than 45 days since they involve reservoir closures.
• The proposed change to the alcohol use policy seems to be well thought out
• No more restrictions -just more enforcement of current rules. Special events are great
for the Rez and the community - I love the triathlons and movie nights! Keep Boulder
the great town it's always been with fun stuff to do!
• Leave it the way it is. If it is not broken, don't fix it. If it is broken, I support a 15 person
or so limit for fitnction related issues.
• No alcohol at the Rez! or, at least regulations would help with litter and disturbance of
visitors.
• The current policy is fine.
• If there is a new permit process, it should be for more than 15 people. If we go with four
families, we'd be over the limit for a picnic on the beach.
• Need "ranger" status of Lake Patrol to control alcohol.
4
• Minimize closures.
• Alcohol contributes to unsafe boating.
• The Rez policies should be consistent with other parks.
• Increase enforcement with no restrictions on alcohol.
• I recommend no alcohol or strict regulations to help staff, minimize litter, and reduce
impacts to other visitors.
• Raise enforcement for Rez staff - fully trained staff. Lake Patrol staff should be trained as
coast guard auxiliary and staff raised to ranger status.
Questions or issues that you would like addressed later in the process?
• Boathouse, possibly a community one.
• Quality of South Shore facilities.
• Entrances.
• Please leash dogs around the wetland area at Coot Lake. Endangered bird species rely on
the area, and dogs have been seen running through the wetland there. Harriers used to
nest there and haven't for 5-6 years.
• I agree with the above (leashing comment).
• Quality and connectivity of trail system and circulation.
• Circulation of trail system through the South Shore too!
• If the objective is sustainability and "green" use maybe carpooling could be encouraged
by charging fees by the vehicle or pro-rating discounts for multiple individuals in one
vehicle. Additionally, I would like to reiterate my preference for great access (hours) and
an at-your-own-risk lake access policy.
• Several groups have expressed interest in public/private partnerships that will impact the
rez either in limiting access to certain areas or to build structures. A mechanism should
be explicitly designed for these processes to move forward.
• Would it be possible to increase the amount of free parking outside (west) of the main
gate for (primarily) runners and bikers to use?
• If more revenue is needed to have staff available for access (extended hours or access
from the east side), I support a raise in fees to offset costs.
• The Boulder Reservoir is one of the best assets our community possesses, I appreciate
your efforts! Thanks.
• The tennis courts at Tom Watson get a lot of use and are in need of resurfacing. To my
knowledge, they're the most warn in town.
• Full year round access to water dawn to dusk. In the last three years, full access has been
lost. Access should be first priority.
• Keep up the good work and positive energy.
• Look at the North Shore as a possible boathouse location.
5
Comments Received Through Internet:
Council Correspondence:
Boulder is so forward thinking on sensitive environmental issues, that I find it perplexing that
motor craft are allowed in the reservoir. It would be wonderful for the health of all concerned,
(human & avian), if steps could be taken to curtail (motor)boating.
Sincerely,
Y. LeFevre
name: Harold "Sonny" Flowers, Jr.
comment: I have been using the Reservoir since about 1960. I have also worked there. It is one
of the recreational gems of the City of Boulder. It is the only immediately available lake on
which waterskiing by the public is permitted and that is of significant value. I have skiied there
since about 1967 and still enjoy doing so. I think it is essential to maintain the Rez as a place for
use of motorboats and for waterskiing. I strongly recommend that this use be one of the primary
uses in any future planning for the reservoir. I encourage the staff to make every effort to
maximize its use for this purpose.
name: Brian Hludzinski
comment: As a frequent user of the Reservoir area year round I would like to see more trails for
mountain bikes.
name: Dennis Gunderson
comment: I have used the Reservoir since 1981 and that's where I learned how much I love
waterskiing. We now have many family members and kids learning the sport and have had some
company picnics that included bar-b-ques & boating at the Res. Please keep it open to all uses.
name: Darrell Shumar
comment: Keep motor boats on the lake there are 10 people associated with having boating fun
on the Rez within my family.
Thanks
Council, et al;
As I've stated in prior emails, I find myself put in a bind by the city's behavior regards
postponing a decision involving public health and safety at the reservoir. I don't see myself as
one prone to inflammatory speech, but the simple fact is...I was lied to by staff and/or members
of council.
I was told it would be a fair process, a one-year process and I was promised that staff would
examine the issues raised by material presented to them and seek answers, or at least determine
whether they can obtain answers and get back with me that never occurred. None of it. Not
only that, a process without a decision on the end of it is not a process. It's not a fair process, but
it's also simply not a process. Processes have results; we don't need a judge and jury to tell us
this.
I sat through a really disgraceful abuse of my friend Seth's rights at the last council meeting; but,
as if that weren't enough, in the aftermath there's more abuse. Two days ago I read an account
from the city manager that simply was not factual. During Seth's testimony, I had my eyes fixed
6
on the police officer. He waited for a signal from the city clerk (Alisa Lewis). The city clerk
delayed the signal from George Karakheian. The police officer then rose and proceeded
towards Seth. That's exactly what occurred.
In an effort to minimize liability or some perceived blame the city clerk's name was taken
out of the loop --when she was very much in the loop in terms of what occurred. So, in a crucial
instance, with tremendous public scrutiny, the city manager prepared a report in which she
simply-lied.
It doesn't end there. Ken Wilson recently had the temerity to defend his scratching of the
microphone by saying it inadvertently occurred when he 'put his hand over it'. Problem is, you
don't get that sort of noise from putting your handover the mic you get it from rubbing your
hand or fingers or nails on the head of the mic and that is what Ken had to have done so
again, here's someone in a significant position of authority.Aying...when the truth would not
only be far more helpful, but pretty much a prerequisite for forward movement after the type of
episode that occurred. By the way, the public has a right to know if they no longer have the right
to redress of grievance before city council, or should be frightened of arrest in the event they
seek it.
How plainly do you require the above be stated?
I'm fed up. I'm absolutely fed up. I would estimate I've attended more than 200 city council
meetings. I've never seen anything quite as bad as this, or quite as pathetic. I believe in non-
violence, but if I did not, this would be the ripe occasion
to rent a bulldozer and run it through the lobby of city hall.
Since I have no driver's license, I'm going to stick with calling all of you on this bullshit which
is a threat to the integrity of our civic discourse, and a threat to basic civil liberties that are a
damn sight more significantthan the narcissistic demand that members of the public be
discouraged from sharing their thoughts with you at a council business meeting.
Rob Smoke
name: Jim Mapes
comment: The length of the access road is sufficient that if designed appropriately it might be
possible to use it as a criterium road bike race course. This would be a huge benefit to the local
cycling community as it becomes more expensive to close roads and permit these races
elsewhere in the city.
name: Doug Heggart
comment: You are now requiring kiteboards to have a permit on it. You guys are just nuts. You
have no open launch area for us and now a $210 fee for kiteboards. Can Boulder get anymore
wacked
From: jerry greene
To: Felix, Jeremy
Cc: Cole, Stacy; Rodriguez, Sarah
j eremy,
do you still have the wood tables with the metal tube supports? could you put a brace in the
middle of the bench so it wouldn't sag? if not could 3 or 4 replacement tables be purchased (as
little as $100@)?
can you forward this to the PRAB for their input?
7
as i have expressed, those wood tables contributed to the charm and utility of windsurfer beach
for many years. that they finally decayed beyond use is an argument for replacement rather than
an argument that they were never a good idea in the first place.
thanks,
name: Jason Vogel
comment: I cannot make it to the Public meeting April 7th b/c it conflicts with an OSMP
meeting for neighbors of the West TSA being held at the same time.
I'd like to see improvements made to the trail system around the res so we can:
1) circumnavigate the res w/o using 51 st street
2) add single track trail as and alternative to using the roads on the east and south sides of the res
3) manage informal uses to better protect wetland species
4) consider professionally designing the existing trails on the north and east sides of the reservoir
to improve the user experience and reduce user conflict
I think there is an opportunity for a win-win solution here where we improve the user experience
and reduce impacts on wildlife. Let's try and make that happen!
name: Pat Gill
comment: I have heard they my discontinue power boating?
name: rob smoke
comment: Without explanation or without even stating who precisely was making the decision,
the city shifted from a 20-year-overdue one-year master plan process to an even more
ridiculously drawn out two-year process for the Boulder reservoir.
It's a farce. Last year, a meeting was held similar to the meeting being held tomorrow
attendees will be there to defend their fuel-burning boats, some may arrive with other concerns.
A process without results is not a process, and that's precisely what we're looking at.
At bare minimum, the city should be addressing water quality issues; that was the guidance
provided by the vision statement from the parks and rec advisory board however, the city
won't even provide us with a direct response on this issue. Standard water quality or
environmental impact assessment tools for use in watersheds are a great deal more complex than
the simple day-to-day snapshots a water department would use to determine contaminant levels,
the tests the city asserts constitute a "study" of the water quality at Boulder reservoir.
It's not a study it may qualify as information, but the term "study" implies that we're looking at
all the information a scientist might look at to get a fair assessment of the water quality issues
involved with this very important resource. The city's not doing any of the things that again,
minimally would qualify as an investigative study.
What is everyone afraid of discovering? Again, it's not as if I'm making all of this up. There are
water quality assessment professionals in this state and in this region who can obtain the
significant scientific results that would be necessary to determine if there are in fact any
pollution/contamination issues the city wants to look at as part of its
8
so-called process. Again, the city's not doing that in fact, the actions of the city to date show
that the city has chosen to obfuscate legitimate concerns. There is obviously no interest in
reviewing the issues that have been raised about the fuel-burning boats on a municipal reservoir
providing tap water to a large portion of the city's residents.
It's a disgrace.
Rob Smoke
name: SETH BRIGHAM
comment: ROB,
IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT YOU HAVE DONE SO MUCH WORK ON THIS ISSUE AND
YET, IT SEEMS, THE DECISIONS THAT CONCERN YOU WHERE MADE BEFORE THE
DISCUSSIONS EVER BEGAN...
WE'RE LOSING OUR CITY TO THESE RABID RECREATIONIST'S BECAUSE THEY
HOLD MORE SWAY OVER A CORRUPT CITY GOVERNMENT.
SETH BRIGHAM
name: Mike Barrow
Thanks for the feedback, Bev.
I believe all we are looking at there is to not 'close the door' on taking a hard look at the creation
of alternative to using the road on the west side of the Res. As veterans of working with open
space and the USFS, we understand and acknolwdge that, after analysis, that the impacts to
wildlife might be too severe to allow an off-road trail corridor.
I guess what would make this better is specific language calling out the need for a sustainable
and safe trail system that circumnavigates the Res, and that steps should be taken to assess the
feasiblity of doing so.
Did I get that right gang?
From: Jason Vogel
I just want to make sure we don't close out options for improving the user experience before we
assess their feasibility. In my experience, if the management plan prohibits something, staff will
view that option as categorically off the table. So, for example, I worry that a trail on the
shoulder of 51 st Street might be acceptable, but a parallel trail 10 feet to the side might be
considered off limits by staff given the current language. The first option in this example would
require County Transportation Dept agreement while the latter option could be implemented
entirely w/in Parks. Because of the complex jurisdictional issues surrounding a route other than
51 st Street (we can throw OSMP into the mix), I'd hate to rule anything out a priori.
As Mike said, the impacts of the trail on wildlife are obviously the most important issue in this
area and several options of getting around the res should be assessed to see which ones are both
feasible and minimize risk to wildlife.
name: Joel Ullom
comment: Hello, I'm a user of the reservoir. As such I see the large number of powerboat users
and feel that it is important that the reservoir continue to serve this large population. However I
feel that the volume and nature of powerboat use is disruptive to other visitors. Consequently
I'm in favor of continuing to allow power boat use but also of expanding the 'no wake periods'
particularly during the week but perhaps also for an interval on weekends. Thanks very much.
9
name: Carol and Dave Kampert
comment: Dear City Council members Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members and
Water Resources Advisory Board members:
As long-time Boulder County residents and environmentalists we are very concerned about the
future management of the Boulder Reservoir. Here are some ideas for all of you to consider
while developing the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan:
The wetlands within the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan area form a highly sensitive habitat area
which needs special consideration. There are more nesting birds of special concern concentrated
on the west side of Boulder Reservoir than within any other area of Boulder County. This is the
only place in the County were we have a viable remnant of the prairie grassland/prairie wetland
system that is so important for nesting birds.
We would like to see the following:
1. Protection of the wetlands to the west and northwest of Boulder Reservoir by excluding trails
there and excluding all motorboats by extending the present no boating buoys to the second spit
on the north shore. We are also concerned about dogs entering this area from the 55thStreet
trailhead and would like to see a fence with signage to educate people on the sensitivity of the
habitat.
2. Protection of the wetlands on the west side of Coot Lake along the nature trail.Dogs have
been seen running in the wetland and chasing wildlife. We believe enforcement is needed and
that dogs should be leashed along the west end of the trail.
3. We ask that large events like kinetics do not threaten water quality or infringe on the wildlife
habitat area. For example in the past prairie dog colonies vital to Burrowing Owls were used for
parking areas.
Thank you very much for considering our ideas.
Sincerely Carol and Dave Kampert
name: Phil Mislinski - Boulder Trail Runners
comment: The Boulder Trail Runners (BTR) are excited about the prospect of an improved trail
system at the Boulder Reservoir. We are in agreement with the Boulder Mountainbike Alliance
(BMA) in that most of the current trails around the Reservoir were never properly designed to
handle the variety use that currently exists. We hope that Parks & Recreation will provide a well-
planned trail network which circumnavigates the reservoir connects to the various regional trails
and is open to all trail users.
BTR is aware of the wetland habitats that exists in several areas along the north and west shore
and also feel that they must be reasonably protected. We request that a detailed study be
performed by trail design experts in conjunction with credentialed biologists before any final
conclusions are drawn. We also request the the Master Plan draft includes specific language that
does not close the door on any trail options.
10
To: City of Boulder, Parks & Recreation Dept
From: Boulder Mountainbike Alliance
Re: Comments on Boulder Reservoir Master Plan
April 15, 2010
The Boulder Mountainbike Alliance (BMA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on
the master plan for this important Boulder amenity. We are excited to see our public
lands be managed to provide recreation services while protecting the natural resources
that are present on the property.
BMA's input for this plan, not surprisingly, focuses on the need to provide a sustainable,
enjoyable, multi-use trail system. Most of the trails that exist on the property were never
properly designed to handle the use that currently exists. In most cases they are access
roads or social trails that have evolved over time, and do not provide the true connections
or experience people seek.
Our hope is for a well-planned trail network, connecting to regional trails, and hopefully
circumnavigating the property to provide a truly complete system.
BMA also acknowledges the wetland habitats that exist in several areas along the west
shore. While creating a trail alternative to 51 st Street is a priority for us, we understand
that, after analysis, a complete west shore trail route may not be viable. However, this
determination must be further studied by trail experts and credentialed biologists before
any final conclusions are drawn.
BMA's 'ask' at this time is to have explicit language in the draft plan that does not close
the door on any trail options. More specifically, we request that the West Shore
Management Area include the option to study potential trail corridors in appropriate
locations. It is our preference to not limit trail options to the right-of-way only, as this
would be unnecessary for areas where wetlands or other constraints are some distance
from the road. We understand that in many places a trail would probably need to be very
close to the road, but perhaps not in all locations. We realize there are many steps that
must be taken long before we get to any possible 'build'phase, and it is likely that it could
be years before development.
BMA remains a committed partner with Parks and Recreation and is excited to
collaborate on projects like Valmont Bike Park. BMA is willing and able to assist Parks
and Recreation in making this trail system a reality with our volunteer resources. We
look forward to working with Parks and Recreation and expanding this partnership
further.
11
Process and Timeline for the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Attachment L
Phase 1 (COMPLETE) Phase 11 Phase III
VISION, GOALS AND CHALLENGES ANALYSIS AND POLICY OPTIONS DRAFT AND FINAL PLAN
May - December 2009 January -July 2010 July - September 2010
Public meeting on vision, goats and l -^Public meetings on policy options Public meetings on draft plan
challenges "Are these the right options?
July 13, 2009 April 7, 2010
Community and User Survey Board discussions on policy options Board recommendations on draft plan
(August) . WRAB (April 19) • WRAB
- - • PRAB (April 26) • PRAB
_ "Are these the right options?
PRAB and WRAB Updates
(August - September)
City Council study session on policy
- options City Council review and approval of
Public Meeting "Are these the right options? final plan
"Are these the right goals and key (May 11)
challenges?"
(October 21)
Public meetings on preferred policy
PRAB public hearing on option
Vision, Goals, and Key Challenges
(October 26)
Board public hearings on preferred policy
option
City Council Study Session . WRAB
(December 8) • PRAB
City Council Public Hearing
"Are these the right goals and key
challenges?" City Council public hearing on preferred
(TBD) policy option