5A - Recommendation to City Council regarding options for the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan
CITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 22, 2010
AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council
regarding the policy options for the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan.
PRESENTERS:
Kirk W. Kincannon, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation
Bev Johnson, Project Manager
Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent
Stacy Cole, Boulder Reservoir Manager
Matt Claussen, Urban Resource Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) meeting on November 22,
2010 is for the board to consider a recommendation to City Council on the preferred options for
the following policies in the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP):
1. Boating
2. West Shore use
3. North Shore and Coot Lake use
4. Special Events
The policy options were evaluated against the goals of the BRMP (Attachment A) and criteria
established earlier this year and endorsed by City Council (Attachment B). The evaluations
summarize the pros and cons of each of the options. Staff provided the PRAB with a preliminary
overview of the options evaluations at study sessions on October 18 and 25, 2010.
In summary, staff is recommending the following policy options:
1. Boating - Option 2 (Motorboat standards)
2. West Shore - Option 3 (Low-impact use)
3. North Shore and Coot Lake - Elements of Options 1 and 2
The staff recommended boating policy (Option 2) provides a balance between motorized and
non-motorized boating uses and supports a diversity of recreational uses at the reservoir. It also
promotes better water safety practices than the status quo. Although elimination of most
motorboats and larger non-motorized boats under Options 4 and 5 would significantly reduce the
risk of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) infestation, the current ANS inspection program provides
a significant level of protection against zebra or quagga mussel infestation to support continued
AGENDA ITEM 5A PAGE 1
motorboat use of the reservoir. Removal of motorboats from the reservoir would also
substantially decrease the potential for fuel-related contaminants in the water supply; however,
there is currently no strong water quality data to justify prohibiting motorboats altogether.
Phased elimination of higher polluting two-stroke engines as recommended under all options
substantially decreases the likelihood of fuel contamination in the water.
Under any option, the current monitoring program for fuel-related contaminants will be extended
indefinitely to track changes in water quality in the reservoir over time (see Attachments D and
E for water quality monitoring details). If trends emerge to suggest potential boating-related
health hazards, the city would revisit its boating policy.
Option 3 (Low-Impact Use) is recommended for the West Shore use policy. This option
includes the development of a city-initiated multi-use trail along the east side of the 51St Street
right-of-way, designation of the wetland and prairie dog habitat as a Habitat Conservation Area,
and continuation of the aeromodeling use site.
Staff is recommending a combination of Options 1 and 2 for the North Shore/Coot Lake use
policy which will continue the current passive uses of the area and maintain the 55"' Street
parking lot. The recommended policy also includes a requirement for dogs to be on leash on the
pedestrian-only trail around the Coot Lake wetlands. Dogs would still be allowed to swim off
the south and east shores of Coot Lake and the north shore of the reservoir.
The boating options were presented to the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) on
November 15, 2010 for its recommendation. The WRAB indicated its support of the staff
recommendation for the boating policy (on a 4-1 vote). The board, however, expressed its
concern about ANS risk and stated that their top priority is to protect the water supply. The
motion to support the staff recommendation included an emphasis on the importance of staff
remaining abreast of the status of ANS infestation (zebra and quagga mussels, and Eurasian
milfoil) in other water bodies in Colorado and to continue to apply the best management
practices available for prevention and control. In response to the WRAB comments, the staff
recommendation has been modified to place emphasis on implementation of federal and state
best practice guidelines for ANS prevention and rapid response in the short term.
The PRAB recommendation, along with the WRAB recommendation, will be presented to City
Council at a public hearing on December 7, 2010. At that meeting, council will be asked to
provide direction to staff on the preferred policy options for boating, West Shore use, North
Shore and Coot Lake use, and the special events policies at the Boulder Reservoir. A draft master
plan will be developed for review by the public and the PRAB in January and February 2011 and
presented to City Council in March for consideration of final acceptance.
AGENDA ITEM 5A PAGE 2
Suggested Motion Language:
Motion to recommend to City Council the following policy options for the Boulder Reservoir
Master Plan:
1) Boating policy Option 2 (Motorboat standards);
2) West Shore use Option 3 (Low-impact use);
3) North Shore and Coot Lake use option as recommended by staff, and
4) Special events policy as recommended by staff.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan project is to establish management goals
(Attachment A) and objectives for the Parks and Recreation Department managed land and
activities at the Boulder Reservoir, which will guide long-term facility investment strategies.
The plan is being developed in the following three phases:
I: Vision, Goals and Issues (May 2009 -January 2010)
II: Policy Options (January - December 2010)
III: Draft and Final Master Plan (January - March 2011)
In Phase I of the master plan project the Boulder Reservoir planning area was divided into
management areas as shown below in order to provide specific objectives and identify uses in
different areas around the reservoir.
open Space and Mountain Parks
BM '
Open Space and Mountain Parks
Coat Lake
North Shor T X11 VvITS~nF
Paik
y North
Dam
Boulder Reservoir _
IrIii West Shot'
63r St.
Am Treatment
Fawktr .
South
South~
ft' Dam
Va 1ha11a . - - ~ r ~
•b4ivi
•Su sign
Gur~barr~l
Staff completed Phase I of the project in January 2010, after providing several opportunities for
public input on the plan. These included two public meetings, a user survey and three focus
group discussions.
AGENDA ITEM 5A PAGE 3
Phase II of the project involved drafting preliminary options for the following key policy areas:
1. Boating
2. West Shore use
3. North Shore/Coot Lake use
4. Special events
The PRAB and City Council reviewed the options at study sessions in April and May of 2010,
prior to the evaluation. The PRAB reviewed the preliminary evaluations of the options at study
sessions on October 18, 2010 and October 25, 2010.
Please see the following web site for more background and information on the project:
www.bouldereolorado.gov > Parks & Recreation > Recreation Facilities > Boulder Reservoir >
Reservoir Master Plan Project
The Parks and Recreation Department is completing Phase II of the project, which involves
evaluation and selection of the preferred options for the key policy areas. The questions that
guided the evaluation are included in Attachment B.
PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENT:
Several public meetings have been held at various stages of the master planning project (see
project web site for complete information). Most recently, a public meeting was held on October
13, 2010 to collect feedback on the preferred policy options. Approximately 45 people attended
the meeting. The options evaluations were also posted on the project web site and notice was
sent to the project listserv. Public comment received over the past six months (on all of the
policy issues) can be found on the project web site noted in the previous section on page two.
ANALYSIS:
1. Boating Policy Options
The Boulder Reservoir has been a popular venue for motorized and non-motorized boating
use for many years. Many of the facilities and services provided on the South Shore support
boating and other water-based activities. Several concerns with motorized boating on the
reservoir, however, have been raised by some community members over the past couple of
years. Concerns that have been expressed include the potential impacts of fuel-powered
boats on water quality, the potential risk of ANS infestation, ambient noise impacts from the
number of boats on the reservoir during some busy periods, and water safety among the
multiple uses on the water.
The primary water quality concern associated with fuel-powered boating is with the potential
introduction of volatile organics (including BTEX) from gasoline and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) from oil into the raw water (see Attachment D for more background on
AGENDA ITEM 5A PAGE 4
water quality monitoring). Results of the city's water quality monitoring in 2009 showed no
evidence that BTEX compounds are in the water supply above current detection limits, based
on current EPA-approved analytical techniques. The city expanded the fuel-related
monitoring in 2010 to include the following:
• Monitoring two reservoir locations: 1) near the marina, and 2) near the water
treatment facility intake (see Attachment E for current monitoring schedule and
map).
• Increasing the monitoring frequency to monthly throughout the year for BTEX and
monthly from May to September for 64 other volatile organic chemicals.
• Modification of high-use period monitoring by monitoring on two high-use days
(holiday or weekend) between May and September.
• Addition of a PAH sediment (fines at water/sediment interface) sampling event at
three monitoring locations, which includes analyses of 40 PAH compounds.
In 2010, the city detected some BTEX constituents in two of the six monitoring events near
the marina (Table 1 below). None of the 68 volatile organic constituents were detected in the
May, June, July 17th, or September sampling events. These events were on weekdays with
no or low boat use except for July 17, which was a Saturday and 20 boats were on the water
at the time of sampling.
Table 1: 2010 Fuel-Related BTEX Monitoring Results
Detected Concentration u /L
Boats
Day of on Constituents Benzene Xylene Toluene
Month Week Water Detected MCL=S MCL=10,000 MCL=1,000
Lab detection limit (0.5 a /L)
May Tue 0/68
June Tue 3/68 0.63 0.69 1.3
July 3 Sat 15 1/68 0.57
Jul 17 Sat 20 0/68
August Sat 9 0/68
Septembe MO
r n 0/68
'MCL is the maximum contaminant level that is allowed in drinking water (i.e., drinking water
standard).
In terms of PAH, these compounds typically sink and would be found in reservoir sediment.
The city initiated the PAH monitoring in 2010 but results are not expected until early 2011.
The estimated 2010 analytical cost for the fuel-related analyses is approximately $6,500.
Although the city has not found strong data to suggest there is an on-going water quality
impact of fuel-powered boating on the reservoir, there is a potential risk of fuel spills from
boat engines. Steps have been taken, however, in the 2010 boating season to reduce that risk
by prohibiting engine re-fueling on the water. There is also a potential risk of PAH
contamination in the reservoir sediment from some of the older two-stroke engines that were
commonly used in outboard motors, Jet Skis, and other Personal Watercraft (PWC).
AGENDA ITEM i# 5A PAGE 5
Concerns expressed about the risk of ANS infestation and zebra or quagga mussels in
particular are highly valid. ANS risk has become an increasingly important regional issue in
recent years as zebra mussels, quagga mussels and Eurasian milfoil are appearing in
reservoirs and streams throughout the western United States (Attachment F). Invasive, non-
native species of aquatic plants and animals are increasingly being transported between
bodies of water in Colorado and across the U.S. by boaters and other waterway users.
Establishment of mussel populations or milfoil in reservoirs has serious implications for
recreation, drinking water quality and operations, and aquatic ecosystems. If conditions are
right, these introduced species can become established in the water, creating undesirable
consequences. ANS can reduce game fish populations, ruin boat engines, jam steering
equipment, make reservoirs unusable by boaters and swimmers, reduce native species,
degrade ecosystems, and dramatically impact the infrastructure and operations of water
supply and treatment facilities.
If infestation occurs on the reservoir, the city will incur significant financial impacts. Zebra
or quagga mussel growth and build-up in the city's water collection and treatment
infrastructure would prompt capital replacement and long-term maintenance costs for the
Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility. Staff has developed very preliminary cost
estimates to address mussel impacts to the treatment facility, which include the intake
structures from Boulder Feed Canal and Boulder Reservoir. These actions would have on-
going staffing requirements in addition to current operations. Preliminary estimates for
response include increased capital costs of at least $400,000 and annual operating costs of at
least $200,000.
Boating Policy Options
Earlier this year, preliminary boating policy options were developed to address the varying
concerns and interests expressed by the community as well as the goals established for the
plan. A set of questions was also drafted to evaluate the options (Attachment B). After
receiving input from the public, PRAB and City Council, the boating policy options were
refined to include the following (see Attachment C for a complete description and
evaluation of the options):
1. Status quo
2. Motorboat standards
3. Rental and programmatic motorboats only
4. Small watercraft only (no motorboats or sailboats with ballast tanks)
5. No watercraft
Preliminary Staff Recommendation
Staff is recommending Option 2 (motorboat standards) as the preferred boating policy option
for the BRMP. Public input throughout the project has highlighted the broad spectrum of
interests in the community regarding use of the reservoir and the need to maintain as much of
the current diversity of water-based recreational uses at the reservoir as practicable. Dozens
of comments were received in support of the various types of boating that occur on the
reservoir as well as support for eliminating motorboats altogether. Focus groups and user
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 6
surveys conducted in Fall 2009 indicated an overwhelming support for continuing motorboat
use of the reservoir. However, there was also indication that more time is needed on the
reservoir for non-motorized boating and the quiet enjoyment of the park. Option 2 maintains
the current diversity while providing more balance among motorized and non-motorized
boating uses than the status quo by expanding the number of "no-wake" hours to two full
days per week.
Although Option 2 does not reduce the current risk of fuel-related contaminants in the
reservoir, there is currently no strong water quality data to justify prohibiting motorboats
altogether. A higher risk of boating-related contaminants is associated with older two-stroke
engines, which will be phase out, and the practice of refueling boats on the water, which is
currently prohibited.
Option 2 also does not reduce the risk of ANS infestation relative to the status quo.
According to state risk level standards (Attachment F), there is a medium to high biological
risk associated with sailboats, wake board boats, ski boats or any other large open boats with
ballast tanks, bilges or live wells. To significantly lower the risk of ANS infestation
according to state standards, all motorized boats or non-motorized sailboats with ballast tanks
would have to be prohibited as in Options 4 and 5 - resulting in an impact to approximately
250 current users of the reservoir and a potential revenue loss to the city.
Protection of Boulder Reservoir from ANS is a priority and the city has taken substantial
steps in the last two years to reduce the risk by implementing a boat inspection program. In
April 2009, the inspection program began monitoring for ANS and collecting data for all
watercraft that entered the reservoir. This effort has included boat inspections and boat
tagging by certified city staff and has been considered successful in reducing the risk of
infestation.
Several state and federal agencies have outlined specific components of best management
practices for preventing and managing ANS. Although the city has instituted some of the
most critical prevention practices (e.g. inspection station and routine monitoring) at the
reservoir, additional actions (e.g. decontamination station, early detection and rapid response
plan, periodic evaluation) can be taken to further improve the city's program. The BRMP
will identify those additional actions and outline an implementation plan.
Option 2 promotes better boating safety relative to the status quo by setting limitations on
boat size, engine type and the number of motorboats on the water, based on the size and use
of the water body. Identification of the boating carrying capacity of lakes and reservoirs has
been a standard practice applied to many lakes and reservoirs over the past two decades and
is especially necessary in small water bodies with a range of uses such as at the Boulder
Reservoir.
Option 2 (as well as Option 1) would have relatively less impact than Options 3, 4 and 5 on
transportation and air quality because the reservoir would continue to provide a facility for
local boaters. Under Options 3, 4, and 5, boaters would likely drive longer distances to
access boatable waters.
AGENDA ITEM 5A PAGE 7
In addition to Option 2, staff is recommending implementation of the following policies:
1. Prohibit personal watercraft or PWC (e.g. Jet Skis) except for city water safety use
and permitted programs, classes or camps. Because of the use and movement of these
watercraft, they require their own space on the water for safety purposes. However,
staff is proposing to eliminate Jet Ski Cove in order to protect the aquatic habitat at
the Dry Creek inlet area. A few PWC would be maintained by the city for select
water safety and programmatic purposes.
2. Phase out two-stroke engines that do not meet current EPA exhaust emission
standards.
3. Prohibit fuelling on the water to lower the risk of fuel spills.
4. Require that all watercraft launch from designated areas on the South Shore so that all
watercraft go through inspection prior to entering the water.
5. Prohibit all watercraft on Coot Lake (including belly boats) to reduce risk of ANS
infestation of that water body.
6. Eliminate "Jet Ski Cove" and expand the "no wake" zone at the Dry Creek inlet.
Staff is also proposing to implement a check-in with City Council on the boating program
every five years and prepare an annual report and evaluation of water quality monitoring
information, water safety issues, community needs and overall trends in boating use at the
reservoir, including the impacts of additional "no wake" time. If trends indicate a need for
change, the city would consider modifying its boating policy.
The current water quality monitoring program for fuel-related contaminants will be
continued indefinitely to track changes in water quality in the reservoir over time. If trends
emerge to suggest potential boating-related health hazards, the city would revisit its boating
policy. The city will continue to monitor at the same two locations in Boulder Reservoir (at
the marina and at the water treatment facility intake) at the following frequencies:
• Once per month from May to September for BTEX and 64 other volatile organic
compounds.
• Two high-use days (holiday or weekend) between May and September for volatile
organics.
• One polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) sediment (fines at water/sediment
interface) sampling event at the same two monitoring locations every other year.
Preliminary Implementation Plan for Boating Policy
The BRMP will include a schedule and funding strategy for implementing all aspects of the
plan. The following, however, is a preliminary proposal for timing the implementation of the
recommended boating policy changes:
Ongoing
• Water Quality Monitoring Protocol
• ANS Inspection Program
• Prohibit fueling on the water
AGENDA ITEM 5A PAGE 8
2011 Implementation
• Limit engine size
• Limit number of motorboats on the water
• Require launching from designated areas only
• Eliminate Jet Ski Cove
• Prohibit watercraft on Coot Lake
2012 Implementation
• Limit types of watercraft allowed on the reservoir to Class A and Class I only.
• Extend the "no-wake" periods
• Eliminate PWC (except for water safety purposes)
• Prohibit two-stroke engines that do not meet EPA standards
2. West Shore Use Policy Options
Interest has been expressed by many visitors to the Boulder Reservoir area in a multi-use,
off-road trail connection between the 55th Street parking lot and the main entry gate to the
South Shore on 51st Street. Many pedestrians, runners and cyclists frequently use 51st Street
as a connection between the 55th Street lot and the Eagle Trailhead. Due to the blind curves
and unpaved road conditions, however, the road can be unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists.
The road is also used during special events to provide a circuitous route around the reservoir,
resulting in occasional county road closures.
The majority of the West Shore is a diverse wetland system that is considered to be one of
the 11 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 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 that is not wetland is either private land, prairie dog
habitat or currently used by the local aeromodeling club. The adjacent prairie dog habitat
provides a food source for many of the bird species that nest, roost or forage in the area.
West Shore Use Options
The following use options were developed to address both the interest in a trail in the West
Shore and protection of the wetland and wildlife habitat in the area (see Attachment G for a
complete description and evaluation of the options):
Option 1: Status quo
Option 2: Habitat Conservation Area (to emphasize protection of wetlands,
sensitive wildlife and water quality on the West Shore)
Option 3: Low-Impact Use (to provide a safe, multi-use trail system around the
reservoir while minimizing impacts to wetlands and wildlife)
Option 4: Expanded Use (to enhance the user experience and maximize user safety)
AGENDA ITEM i# 5A PAGE 9
Preliminary Staff Recommendation
Staff is recommending Option 3 (Low-Impact Use), which involves: 1) a city-initiated and
funded soft-surface, multi-use trail along the east side of the 51St Street right-of-way to
connect the North Shore trail system to the main entry gate area of the Boulder Reservoir
(see map in Attachment H); 2) continuation of the current aeromodeling use with seasonal
wildlife closures as needed; and 3) designation of the wetland and shoreline as a "Habitat
Conservation Area."
Option 3 is recommended because it addresses both the need for an off-road, multi-use trail
connection on the west side of the reservoir while protecting the sensitive wildlife and
wetland habitat in this area. A multi-use trail connection between the 55th Street parking lot
and the reservoir entry gate would improve safety and enhance the experience for the
pedestrians and cyclists that frequently use this road. A trail connection would also support
commuter use of the road and special events that involve a route around the reservoir, and
result in fewer road closures for small events.
A trail located any closer to the reservoir would have a significant impact on the adjacent
wetlands and prairie dog habitat and require roughly two acres of wetland mitigation at a
very high cost to the city. A trail that cuts through the wetlands would also fragment the
wildlife habitat and reduce the viability and use of the area by many of the rare and declining
bird species currently found there. A well-designed trail along 51St Street, however, could
strengthen community understanding and protection of the wetland resource through
educational signage and pull-outs. Trail construction under Option 3 could potentially impact
some wetlands along the right-of-way. Until the corridor is surveyed and trail design is
underway, it is difficult to assess the exact amount of impact under this option. Option 3
though would minimize wetland and wildlife habitat impacts relative to Option 4.
Although Options 1 and 2 also could also address the trail connection need, initiation of the
trail under those options would be the responsibility of the county and possibly a lower
overall transportation priority. Boulder County Transportation Department, which recognizes
a significant safety issue with rising pedestrian and cyclist use of the road, has indicated its
preliminary support of Option 3 and possible use of the right-of-way where necessary to
avoid resource impacts.
There are initial capital costs involved in building the trail under Option 3, however, there
may be opportunities for funding the project through grants such as GOCO local government
or trail grants program. Strategies for funding this and all other recommended capital
improvements will be outlined in the implementation plan for the BRMP.
Option 3 involves continuation of the current aeromodeling use of the site with seasonal
raptor and ground nesting bird closures. The aeromodeling site is a public facility that the
aeromodeling club has been allowed to use for the last 30 years under an agreement with the
city. Conflicts between this and other uses at the reservoir have not been significant enough
to end this use. The city periodically re-evaluates the use and modifies the agreement to
correct any problems or conflicts that arise. Under the agreement, the aeromodeling club is
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 10
responsible for all upkeep and improvements to the site and must adhere to all city rules and
regulations.
The preliminary staff recommendation regarding dogs is to allow dogs on the multi-use trail
and the aeromodeling site but to require them to be leashed at all times. Dogs off leash, even
under voice and sight control, could present a hazard on 51st Street and have a significant
impact on the wildlife habitat if they are off-trail.
Staff is recommending that the wetland and prairie dog habitat areas be designated as a
Habitat Conservation Area similar to the designation on Open Space and Mountain Parks
under city's ordinance (Sections 8-8-2 and 8-8-3, Boulder Revised Code). Use of the area
would be restricted to either the designated trail or the aeromodeling site unless designated
otherwise or an off-trail permit is issued by the city. The goals and strategies for the area
would be similar to those identified in the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department
Visitor Master Plan (page 49) for a Habitat Conservation Area designation which includes
the following:
• Maintain, enhance, and/or restore naturally functioning ecological systems.
• Maintain, enhance, and restore habitat for species of concern identified in the Boulder
County and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plans.
• Provide public access and passive recreational opportunities that foster appreciation
and understanding of ecological systems and have minimal impacts on native plant
communities and wildlife habitats or other resources.
3. North Shore and Coot Lake Use Policy Options
During the early phase of the master planning process, public interest was expressed in
allowing swimming on the North Shore. Swimming is currently prohibited on the North
Shore and would be an expansion to the current uses allowed in that area. Increased
resources related to staffing and public facilities, such as restrooms, would be needed to
support swimming in the area. In response to public input on this issue, the following three
options for the North Shore/Coot Lake area were evaluated (Attachment I):
Option 1: Reduce access and use (to increase habitat protection and reduce ANS
risk)
Option 2: Continue current access and use
Option 3: Expand access and use (to support swimming)
Preliminary Staff Recommendation
Staff is recommending a combination of the following elements from Options 1 and 2 for the
North Shore and Coot Lake:
• Continue the current passive uses along the North Shore and Coot Lake and prohibit
human swimming (dogs would still be allowed to swim in both water bodies).
• Improve the existing trail system and build a pedestrian-only trail for access to the
north shoreline of the reservoir.
• Maintain the 55'h Street parking lot at current capacity.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A_; PAGE 11
• Continue voice and sight control requirement for dogs in most areas and continue to
allow dog swimming on the east and south shores of Coot Lake and on the north
shore of the reservoir. Require dogs to be on leash along the pedestrian-only
perimeter trail around the Coot Lake wetlands except for the south and east swim
access areas where current voice and sight control requirements would continue to be
in affect.
• Reduce access to the northwest shoreline in the Dry Creek inlet (currently Jet Ski
Cove) to protect wetland and aquatic habitat and to discourage illegal boat launching.
The uses that would be allowed on the North Shore and at Coot Lake under the staff
recommendation would include hiking, biking, dog walking, dog swimming, horseback
riding, fishing (from the shoreline) and picnicking. Swimming (human), boat launching
(including belly-boats) and skydiving would be prohibited in all areas at the North Shore and
Coot Lake.
Staff is proposing to maintain the 55th Street parking lot in order to accommodate the current
parking demand and the likely increase in demand from a new trail along 51St Street (as
recommended for the West Shore). A better deterrent, however, will be necessary to
discourage illegal boat launching from the North Shore and the risk of aquatic nuisance
species infestation. Improvements to the multi-use trail system can be designed to address
that issue with fencing and better signage and more continual monitoring. If the problem
persists, staff will revisit the need for the 55th Street parking lot.
Staff is recommending the above use policy for the following reasons:
1. There has been overwhelming support for keeping the North Shore and Coot Lake
like it is;
2. The addition of more facilities on the North Shore would likely draw significantly
more visitors and change the area from a quiet, passive use park to an active
recreation area with regular staffing and more infrastructure.
3. The addition of a legal swim beach on the North Shore, as in Option 3, would require
a significant capital investment and have long-term operational cost implications;
4. The current passive uses are more compatible with the sensitive wetland habitat in the
area than the higher use levels that would occur with a swim beach and added
infrastructure.
5. There is limited land are for additional facilities or parking.
6. A user fee system on the North Shore would be needed to offset some of the
additional costs.
7. The addition of a swim beach would significantly increase the parking demand at
Tom Watson Park and Coot Lake and the traffic along 63rd Street.
8. Swimming and the necessary infrastructure could have a significant impact on water
quality in the reservoir from runoff and human-body related contaminants.
9. The Coot Lake wetland has been classified as a significant wetland and serves as
important habitat for wildlife conservation. Heavy use of the perimeter trail and
uncontrolled access to the wetland has likely contributed to the decline in use by two
bird species of concern, which are noted as rare and declining in Boulder County.
The city's voice and sight control ordinance, which currently is in affect along this
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 12
trail, does not require dogs to remain on the trail or prevent them from entering the
wetland area where sensitive birds may be nesting or foraging. The voice and sight
ordinance only requires that a guardian be able to see the dog's actions and be under
voice control to prevent the dog from engaging in certain behaviors and if unable, to
be on leash. In addition, the tall, thick vegetation in the wetland can conceal certain
nesting species and make it difficult for a guardian to recognize areas that the dog
should avoid. To insure protection of the wildlife in the wetland, dogs should be
required to be on leash along this stretch of the trail system.
4. Special Events Policy
Special events are planned activities (for-profit and/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 special events are a
source of revenue for the department.
Currently, the department does not have a policy for special events scheduling at the
reservoir. The city has used its discretion in permitting events based on available space, the
number of participants, the location of the event and the impacts on daily use of the park.
Generally, over the past two years, up to ten special events per month have been scheduled in
the high season, including two "signature events" (events involving 1200 or more
participants and full or partial closures) per month.
For the most part, special events have been managed to minimize impacts on the reservoir
and its neighbors. However, there are impacts from large special events including delayed
beach openings, park closures, traffic along 51St Street and increased ambient noise. Access
to parking on the South Shore can also be difficult or unavailable during large events.
A preliminary special events policy was presented to the PRAB and City Council earlier this
year, which was derived from current practice. Some PRAB and City Council members
suggested that the department consider increasing the number of special events at the
reservoir to potentially increase revenue to the department. The evaluation in Attachment J
presents a proposed policy that establishes a maximum number of special events in both the
high and low seasons. Highlights of the proposed policy include the following:
1. Designating events involving 1200 or more participants as "Signature Events" and
limiting those events to no more than two per month (to minimize impacts of large
events on neighbors, other reservoir users and number of park closure days);
2. 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 (to minimize impacts to the environment and on visitors to the
North Shore, Coot Lake and Tom Watson Park);
3. Requiring all special events to begin and end on the South Shore (where adequate
parking is available for most events);
4. Limiting special events to two per day, 20 per month in the high season and one per
day and 10 per month in the low season; and
5. Setting a limit to the number of park or high use area closures to two per month.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 13
An increase in the number of special events at the reservoir would have capital and annual
operational costs. The revenue from those events, however, would recover operational costs.
Capital improvements needed to support special events at the reservoir include improvements
to overflow lots and the main entry gate and new equipment.
The primary impacts to visitors and neighbors from an increased number of special events
are park closures, delayed openings, limited parking availability and increased traffic along
51St Street during large events. Staff is proposing a limit of two Signature Events per month
to minimize those potential impacts.
NEXT STEPS:
City Council is scheduled to review the option evaluations and recommendations, and provide
final direction on the preferred policy at a public hearing on December 7, 2010.
The final phase of the project will involve development and review of a draft master plan,
scheduled for review and acceptance by City Council in the first quarter of 2011. The plan will
identify additional management guidelines and operational procedures for the reservoir area,
including the following:
1. Recreational use policies (programs, camps, swimming, picnics).
2. Wildlife, resource and habitat protection and management objectives.
3. Facility and infrastructure needs.
4. Water quality monitoring protocols and thresholds.
5. Drought response plan.
6. Actions, responsibilities and timeline to implement the plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vision and Goals for the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan
B. Evaluation Criteria
C. Boating Policy Options Evaluation
D. Water Quality Monitoring at the Boulder Reservoir
E. Boulder Reservoir Monitoring Summary Table and Map
F. Boulder Reservoir Aquatic Nuisance Species Inspection Program
G. West Shore Use Options Evaluation
H. Map of West Shore Trail Proposal
1. North Shore and Coot Lake Use Options
J. Special Events - Proposed Policy Evaluation
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 14
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:
I . 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
ANS 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.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 15
ATTACHMENT B:
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 overall cost and revenue implications of each option to the city?
4. What are the impacts of each option to capital facilities and infrastructure? (relative to
capital needs identified or planned under current master plans)
5. What additional facilities and services would be needed to meet current service standards
under each option?
6. What would be the cost of new facilities and services and would current revenue sources
adequately pay for those facilities?
7. What are the impacts to other existing or planned services (transportation, utilities,
police, fire, open space, etc.)?
8. What are the impacts to visitors to the Boulder Reservoir area?
9. What regulatory changes would need to be made to implement each option?
10. How well does each option reflect best practices in the industry?
11. How well does each option position the city to respond to emerging trends?
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 16
ATTACHMENT C.
Evaluation of Boating Policy Options
Updated November 5, 2010
Proposed Changes Under All Options:
• No personal watercraft (e.g. Jet Skis) (Would impact approximately seven users and result in $4,000 less in revenue from PWC permits and moorings)
• Phase out two-stroke engines that do not meet current EPA exhaust emission standards. (Two-stroke engines that meet EPA standards would be allowed.)
• No fuelling on water
• All watercraft must launch from designated areas on the South Shore.
• No watercraft allowed in Coot Lake (including belly boats).
• Eliminate "Jet Ski Cove" and expand "no wake" zone at the Dry Creek inlet to protect aquatic and wetland habitat.
Water Quality Monitoring Under All Options:
• Conventional water treatment required under all options
• Continue swim beach bacteria monitoring
• Continue baseline water quality monitoring
• For option 1-3, define baseline fuel-related concentrations in water column and sediment and review trends over time. If concentrations increase, revisit boating options.
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Maintain Status Quo Motorboat Standards Rental and Programmatic Small Watercraft Only No Watercraft
(To maintain the diversity and flexibility of (To balance uses and promote safety on the Motorboats Only (No Motorboats or Sailboats) (To reduce the risk
of aquatic nuisance
boating uses on the reservoir) water) (To reduce the potential for fuel-related (To reduce the potential for fuel-related species infestation and fuel-related
contaminants and the risk of aquatic contaminants and the risk of aquatic contaminants and improve wildlife habitat)
nuisance species infestation) nuisance species infestation; providing more
opportunity for swimming and non-motorized
boating)
Description • Maintain the current status quo, no • Set limitations on the size, type and • Prohibit privately-owned motorboats. • Prohibit all motorboats (fuel-powered
or • Prohibit all boats (motorized or non-
limitations on type or size of boats allowed number of motorboats allowed on the . Continue to allow privately-owned non- electric) on the reservoir except for
water motorized) on the reservoir except for water
on the reservoir. reservoir. motorized boats. safety. safety.
• Continue the current number of 11.5 no- • Establish two full "no-wake" days per week. • Establish a city rental program for small • Prohibit sailboats with ballast
tanks. • Continue swimming, special events and
wake hours/week. . Continue swimming, special events and non-motorized watercraft. • Small watercraft would be allowed. other non-boating-related activities
on the
• Continue swimming, special events and other non-boating-related activities on the • Provide city motorboats for programs, • Increase non-motorized boat rental
South Shore.
other non-boating-related activities on the South Shore. classes and lake patrol. operations.
South Shore. . Establish two full "no-wake" days per • Continue swimming, special events and
week. other non-boating-related activities on the
• Continue swimming, special events and South Shore.
other non-boating-related activities on the
South Shore.
Key Pros and Option 1 maintains the most flexibility and Option 2 provides a balance between Option 3 reduces the risk of fuel-related Option 4 more substantially
decreases the Option 5 eliminates the risk of fuel-related
Cons provides for a wide range of water-based motorized and non-motorized boating uses. It contaminants while still supporting a wide potential for fuel-related contaminants
and pollutants from boats and significantly
recreational uses while generating the most also promotes water safety by setting range of water-based uses. This option has reduces the risk of ANS infestation
relative to reduces the risk of ANS infestation. It also
boating-related revenue for the department. capacity and engine size limitations. It does the highest capital investment cost of all the options 1 and 2. This option
has the highest provides the most benefit to wetlands and
It does not reduce the current risk of fuel- not reduce the risk level of ANS infestation or options and less revenue than options 1 and operational costs and reduces
departmental wildlife habitat. Although it requires no
related contaminants in the water. fuel-related contaminants. Reduction in 2. It does not significantly reduce the risk revenue. Similar to Option 3, it could impact
boating-related capital investment, it results in
motorboat permits would have some impact level of ANS infestation relative to the status air quality and resource consumption as a decrease in revenue. The
changes would
on departmental revenue. quo. It could impact air quality and resource boaters could end up driving greater impact more visitors to the reservoir than
the
consumption as motorized boaters in the distances to access other reservoirs. other options and reduce recreational
county could end up driving greater distances opportunities in the community. It could
to access other reservoirs. impact air quality and resource consumption
as boaters could end up driving greater
distances to access other reservoirs.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 17
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Maintain Status Quo Motorboat Standards Rental and Programmatic Small Watercraft Only No Watercraft
(To maintain the diversity and flexibility of (To balance uses and promote safety on the Motorboats Only (No Motorboats or Sailboats) (To reduce the risk
of aquatic nuisance
boating uses on the reservoir) water) (To reduce the potential for fuel-related (To reduce the potential for fuel-related species infestation and fuel-related
contaminants and the risk of aquatic contaminants and the risk of aquatic contaminants and improve wildlife habitat)
nuisance species infestation) nuisance species infestation; providing more
opportunity for swimming and non-motorized
boating)
No Personal Watercraft (e.g. Jet Skis) other Class A' and Class I only (no Class 2 or No private fuel-powered watercraft permitted No fuel-powered watercraft or boats with
No watercraft permitted (including belly-
Types of than for water safety and programmatic use. Class 3 boats allowed). except city-owned or sponsored (rentals, ballast tanks permitted except for non-
boats) except for city water safety.
watercraft programs, classes, water safety). motorized boats related to special events and
a motorized boat for city water safety.
No limitations 500 hp maximum Same as Option 2 n.a. n.a.
Engine type (except for phase out two-stroke engines that (to eliminate high speed boats such
and size do not meet EPA standards) "cigarette" boats)
Number of At discretion of staff Maximum of 202 Class I watercraft3 Same as Option 2 No limitations n.a.
watercraft on (based on observations of boating activity at (No limitations on the number of all other
water a given time) watercraft)
11.5 total "no-wake" hours per week Two full "no-wake" days per week Same as Option 2 No motorboats allowed. n.a.
Tuesdays, 5:30 am-10:00 am Alternates: Two full "no-motorboat" days or
Motorboat Wednesdays, 5:30 am - 9:00 am four "no-wake" days
restrictions Thursdays, 5:30 pm - 9:00 pm
Note:
Weekdays are recommended since weekend use
is currently impacted b special event use.
CAPITAL (Unfunded): $1,200,000 CAPITAL (Unfunded): $1,200,000 CAPITAL (Unfunded): $1,445,000 CAPITAL (Unfunded): $810,000 (no CAPITAL: $0
(boat storage, new marina building, lighting (Same as Option 1) (larger marina building, addition boat storage, improved storage lots)
and security, decontamination station) rental fleet)
ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $320,000 (Option ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $418,000 (Option ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $15,000 (water
Estimated ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $305,000 (boat 1 plus additional water safety staff) ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $403,000 3 plus additional water safety staff) safety staff)
Costs4 inspection, maintenance, water safety staff (Option 2 plus additional marina and water
(includes unmet and NPE) safety staff)
needs)
Note:
Current operational cost does not include costs for
general facility operations and maintenance of the
reservoir or costs of non-boating-related services.
' Class A: Vessels less than 16 ft. in length
2 Roughly equivalent to one boat per 15 acres of surface water
3 Class I: Vessels 16 to 25 ft. (less than 26 ft.) in length
4 Cost and revenue estimates are based on a year-round operation.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 18
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Maintain Status Quo Motorboat Standards Rental and Programmatic Small Watercraft Only No Watercraft
(To maintain the diversity and flexibility of (To balance uses and promote safety on the Motorboats Only (No Motorboats or Sailboats) (To reduce the risk
of aquatic nuisance
boating uses on the reservoir) water) (To reduce the potential for fuel-related (To reduce the potential for fuel-related species infestation and fuel-related
contaminants and the risk of aquatic contaminants and the risk of aquatic contaminants and improve wildlife habitat)
nuisance species infestation) nuisance species infestation; providing more
opportunity for swimming and non-motorized
boating)
Boating Programs: $103,000 Boating Programs: $103,000 Boating Programs: $103,000 Boating Programs: $89,000 TOTAL: $0/year
Estimated Permits, Storage and Rentals: $260,000 Permits, Storage and Rentals: $220,000 Permits, Storage and Rentals: $95,000 Permits, Storage and Rentals: $70,000/year
NET: -$15,000
Annual
Revenue4 TOTAL: $363,000/year TOTAL: $323,000/year TOTAL: $198,000/year TOTAL: $159,000/year
(based on 2009 NET (Total revenue less annual operational NET (Total revenue less annual operational NET (Total revenue less annual operational NET (Total revenue
less annual operational
revenue) cost): +$58,000 cost): +$3,000 cost): -$205,000 cost): -$259,000
• Elimination of Jet Ski Cove will improve • Elimination of Jet Ski Cove will improve • Elimination of Jet Ski Cove will improve • Elimination of Jet Ski Cove will improve Reduced
impacts to aquatic and wetland
aquatic habitat conditions in the Dry Creek aquatic habitat conditions in the Dry Creek aquatic habitat conditions in the Dry Creek aquatic habitat conditions in the Dry
habitat from boater access to shoreline.
Wetlands and inlet. inlet. inlet. Creek inlet.
Wildlife • Minimal impacts to aquatic habitat from • An increase in no-wake periods may • An increase in no-wake periods may • May increase impacts to wetlands
and
boating-related turbidity in other areas of increase wildlife use of the area on those increase wildlife use of the area on those shoreline due to potential increase
in
the reservoir (wind is the primary source of days. days. boater access (since non-motorized boats
turbidity in the reservoir). can more easily approach the shorelines).
• Based on available data, current fuel- Same as Option 1. . Slight decrease in risk of fuel-related • Significant reduction in risk of fuel-related •
Significant reduction in risk of fuel
related contamination is generally less contaminants. contaminants (minimal risk from water contaminants from boats (minimal risk
than laboratory detection limits that are a No change in contaminant risk due to safety boats). from water safety boats).
also significantly less than drinking water swimming (body contact). • Elimination of any motorboat-related • Elimination of any motorboat-related
standards. turbidity (wind will continue to be major turbidity (wind will continue to be major
Water Quality • There are risks for fuel-related spills from source of turbidity). source of turbidity).
boating accidents and contaminants due e Potential increase in contaminants related . Potential increase in contaminants related
to swimming and body contact. to swimming (body contact). to swimming (body contact) because of
• There is minimal turbidity from wave expanded swimming area.
action of motorboats (wind is primary
source of turbidity in the reservoir).
• Currently zebra and quagga mussels and Same as Option 1. Same as Option 1 in terms of state risk Reduces risk level from medium/high to low . Significantly
decreases risk of ANS
Eurasian milfoil have not been detected in levels however, fewer high risk boats because of the removal of motorboats and infestation relative to all other
options.
Aquatic the reservoir or in Coot Lake. (motorboats) would be on the reservoir. sailboats with ballast tanks. . Some remaining risk from boats
• There is a medium to high biological risk accessing Sixmile Reservoir
Nuisance of infestation based on state risk level Note:
S ecies All trailered boats with ballast tanks, and/or motors,
p standards. including sailboats, present a medium to high biological
• Curly-leafed pondweed is currently found. risk for ANS based on state risk level standards.
The city does not collect data on air quality Relatively small improvement to carbon • Same as Option 2 • Could impact regional air quality since local • Could
impact regional air quality since local
impacts of boat engines on the reservoir dioxide emissions relative to Option 1 with • Could impact regional air quality since motorized boaters might drive longer
boaters (motorized and non-motorized)
Air Quality however, new EPA low exhaust emission the elimination of large boats and the local motorized boaters might drive longer distances to access other reservoirs.
might drive longer distances to access
standards for marine engines apply to all additional no-wake periods. distances to access other reservoirs. other reservoirs.
newly manufactured motors. Carbon dioxide
emissions, however, are not regulated.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 19
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Maintain Status Quo Motorboat Standards Rental and Programmatic Small Watercraft Only No Watercraft
(To maintain the diversity and flexibility of (To balance uses and promote safety on the Motorboats Only (No Motorboats or Sailboats) (To reduce the risk
of aquatic nuisance
boating uses on the reservoir) water) (To reduce the potential for fuel-related (To reduce the potential for fuel-related species infestation and fuel-related
contaminants and the risk of aquatic contaminants and the risk of aquatic contaminants and improve wildlife habitat)
nuisance species infestation) nuisance species infestation; providing more
opportunity for swimming and non-motorized
boating)
• Noise levels from the South Shore are Same as Option 1. Same as Option 1. Noise levels would likely be reduced (on non- Noise levels would likely be reduced
(on non-
currently within city permitted decibel special event days) due to lower motorboat special event days) due to lower boating use
Noise limits. use levels. and reduction in traffic to the reservoir.
• Motorized boating may minimally
contribute to noise levels at the reservoir.
• The reservoir contributes to the diversity of Same as Option 1 plus: Same as Option 1 plus: • Impacts approximately 250 boaters by • Impacts approximately
3,000 boaters and
recreational activities available to the • Provides more quiet time (no wake days) • Impacts approximately 250 boaters (based eliminating fuel-powered motorboat
use. participants in boating-related camps, clubs
community. for all boaters, swimmers and other on current number of pass holders) by . Could enhance the experience of and other programs.
• Boating traffic along 51St Street accounts visitors of the park. eliminating private fuel-powered motorboat swimmers and other passive recreation • Impacts
some special events.
Social Impacts for roughly 30 percent (staff estimate) of • Reduces the amount of time allowed for use. users with decreased noise and wake . Enhances the
experience of swimmers and
summer traffic and may minimally water skiing and other speed-related • Provides more quiet time (no wake days) levels. other passive recreation users.
contribute to noise levels outside of park. boating activities. for all boaters, swimmers and other visitors • Decreases number of water-based . Results
in a reduction in traffic and noise
of the park. recreational opportunities available to the levels related to boating-related uses.
community. • Loss of community and regional venue for
recreational boating.
City Utilities - Continued need for baseline Same as Option 1. Same as Option 1. . CitV Utilities - Reduced need for fuel- • City Utilities - Reduced monitoring
and special water quality monitoring (e.g. related monitoring. requirements relative to all options.
fuel-related analysis of water column and • Police and Fire - Potential increase in • County Transportation - Reduced impact to
Impacts to sediment) demand for emergency services since most county roads by reducing use of the
Other boating-related accidents occur with non- reservoir.
motorized boating. • State Division of Wildlife - Reduces state-
Departments • County Transportation - Reduced impact to wide fishing opportunities.
and Agencies county roads by reducing use of the
reservoir.
• State Division of Wildlife - Reduces state-
wide fishing opportunities.
The trend in some regions is to minimize • Consistent with a general trend to manage Same as Option 2. . The emerging trend is to promote • Emerging trend
is to promote sustainable
Comparison motorized boating use on drinking water boating on reservoirs by identifying sustainable practices in parks and reduce practices in parks and reduce
use of fossil
to Best reservoirs. recreational carrying capacity standards use of fossil fuel-burning engines. fuel-burning engines.
Practices and and minimizing fuel-related contaminant . May increase body contact and • Consistent with trend to protect source
risk, associated contaminants (e.g. water quality from fuel-related
Emerging • Addresses a growing demand to provide sunscreens, hair products, hormones, contaminants and reduce body contact
Trends more access and a venue for non- bacteria) in the water since non-motorized resulting from boating.
motorized watercraft activities. boaters generally
**Evaluation is based on a year-round boating operation.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 20
ATTACHMENT D
Water Quality Monitoring at the Boulder Reservoir
The Public Works - Utilities Division (Utilities) and Parks and Recreation Department have
conducted routine water quality monitoring on Boulder Reservoir for many years to evaluate
compliance with bacteria water quality standards for the protection of public health at the South
Shore swim beach and to characterize a wide range of water quality constituents prior to
treatment at the city's Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility. The long-term data also
assist in evaluating how the water quality compares to Colorado water quality standards.
Additional water quality monitoring has also been conducted in recent years to address public
water quality concerns related to boating, focusing on potential fuel-related impacts to swimmers
and drinking water. In 2009, Utilities staff conducted more comprehensive water quality
monitoring compared to other years for specific boating-related pollutants in the reservoir.
Historically, fuel-related testing has been conducted only a few times over the last several years
in specific areas of the reservoir in response to a report of visual sheen. In March 2010, City
Council received a non-agenda memorandum that provided information about the city's water
quality standards and protocol. The following information provides background regarding
surface and drinking water quality standards and monitoring at the Boulder Reservoir, the
following information is provided.
Surface Water Quality Standards
The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (Commission)-part of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment-along with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), regulate the quality of surface water (lakes and streams) and treated drinking
water. Water quality regulation is mandated under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking
Water Act, at the federal level, and under the Colorado Water Quality Control Act and Colorado
Primary Drinking Water Regulations at the state level.
The Commission is the administrative agency responsible for developing state water quality
policies and beneficial use classifications for all surface waters in Colorado (such as Boulder
Creek and Boulder Reservoir). To protect the quality of Colorado's surface waters, the
Commission develops and implements narrative and numeric water quality standards. Water
quality standards describe the chemical, physical, and biological conditions necessary to achieve
and protect a water body's beneficial use classification. For a water body with multiple
beneficial use classifications, the water quality standards must protect the most sensitive use and
the most sensitive use, which depends on the type of constituent. For example: recreation is the
most sensitive beneficial use for the E. coli bacteria standard; aquatic life is most sensitive to
standards such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, and many metals; and water supply is most
sensitive to constituents such as nitrate, chloride, iron, and manganese.
The Commission has not developed or implemented specific water quality standards for water
fowl, and water fowl specific water quality standards are rare nation-wide. Many water quality
standards in Colorado, and some that apply to Boulder Reservoir, do protect water fowl as a
secondary benefit of aquatic life water quality standards. Water fowl protection is achieved
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 21
through controlling the level of some constituents that might impact aquatic life which are then
consumed by water fowl.
The Clean Water Act requires Colorado to identify waters that do not or are not expected to meet
applicable water quality standards. Every two years the Commission compares recent data
(typically five years of data) on the physical, chemical and biological conditions with the
associated water quality standards for that segment. The city participated in this review process
in 2009, the latest assessment review, by submitting water quality data for Boulder Reservoir and
as a party in the rulemaking hearing. The Commission did not identify Boulder Reservoir as
impaired for any beneficial uses but did include it on the Monitoring and Evaluation list for
dissolved oxygen (this list identifies water bodies that may indicate a water quality problem, but
there is uncertainty). The Commission had previously identified the need to clarify the dissolved
oxygen assessment method, which was revised in a June 2010 rulemaking hearing.
The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments required Colorado to develop a Source Water
Assessment and Protection (SWAP) Program to assess existing and potential contaminant
sources for public water supplies. Boulder initiated its own source water assessment program in
1992. A state SWAP was completed for the city's source waters and is currently being refined to
better reflect actual conditions.
Boulder Reservoir Water Quality ionitoring
The city monitors Boulder Reservoir and its tributaries at least monthly to evaluate baseline
source water conditions, water quality changes, aesthetics, treatment decisions, nutrient loading
and indications of possible pathogens and other health related contaminants. The water
treatment facility is monitored to evaluate treatment processes at various locations within the
facility and treated water quality prior to entering the distribution system.
While there are many water quality standards that apply to Boulder Reservoir, the city is not
required by regulation to monitor source water (Boulder Reservoir) for all water quality
standards. The city is required to monitor E. coli levels weekly, during the recreational use
period at the South Shore swim beach, for the protection of humans who may ingest water during
recreational activities.
Routine Source Water Monitoring
The city has routinely monitored Boulder Reservoir and its tributaries since the early 1990s to
establish baseline water quality, identify water quality changes, support operational decisions for
the water treatment facility, and evaluate long-term trends. The city monitors for all constituents
with water quality standards, as well as 33 additional constituents. The city did not routinely
monitor for fuel-related organic constituents until 2009.
The city initially monitored 13 locations in the reservoir (8) and its tributaries (5). Following a
two-year U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) water quality study of the reservoir and its tributaries
in 1997-98, the city reduced reservoir monitoring locations, because water quality is consistent
through the reservoir, primarily due to the reservoir's shallow depth and mixing by wind. The
city continues to monitor seven locations, including the five tributaries flowing into the reservoir
and the reservoir itself close to the treatment facility intake near the top and bottom depths.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 22
Special Studies
The city also conducts special studies in addition to the ongoing routine monitoring, for example:
• Fuel-related monitoring. The city conducted volatile organics monitoring including
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene (BTEX), and MTBE in 2009. Monitoring
was conducted four times from April to September, including a high-use (holiday)
time at two locations (these efforts are summarized in the March 2, 2010 City Council
WIP). Sampling was conducted at two locations, at the marina and near the water
intake structure. Prior to 2009 the city monitored fuel related compounds on two
events in the 1990's.
• High Quality Water Supply Reservoir Project. The city is participating in this 2010
state-funded study of nutrients, organic carbon, and disinfection byproduct formation
potential, which will provide data for the 2011 Commission rulemaking hearing on
nutrient criteria for lakes and reservoirs.
• Coordinated reconnaissance monitoring. The city coordinated with other Colorado-
Big Thompson water utilities in 2010 to conduct monitoring for organic chemicals.
Boulder Reservoir Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Pilot Inspection Program
Extensive water quality protection efforts have also been completed focusing on evaluating the
potential for infestation from aquatic nuisance species. In April of 2009, the Aquatic Nuisance
Species (ANS) Pilot Inspection Program began monitoring for ANS and collecting data for all
watercraft that entered the Boulder Reservoir. This effort also included boat inspections and
boat tagging by the certified city staff and continued throughout the remainder of the 2009
season.
One of the key components of the ANS program is educating boat owners and raising awareness
of the ANS issue, as well operating the inspection program. For the nine months of operation in
2009, the program cost approximately $73,000. To help offset the cost of the program,
inspection fees were charged and $5,600 in inspection fees (only for boats identified as high risk)
was collected. The inspection program was considered successful relative to prevention of
invasive mussels and the principle point learned was that a certified inspector needs to be on duty
all hours that the entrance gates are open.
The implementation of the 2010 ANS program was similar to the 2009 program. All watercraft
are required to purchase a boat permit and go through an inspection process to enter the Boulder
Reservoir. Inspectors are present during the time the front gates are open to the public, which
helps provide the level of protection and customer service required for this program.
The cost of the 2010 ANS program is approximately $99,000. An inspection program fee is
charged to all watercraft users to help recover a portion of the program cost. To communicate
this program fee, staff held two public meetings to obtain feedback from users prior to
determining the recommended fee and related to how it would be implemented. Based on the
feedback from users and staff analysis, the following fees were implemented in 2010:
• A one-time $40 ANS fee for all trailered watercraft permit holders.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 23
• A one-time small craft permit fee of $30 (increased from $10 in 2009)
• A $25 high-risk inspection fee for watercraft that come to the reservoir from other bodies
of water.
Based on numbers of inspections and permits in 2009, these fees could generate $37,000 in
revenue to offset program costs. Currently the City of Boulder is the only public agency that
charges an ANS inspection fee. In other western states and Massachusetts, management
agencies are beginning to implement inspection fees.
Protection of Boulder Reservoir from ANS is a priority. Staff will continue to monitor the
program and make recommendations related to protecting this water source in the future.
Boulder Reservoir aquatic vegetation surveys. The city has also conducted aquatic vegetation
surveys at Boulder Reservoir. Some surveys were targeted evaluations in response to observed
vegetation changes (i.e., 2007) and some as a more comprehensive acoustic vegetation survey, as
in 2008. The ANS curly leaf pondweed was identified in the reservoir in 2007, but it is not
persistent, because it has a tendency to die off in early summer allowing native species to grow.
Eurasian milfoil has never been observed in Boulder Reservoir. Small plant fragments from this
species can be transported and introduced into lakes via boats and boat trailers. The current
Boulder Reservoir ANS boat inspection program reduces the risk of Eurasian milfoil
introduction from boats. Eurasian milfoil can drastically alter a water body's ecology by forming
dense mats of vegetation on the surface of the water that out compete native plants and reduce
food chain animal diversity. The mats interfere with recreational activities such as swimming,
fishing, water skiing, and boating. Stagnant mats can create good habitat for mosquitoes and
taste and odor causing blue green algae. Milfoil mats can reduce oxygen from the water by
preventing the wind from mixing the oxygenated surface waters to deeper water and the plant
material decay can create low oxygen situations.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 24
ATTACHMENT E
Boulder Reservoir Monitoring Summary Table and Map
Boulder Reservoir and Watershed Baseline Monitoring Summary
Constituents Analyzed
Specific Diss. Total
Sample Site Sample Site Description Sample Frequent Flow Dissolved pH Temp Conduct Profile Secchi Suspended Turbidity Diss. Alk8 Sulfate Sodium Chloride
Fluoride Phosphorus Nitrate TKN Ammonia IronlManga Metals Volatile organic E. Chloro a Phyto-
Oxygen ance (clarity) Solids Solids Hard nese Suite Organics carbon coli plankton
Boulder Reservoir (BR) Tributaries
Unknown Ditch @BR SW corner of Boulder Reservoir, west of Monthly x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 21yr x x
the County Rd 51 (@ flume)
Little Dry Creek @ BR SW corner of Bldr Res, N of Unk Ditch, E Monthly x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 21yr x x
of the county Rd 51 (@ flume)
Dry Creek @ BR NW corner of Boulder Reservoir, west of Monthly x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 21yr x x
County Rd 51 (@ flume)
Boulder Feeder Canal@BR Boulder Feeder Canal (above station 12) Monthly x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2tyr x x
Farmer's Ditch @ BR Flume, west of Boulder Reservoir, west of Monthly x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 21yr x x
County Rd 51
Boulder Reservoir
BR Swim Beach Swimming area Weekly (Summer) x
BR S. Dam Bottom Deep water middle of south dam (Epilimnio Monthly x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2tyr x (monthly)
x x x x
BR S. Dam Top Deep water middle of south dam (0.5 m off Monthly x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 21yr x x
bottom)
BR Marina End of dock at manna Monthly X
Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility
BRWTF Raw - Canal Canal tap in the operations lab Weekly (Summer) x x x x x x x x x x x x x 21yr x x x x
(special)
BRWTF Raw- Basin Basin raw tap in the operations lab Weekly (Winter) x x x x x x x x x x x x x 21yr x x x
x (special)
BRWTF Fin Finished tap in the operations lab Weekly x x x x x x x x x x x x x 21yr x x
This list does not include regulatory monitoring for finished drinking water
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 25
a
3 ~fe Boulder
Feeder`.'
Canal.:
4
_ T
Z Boulder
~ffllQ Dry Crook fit" Reservoir
WTF
• s%.
00
-ti
sag j_ l'/" .
, it -
a Q 25 6.5 1 was
Boulder Reservoir Water 0 Base-line sites PAH sediment sites - Roads
Quality Sample Sites 0 Swrn Beach sites Creek tD 0BRY4atershed N
4@ BTEX sample sites
js 11:4fID aerial pnau zoos
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 26
ATTACHMENT F
Boulder Reservoir Pilot Aquatic Nuisance Species Inspection
Program
Summary of 2009/2010 Pilot Program
And
2010/2011 Boating Season Proposal
Overview
Aquatic nuisance species have become an increasingly important issue in recent years. In
particular, zebra and quagga mussels have recently been identified in Colorado reservoirs.
Establishment of mussel populations in a reservoir has serious implications to recreation uses,
drinking water supply quality and aquatic ecosystems. One of the primary modes of
introduction of mussels is by transport of recreational watercraft from reservoirs which have
been infected.
During 2008, Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) detected zebra and quagga mussel larvae
in seven waters out of 101 waters sampled. These waters with positive detections included
Pueblo Reservoir, Jumbo Reservoir and Tarryall Reservoir. Additionally veligers were
detected in the headwaters of the Colorado -Big Thompson Project including Lake Granby,
Shadow Mountain Reservoir, Willow Creek reservoir and Grand Lake.
The Colorado State Parks Board adopted regulations on February 20, 2009 to assist in the
statewide management of aquatic nuisance species. These regulations apply to all waters
within the state of Colorado. Boaters are responsible for compliance of the new regulations
while water body agencies have the responsibility for the protection of managed waters from
ANS introduction and infestation. City of Boulder Parks and Recreation and Utility staff have
implemented an inspection program during the 2009/2010 boating season. The program is
consistent with the Aquatic Nuisance Species ANS) Watercraft Inspection Handbook,
distributed by the State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources.
Status of 2009 Mussel Activity
CDOW continued the statewide comprehensive early detection program for zebra and quagga
mussels during 2009. This program included monitoring of Boulder Reservoir. The only
positive results in 2009 were mussel larvae (veliger) detections in Lake Pueblo. No adults have
been found in the state.
No evidence of adult mussels was detected when Boulder Reservoir staff checked docks, buoys
and floating rafts when removed for season. Results of CDOW testing of Boulder Reservoir
were also negative for veligers.
Statewide, over 160 waters (both standing and flowing) were sampled in 2009 at the following
frequency:
• Positive waters-visit every 2-3 weeks, or 10 times per season
• High Risk waters (including Boulder Reservoir) - visit 4 times
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 27
• Medium Risk waters-visit 2 times
• Low Risk waters-samples as schedules allow
City of Boulder Utility staff attended the recent Colorado Lake and Reservoir Management
Association conference on November 10, 2009. Elizabeth Brown, the state Invasive Species
Coordinator, provided the following thoughts on the lack of positive detections in 2009.
• The summer of 2009 was much cooler than typical which was not conducive for mussel
breeding.
• Mussel population could be small and isolated at this time. State sampling efforts might
not have been at proper timing to see veligers.
• CDOW will have to continue monitoring for at least five years before any conclusions
can be made concerning the viability of mussel populations in Colorado reservoirs.
Other factors which could influence the detection of veligers:
• Timing of surveys might be outside of windows of mussel breeding season.
• Surveys could miss the floating stage of small populations of mussel veligers.
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) has hired a nationally known
consulting firm, RNT Consulting (RNT) to assess the vulnerability of NCWCD reservoirs and
water transport infrastructure. Boulder Reservoir will be included in this assessment. City staff
has been tracking the status of this study. Part of the study has been finalized for the reservoirs
in the upper section of the NCWCD system. This study indicates that Carter Lake is not likely
to support establishment of a viable mussel population. The report for Boulder Reservoir is not
complete or available but is expected in the near future. Preliminary input from RNT in August
2009 indicated the following vulnerability for Boulder Reservoir:
• Boulder Reservoir has calcium concentrations to support mussels (>15 mg/L). The only
other Bureau of Reclamation or NCWCD facilities that had high enough calcium were
Green and Ruedi Reservoirs, but the temperatures were much lower compared to
Boulder Reservoir.
• Veligers (larval stage) can survive 12 days in low-calcium water (e.g., Carter Lake (10
mg/L) and Feeder Canal). So potentially, a veliger in Carter Lake could travel down
canal in a day and get to Boulder Reservoir where it would find suitable water quality
conditions for growth and reproduction.
2009 City of Boulder Pilot Program SummM
The pilot inspection program during the 2009/2010 boating season involved ANS inspections,
tagging, and monitoring and data collection for the all watercraft entering the Boulder
Reservoir beginning April 2, 2009. The program focused primarily on controlling vessel entry
into Boulder Reservoir. The two primary methods of control were;
• Boat inspections, using a `clean, drain and dry' decontamination approach to those
boats classified as high risk for transporting aquatic nuisance species. Inspections
were done by certified city staff at the Level II certification detail as outlined in the
State ANS handbook.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 28
• The main branch of CDOW and Tommy's Slalom Shop were approved alternative
sources of inspection/decontamination services. Valid documentation showing a
State of Colorado Inspection Seal Receipt produced from these locations were
accepted as demonstrates proof of approved decontamination by hot water wash.
The pilot program was kicked off in March of 2009 with several public meetings. The purpose
of these meetings was to educate boaters about the zebra and quagga mussel program as well as
to inform them about the ANS program at the Boulder Reservoir. The ANS Coordinator from
the CDOW was able to attend one of those meetings as a direct source of information about
statewide activities at other state lakes. Initially, many patrons were unhappy and skeptical
about the program. Through out the season we made adjustments and worked out challenges.
By the end of the season all of the patrons were well educated and understood the process and
inspection routine. (See Attachment A below for 2009/2010 Pilot Program details)
Lessons Learned from 2009/2010 Boating Season
The major thing Reservoir staff learned was that a certified inspector needs to be on duty at all
hours that the entrance gates are open. Other lessons include:
• Education and communication with the patrons was the most important piece to making
the program successful.
• It was a rough start due to new procedures for boaters but once patrons learned the
routine it went much smoother
• Patrons were frustrated with lack of hot water wash station at Boulder Reservoir. If hot
water wash was desired, boat owners had to drive to Denver to have watercraft
decontaminated
• It was helpful that patrons were experiencing ANS programs on most bodies of water
they visited outside of Boulder.
• Feedback from the boaters stated that City of Boulder staff inspectors were more
thorough and consistent than most other waterbody inspection locations.
• Consistent oversight of reservoir entry is optimum for security and enforcement of ANS
prevention procedures.
• In order to use staff effectively, all reservoir staff need to be trained as certified
inspectors.
• Many patrons indicated they were willing to pay more for enhanced services such as
longer gate hours or hot water wash station.
Staff will be attending a CDOW annual task force meeting on January 28, 2010 to review
statewide 2009 accomplishments and lessons learned. Input from this meeting will be used to
further inform 2010 plans for Boulder Reservoir.
Upcoming 2010/2011
It is staffs' recommendation to continue the ANS inspection program into 2010/2011 for
Boulder Reservoir. The ANS program is to be addressed within the Boulder Reservoir Master
Plan with recommendations upon completion in mid-2010. Management activities for the
upcoming season have already begun and master plan recommendations may not be in place
until 2011. Staff requests that this program be approved as a two-year implementation program
to allow for consistent implementation of recommendations from the past season operations, as
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 29
well as potential recommendations resulting from the master plan. As part of the two-year
implementation process, staff also recommends changing the current Lake Patrol Coordinator
(LPC) position from a .75 FTE to a two-year fixed term position (1.00 FTE) to facilitate proper
and congruent ANS program implementation as well maintain lake patrol and safety services.
This past season, approximately 80% of LPC time was spent related to the ANS pilot program
implementation. With the additional duties of lake patrol and safety, this position was often in
an overtime status and areas of the reservoir not regularly patrolled. It is expected that less time
is needed for the ANS program, but depends on the level of service the city wishes to provide
for that program. In addition, a long term reservoir employee will be leaving, creating a
significant gap in management operations and experience.
A two-year fixed term position would provide:
• Water patrol, safety and security;
• Year-round patrol of the reservoir and attention to the north shore area;
• Year-round coordination of the ANS program (training and supervision of
inspectors, education to patrons, inspection services to public), and;
• Program development and consistency for staff and public expectation of ANS
program.
• 2010/2011 Season: $45,000 @, $16/hr (includes benefits).
Evaluating the past year's program and reviewing the areas of success as well as areas of
needed improvement have given staff a better perspective for the program goal. Staff has
identified areas of the program that are baseline items needed for minimal prevention services
and what areas are more flexible or able to modify based on budget and staffing availability.
Using the State ANS Handbook as a guideline to provide baseline service levels for incoming
boaters, staff has assembled a `service level menu' of options that could be implemented to
develop a continuing ANS prevention program. (See Attachment B.) Each item has an
associated cost (known or estimated) and could be implemented at the appropriate level given:
• Its relative support to ANS prevention and meeting state guidelines.
• Ability to implement based on budgetary expense.
• Ability to implement based on staff availability.
Establishing a baseline program service level is necessary to have a minimum program standard
before adding other service items that may add expense or workload to the existing staff. It is
not a staff recommendation to revert to this level of service, but be able to measure future
service levels. A baseline service level that can be provided currently would be:
1. Verification of boater's State Decontamination Inspection Seal upon entry to
Boulder Reservoir with no inspection services; and,
2. Additional educational and regulatory signage about ANS issues at other entry
points and places where currently there are no signs or information about ANS.
Again, this is a simply a standard and reflects the most minimal effort by the city and still have
an ANS prevention program. This level of service varies from the 2009/2010 season in that
entry and exit inspections were also carried out by staff as well as the tagging portion of the
program. All front entry personnel were trained and certified inspectors to assist in the
inspection process.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 30
Using this baseline service level, the ANS program would still support the state guidelines to
assist in the prevention of ANS infestation and place the majority of the responsibility for
compliance with ANS regulations upon boaters by requiring proof of decontamination. (See
Attachment B)
Options to build on the baseline service level are outlined in Attachment B. The costs of the
boat inspection program options for 2010 must be weighed against the costs of response to
establishment of mussel populations in Boulder Reservoir. Utilities' staff have developed
preliminary information about the potential cost and operation impacts of mussel populations to
Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant. Actions to address the impacts of mussels would all
have on-going staffing requirements in addition to current operations. Preliminary estimates
for response include increased capital costs at greater than $400,000 and annual operating costs
at greater than $200,000.
Hot Water Decontamination Station
City staff submitted an application for CDOW grant application for a grant for $19,500 from
the CDOW for a decontamination station for the Boulder Reservoir. City funds of $6,500
would be required to match this grant, if received. Staff has received feedback from CDOW
that state grant funding is likely to be granted in 2010. Anticipated annual cost for operating a
station is approximately $2,000 (pers. communication with Standley Lake staff).
Staff would implement decontamination by appointment to decrease the need to have multiple
staff working at the same time. There would be a fee (undetermined) for all hot water
decontaminations.
The availability of a hot water decontamination station on site would allow for better customer
service and provide the opportunity for staff to provide options for boaters. A decontamination
station would give boaters the option of quarantine or decontamination on-site at Boulder
Reservoir and decrease the amount of driving to the CDOW headquarters in Denver to have
watercraft decontaminated. During a wet year, drain and dry quarantine procedures may not be
as effective. A hot water decontamination station provides an enhanced preventative measure
to introduction of mussels during wet years. This would also provide an option to allow boats
that have been to other bodies of water to access the Boulder Reservoir in a timelier manner.
In addition to ANS, often boats have oils and other contaminants on surfaces and motors that
may impact water quality of Boulder Reservoir. The ability to clean boat of other residues or
contaminants is beneficial to maintaining water quality and assists in meeting water quality
standards identified in the Source Water Master Plan. Providing this service at the reservoir
would also be consistent with the city transportation goals of decreasing carbon emissions from
car travel.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 31
(ATTACHMENT A)
2009 Pilot Program Review
Pilot Program Roll-out Procedure
✓ Phase 1: Prepare and choose options and refining final plan.
✓ Phase 2: Communication to staff and patrons. Initial implementation of plan and training
of standard staff and seasonal staff.
✓ Phase 3: Implementation and adjustments through out season, continued training for
staff, ongoing education of patrons.
✓ Phase 4: Evaluation, and preparation for 2010 plan, ongoing maintenance of plan, data
summary, etc.
2009/2010 Implementation Plan
Large and small trailered watercraft:
• All vessels in the medium to high risk category were required to have an initial inspection
and red tag decontamination by draining and drying prior to being able to launch onto the
reservoir.
• Reservoir staff accepted State of Colorado Inspection Seal Receipt as evidence of
completion of inspection and decontamination from the CDOW main office branch and
Tommy's Slalom Shop only.
• An inspection and tagging fee of $25.00 was assessed as part of the pilot inspection
program.
• A green tag was issued once the boat had undergone decontamination by meeting the
drain/dry requirement or a boat owner provides a State of Colorado Inspection Seal
receipt that will allow access to Boulder Reservoir.
• Anytime a vessel left the reservoir they had the option to obtain a green tag. If the vessel
returned with the green tag intact and receipt matching the serial number on tag, they
went through a brief inspection and were allowed access to the reservoir.
• If a vessel returned with no tag or a broken green tag they had two options:
o Go through another inspection, receive a red tag and begin the drain and dry
decontamination period again, OR
o They could have taken their vessel to an approved decontamination location, have
the vessel decontaminated and return with valid certification.
All other watercraft, including Non-Trailered Water Craft (NTWC) went through a brief
inspection each time they came through the front gates. These were standard inspections which
include confirmation that craft was cleaned, drained and dry and craft surfaces were felt to
identify any bumps or other evidence of veligers or adult mussels.
Boat Inspection Alternatives
The approved locations for decontamination were the Denver CDOW main office and Tommy's
Slalom Shop in Boulder. We had planned to accept additional locations after CDOW Quality
Control checks. No QC check reports were distributed. Our program has not expanded to accept
decontamination/tagging from any other locations.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 32
Other Inspection Alternatives Investi ag ted:
Staff had identified two potential contractors who could supplement staff inspections on and/or
offsite in order to provide additional flexibility for the boating public. After further investigation
we found it to be more cost effective and customer service oriented to train boat inspectors and
have them on-site all hours the reservoir was open. In 2009 we were unable to offer
decontamination via hot water as an option.
Staff also explored the possibility of working with local private car wash facilities for providing
hot wash decontamination services for boats. Current car wash locations were considered for set
up for this type of decontamination. Preliminary feedback obtained from car wash operators
indicated additional equipment would be needed and it was not likely that the amount of
additional customers for this service would justify the upgrade expense.
2009 Pilot Inspection Program Highlights
Staff Training
• State Level 3 Certification: Three standard staff (also able to train Level 2).
• State Level 2 Certification: Twenty three seasonal staff and two standard staff.
Inspections
• 3,890 estimated inspection hours (April - December).
(This time includes all seasonal boat inspection time as well as 0.75 FTE
coordinator position.
• Peak inspection months: May, June, July and August.
• High number of inspections continued into September.
• Average number of monthly inspections: 476
• Average number of daily inspections: 57
Inspection Fees and Generated Revenue
City costs for inspections prior to drain and dry decontamination were offset by the following
fees for inspections:
Drain and dry inspection and red tagging (new fee) $25.00
Projected Fee Revenue: $9,975
Number of boats charged new fee: 224
Actual inspection revenue collected: $5,600
Program Cost Projected projected through Dec
Seasonal Inspection Staffing $53,284 $46,245
LP position $12,000 $20,101*
Signage $ 2,000 $ 1,000
Inspection Seal/Tags $ 800 $ 5,025**
Total $68,084 $72,371
* This position did not start until June. About 3/4 of time was spent on ANS coordination.
This includes all materials for tagging (tags, wire, duplicate copy receipts and
documentation paperwork).
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 33
Inspection Numbers
The numbers shown below reflect inspections conducted from March through December 2009.
Beginning in October 2009, standard staff covered about 20 hours per week for the months of
October, November and nine hours a week in December, which resulted in saving $1,976 in
seasonal inspection staffing costs.
Boulder Reservoir Boat Inspections
700
600 57
500
414
400
Number of Inspections ■ Standard Inspections
300 3 296 ■ High Risk Inspections
2 2 ■ Non Trailered Watercrafts
200 90 1
of
100 102 17 9198
71
2 7 _3 l'
March May July Sep Nov
Month
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 34
Boat Inspection for March - October 2009
2009 GREEN RED NTWC
March 0 20 0
April 34 102 0
May 479 190 117
June 414 42 253
Jul 691 52 319
August 571 47 267
Set 296 10 191
Oct 91 5 98
Nov 37 2 74
Total number of inspections = 4.289
Green- includes all standard inspections of incoming and outgoing craft.
Red - all high risk inspections including quarantines.
NTWC- includes all Non-Trailered Water Craft.
The following is a table which summarizes the types of 2009 boat permits, whether permits were
sold to City of Boulder residents and the amount of revenue generated by each type of boat
permit.
TYPE OF PASS # Permits Sold Revenue
2009 2009
Season Power
Non-resident 119 $ 70,681
Resident 85 $ 37,970
Weekday Power
Non-resident 32 $ 8,940
Resident 19 $ 4,320
Season Sail (112
motors)
Non-resident 8 $ 2,065
Resident 28 $ 5,880
Weekday Sail
Non-resident 4 $ 520
Resident 0 $ -
Small craft permit
only 642 $ 6,290
TOTALS 937 $ 136,666
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 35
ATTACHMENT B
Inspection Program Options for 2010/2011
The grid below shows the level of ANS program services that could be provided for Boulder
Reservoir. The minimal service level acceptable that would still support the CDOW State ANS
Handbook guidelines (Level 4 Response) and adhere to the city 8-3-3 Emergency Rule
governing ANS management would be the established `Baseline Service Level'. This would be
a normal entry gate contact with boaters, who would be required to show a valid inspection
seal/receipt received from a certified state inspector. Additional measures would include
educational and regulatory signs to enhance visitor awareness and knowledge of the ANS issue
as it relates to the protection of Boulder Reservoir. Boats deemed a low biological risk per state
guidelines (canoes, kayaks) would not be regularly inspected by staff, unless conditions warrant
a staff inspection.
Any additional services added are shown and relevant cost to implement each level of service.
Staff recommended level of service (including Baseline) is shown in green and essentially
reflects the inspection services in 2009/2010.
Baseline Service Level (Meets State ANS guidelines)
Recommended Added Service Level
Increased Service Level
Other Potential Service Options
Service Menu cost Example Example
Verification of boater's State Certified Inspection Seal - staffing $6,000 $6,000 $6,000
Gate staffing no certified inspector 9 months $22,640
Gate staffing with no certified inspector 12 months $27,490
Educational / Regulatory Signs $2,000 $2,000 $2,000
Materials and Supplies for Inspection Services $5,000 $5,000
Asphalt pad for Decontamination Station $6,000
Decontamination Station (State grant matching funds) $6,500
Associated Utility cost for Decontamination Station $2,000
37 FTE for Inspection Services implementation/coordination $16,000
.75 FTE for Inspection Services implementation/coordination $20,000
1.00 FTE for Inspection Services implementation/coordination $45,000 $45,000
9 month Seasonal Staffing for Inspections $60,000
12 month Seasonal Staffing for Inspections $75,0001 1 $75,000
$8,000 $133,000
The pros and cons of each service level are reviewed on the following pages.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 36
Baseline Service Level
Pros:
- Startup costs already provided.
- Basics of program already in place.
- Will focus on education outreach.
- Program would be simplified and specific.
Cons:
- No inspection program may result in higher contamination risk.
- Education and information about ANS will be limited and fewer public
contacts.
- Decrease in reservoir revenue from inspections.
- Meets minimal Response Level (4) as recommended by state guidelines.
- Small boats or boats identified as Low Risk may not be inspected.
- No other agency tags or receipts would be recognized (unless sanctioned by
the State or agreement between agencies).
- Not consistent with minimal programs at most other boatable waters
- May result in decrease service in other areas of reservoir due to no dedicated
staffing.
Recommended Service Level
Pros:
- Boating season remains the same.
- Additional staffing allows for longer fee collection period.
- Consistent with State Parks ANS Guidelines.
- Inspections available all times that access is allowed.
- Education opportunities can be focused at front gate.
- Consistent oversight of reservoir entry throughout year for optimum security
and enforcement of ANS prevention procedures
- Other visitor services are maintained.
- North Shore/Coot Lake received some dedicated attention.
Cons:
- Budget supplement is difficult with economic projections.
- Not all points of entry/access are always covered (north shore, Coot Lake).
- Additional cost to boaters and recreationalists.
- May divert some small vessel access to north shore/Coot Lake to avoid
inspections or fees.
- Increased risk of contamination.
- Less contact with boaters and general public.
Increased Service Level
Pros:
- Allows for on site decontamination.
- Provides additional fee revenue.
- Assists in reduced driving by boaters to other decontamination sites (reduced
carbon emissions).
- Appropriate alternative to `Drain and Dry" method.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 37
- Assists in reducing residue and other contaminants on boats that may affect
Boulder Reservoir water quality.
Cons
- Would schedule boats by appointment and not be as flexible for on-the-spot
decontamination.
- Issues surrounding waste water disposal.
- Unit is portable, so has a set-up and take-down time period.
Other Service Level Options (e.g. reduced staffing) - Shown on chart by grate
Pros:
- Lower staffing costs.
- Lower overall program costs.
Cons:
- Less staff ability to cover other access points (North Shore/Coot Lake).
- Lower service level than 2009 and changes visitor expectations.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 38
ATTACHMENT G:
Evaluation of West Shore Use Options
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4:
Status Quo Habitat Conservation Area Low-Impact Use Expanded Use
(To emphasize protection of wetlands, sensitive wildlife (To provide a safe, multi-use trail system around the (To enhance the user experience and maximize user
and water quality on the West Shore) reservoir while minimizing impacts to wetlands and safety)
wildlife
• No city-initiated trail development in the West Shore • Designate area as Habitat Conservation Area (restrict • City-initiated and funded soft-surface, multi-use
trail • A multi-use trail through the wetlands and closer to the
area (a county-initiated trail detached from the road use and access to the road right-of-way) primarily along the east side of the 51St Street right-of- west shoreline
primarily on city land. The trail would be
could still be developed in the road right-of-way) . No city-initiated trail development in the West Shore way, connecting the North Shore trail system to the a combination
soft-surface trail and boardwalk
• Continue aeromodeling use with seasonal wildlife area area (a county-initiated trail, detached from the road main entry gate area of the reservoir. (Trail may be .
Restrict use and access to the multi-use trail
closures as needed could still be developed in the right-of-way) partially in county right-of-way where there are . Modify aeromodeling fly zone to minimize
conflicts with
Description . Phase out aeromodeling use resource protection conflicts such as wetlands, mature trail use and continue seasonal wildlife area closures
trees or prairie dogs) as needed
• Designate area to the east of the trail as Habitat
Conservation Area (restrict use and access to multi-
use trail)
• Continue aeromodeling use with seasonal wildlife area
closures as needed
Option 1 continues the current level of use and habitat Option 2 has the least amount of impact on wetlands Option 3 provides an off-road, multi-use trail connection
Option 4 provides the most pleasant and safe off-road
protection with minimal additional costs. However, there and wildlife on the West Shore among all the options around the reservoir while maintaining the current
experience for pedestrians, runners and cyclists.
Key Pros & would be no city-initiated trail development in the area to and reduces impacts relative to current use. However, habitat protection level on the West Shore.
Significant However, there are significant impacts to wetlands and
Cons improve connectivity and safety for pedestrians and there would be no city-initiated trail development to capital costs are involved in construction of the trail
and wildlife habitat, resulting in very significant capital costs
cyclists. improve connectivity in the area and there would be supporting facilities. for mitigation.
capital costs of removing the aeromodeling facility and
restoring the area.
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS: $10,000 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS: $100,000 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS: $500,000+ ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS: $1,000,000+
Estimated (fencing and signage) (fencing, signage, removal of aeromodeling facility and (trail and bridge construction, 55th St. parking lot (trail and boardwalk
construction, wetland mitigation, 55th
Costs restoration of habitat) improvements and toilets, fencing, signage and wetland Street parking lot improvements and toilets, fencing)
(includes unmet ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL COST: $30,000 mitigation)
needs) (weed management) ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL COST: $30,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATIONAL COST: $60,000
(weed management) ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATIONAL COST: $45,000 (weed management, trail, habitat maintenance and
(weed management, trail maintenance and enforcement enforcement staff)
staff)
Current Conditions: Removal of aeromodeling use and restoration of area Same as Option 1 except: . Permanently impacts roughly 1 acre of wetland which
• The area is one of the largest and most diverse, lower would improve wetland and wildlife habitat conditions . Potentially impacts wetlands along the right-of-way
would require 2 acres of mitigation
elevation, habitat blocks in the Boulder Valley. relative to Option 1. • Increases potential weed infestation . Fragments wetland and significantly impacts
habitat by
Wetlands, riparian areas and robust native grasslands • Increases use of the area by pedestrians, dogs and altering hydrology, and introducing weed species
contribute to the productivity and habitat complexity of cyclists may have some indirect impact on bird • Significantly impacts use of the habitat by many
rare
Wetlands and the area species nesting and foraging in the area and declining birds and other sensitive animal species
Wildlife • Over 150 acres wetland rated by the city as one of the by reducing size of buffer and introducing people and
most exemplary wetlands in the Boulder Valley Dense equipment to the area
vegetation along the creeks helps remove sediment • Direct loss of wetlands and grassland decreased the
and nutrients from flows entering the reservoir. The overall effectiveness of the overall habitat in the area.
large size of the wetlands, their dense vegetation and • Fragments the prairie dog habitat and reduces the
their location in a semi-protected landscape greatly viability and use of this area by raptor species
increases wetland value
• Several animal species of local, county or state
concern including Bald Eagles, Osprey, American
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 39
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4:
Status Quo Habitat Conservation Area Low-Impact Use Expanded Use
(To emphasize protection of wetlands, sensitive wildlife (To provide a safe, multi-use trail system around the (To enhance the user experience and maximize user
and water quality on the West Shore) reservoir while minimizing impacts to wetlands and safety)
wildlife
Bittern and Northern Harriers are found in this wetland
complex
• Upland area is either private land, prairie dog habitat
or aeromodeling facility. The prairie dog habitat
provides a food source for many of the bird species
that nest, roost or forage in the area
• No direct impacts to water quality in the reservoir due Same as Option 1 except that there is a decreased risk Same as Option 1. • Potentially increases
impacts to water quality in the
Water Quality to extensive wetlands and limited access to the area of aquatic nuisance species infestation by further limiting reservoir from sedimentation, human-caused
impacts
and Aquatic • Some risk of aquatic nuisance species infestation from access to the West Shore. and other parameters currently mitigated by the
Nuisance small watercraft launching existing wetland systems
Species • Potential increase in risk of aquatic nuisance species
infestation through non-motorized boat launching off
the West Shore
Currently, there are safety issues for pedestrians and Same as Option 1. . Provides a safer and more desirable trail connection Same as Option 3 except that the
trail may impact one
cyclists using roadway due to poor sight distance and around the reservoir (relative to the status quo) which property owner on 515` Street,
heavy pedestrian and cyclist use. will enhance the experience for hikers, runners and
Social Impacts cyclists to this area of the reservoir
• Supports community athletic events and commuter
use and results in fewer road closures for small events
• Potential impacts to existing trees in right-of-way on
private property across from Eagle Trailhead
Boulder County Open Space and Mountain Parks Open Space and Mountain Parks Same as Option 3-
* Transportation Department periodically receives • Removal of the aeromodeling field would provide • Trail would increase operational costs and demand for
comments from the public about safety concerns and greater protection for the wildlife in the adjacent additional facilities at the Eagle trailhead. (Estimated
undesirable condition of 515' Street for pedestrians, grassland preserves. annual cost for maintenance -$5,000. Estimated
Impacts to cyclists and runners capital cost for parking lot expansion and toilet
Other • Although 51St and 55'" streets are signed as "no Boulder County facilities - $100,000)
Departments parkin", cars are often parked in the right-of-way near • Closure of 55"" Street parking lot may result in more
and Agencies the 55 Street trailhead on busy weekends parking along the road, requiring additional Boulder County
enforcement of no-parking restrictions. Safety • Trail improves safety along 51St Street and reduces
concerns would continue. number of road closures for special events
• Trail could potentially impact functioning or
maintenance of roadway and drainage
Comparison to • Consistent with best management practice to avoid • Consistent with best management practice to avoid • Consistent with trend toward providing safe, detached
• Consistent with trend toward providing safe, detached
Best Practices impacts to wetlands and sensitive wildlife species impacts to wetlands and sensitive wildlife species multi-use trails along roadways multi-use
trails along roadways
• Consistent with best management practice to avoid • Not consistent with best practice of avoiding impacts
and Emerging impacts to wetlands and sensitive wildlife species and disturbances to wetlands and sensitive wildlife
Trends habitat through fragmentation
Potential ordinance needed to designate Habitat • Potential ordinance needed to designate Habitat • Under city code, new trails (including boardwalks)
are
Conservation Area. Conservation Area prohibited in regulatory wetlands. A variance to this
Regulatory • May require local and federal wetland permits and restriction would be required
Implications wetland mitigation • Wetland mitigation (2X impacted acreage) would be
required
• May require a federal wetland permit and city prairie
do permit
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 40
ATTACHMENT H:
BoLdder Re vcvr-rjr Mosier Plan
Pr tI , r:r~ T, ail =1fRrr:m
IJsi;GrVl1
f : E,asting Mum ~
~taLi Id Er l 4+11 -21 Umbll I U A T1`311
5stlti 5trset pop nwr
P irk i ng L of voce and 6kglrL
coot COrldd 5
PrnFosed MLNU-
` - Lake ~ LseTrar
=r tmn [D[g6Gnleasnr
F Fs1f k Future Multi- ■ ■ ■
Lse y ~ C` rt h f"i o r onnecral
Ttion
T
t , I -:r : I - Iran-onlx
Tian
_ ~ . [~0g64R 16a6hy
Idlest Shore PTDPN.M
Ped"arwnnr
T"I
z [Dogs rnwr
E E?• {`r I._ J S I' voce and smart
3+10
imiii w-7 rl ,a . _ COfrtld}
- f er se rv of r R,egu<atea
vwenaM Area
4 rnain wrvrr gate
South Shore
r r ' .
Fite Training = ;.!h
~ent?r
1:4 11
U.,p 1:4
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 41
ATTACHMENT I:
Evaluation of North Shore and Coot Lake Use Options
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Current Use and Access Current Use/Reduced Access Expanded Use and Access
(To maintain a balance between recreational use of the North Shore and (To emphasize protection of wildlife habitat and water quality, and reduce the (To allow swimming
on the North Shore)
habitat protection by continuing with the status quo) risk of aquatic nuisance species infestation)
• Continue the current passive uses along the North Shore and Coot Lake. Same as Option 1 but including: • Allow swimming in designated area along the north shoreline
during summer
• Improve the existing trail system and build a pedestrian-only trail for • Closure of the 55th St. parking (while maintaining a multi-use trail season (May through
August) and provide support staff and facilities.
access to the north shoreline of the reservoir. connection) in order to reduce risk of illegal swimming, access to the West • Implement a user or parking fee system.
• Maintain the 55th Street parking lot at current capacity. Shore and non-motorized boat launching from the North Shore. . Allow dog swimming in designated areas only
along the north shoreline to
• Continue voice and sight control requirement for dogs and continue to • Reduce access to northwest shoreline in the Dry Creek inlet to protect keep dogs out of the
swim beach area (current dog swimming along the
Description allow dog swimming in Coot Lake and on the North Shore. wetland and aquatic habitat. south and east sides of Coot Lake would continue).
• Require dogs to be on leash on the trail west and north of Coot Lake
Allowed uses include: hiking, biking, dog walking/swimming, horseback (current voice and sight regulations in all other areas would continue). Allowed uses includes
swimming (human), hiking, biking, dog
riding, picnicking walking/swimming, horseback riding, picnicking
Allowed uses include: hiking, biking, dog walking/swimming, horseback
Prohibited uses include: riding, picnicking Prohibited uses include:
Swimming (human), boat launching, skydiving Boat launching, skydiving
Prohibited uses include:
Swimming (human), boat launching, skydiving
Option 1 maintains the current balance between habitat protection and Option 2 increases wildlife habitat protection by reducing access to the Option 3 expands swimming
opportunities in the reservoir and generates
recreational use of the North Shore and Coot Lake. Current parking at 55th northwest area of the reservoir. Removal of the 55th Street parking lot revenue from North Shore
and Coot Lake use. However, it has significant
Street, Coot Lake, and Tom Watson Park accommodates current visitation reduces the risk of aquatic nuisance species in the reservoir by discouraging capital and operational
cost implications. A user fee system would be
Key Pros & levels, however, does not provide for any future increase in visitation to the potential boating access from that area. The option has the lowest capital implemented
to recoup some of the operational costs. The option increases
Cons North Shore, Coot Lake or Tom Watson Park. improvement costs of all the options but increases parking demand potential water quality impacts from shoreline development
and human-body
somewhat at Tom Watson Park and Coot Lake. related contaminants and significantly increases parking demand at Tom
Watson Park and Coot Lake.
Estimated CAPITAL: $400,000 CAPITAL: $350,000 CAPITAL: $2,000,000+
Costs (trail improvements, toilets at Coot Lake, new bridge over canal, 55th Street (Same as Option 1 less 55th Street improvements) (Option 1 costs plus beach improvements,
Coot Lake parking expansion, user
(includes parking lot improvements, new fishing pier at Coot Lake) fee system, operations building, water and sewer utilities, fencing)
unmet ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $30,000
needs) ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $30,000 (maintenance, enforcement, habitat restoration) ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $300,000
(maintenance, enforcement, habitat restoration)
Estimated ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE: $0 ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE: $0 ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE: $100,000
Annual
Revenue
• The area is one of the largest and most diverse, lower elevation, habitat • Reduced impacts to wetlands with access in designated areas only. • Increased access and
use of the shoreline and water will decrease habitat
blocks in the Boulder Valley. Wetlands, riparian areas and robust native quality in what is one of the largest and most diverse habitat blocks found in
Wetlands grasslands contribute to the productivity and habitat complexity of the area. lower elevations of the Boulder Valley.
and Wildlife • Continued impacts to wetlands and wildlife on the west side of Coot Lake • Creation of beach would reduce amount of shoreline habitat.
and areas along the North Shore from unmanaged access by pedestrians
and dogs.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 42
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Current Use and Access Current Use/Reduced Access Expanded Use and Access
(To maintain a balance between recreational use of the North Shore and (To emphasize protection of wildlife habitat and water quality, and reduce the (To allow swimming
on the North Shore)
habitat protection by continuing with the status quo) risk of aquatic nuisance species infestation)
Water
Quality and • Potential for contaminants in the reservoir from illegal swimming/body • Reduces potential for contaminants in the reservoir from illegal swimming • Increases
likelihood of contaminants in the reservoir from swimming/body
contact on the North Shore and dog access to the water. on the North Shore. contact and dog access to the water.
Aquatic • Illegal boat launching on North Shore from the 55th Street parking lot • Reduces risk of ANS infestation from illegal boat launching on the North • Reduces
risk of ANS infestation from illegal boat launching on the North
Nuisance poses some risk of ANS infestation. Shore. Shore (increased staff presence).
Species
• Provides a quiet venue for passive recreation including hiking, cycling, Same as Option 1 plus: Option 2 plus:
running, and wildlife viewing and dog running. • Increases parking demand somewhat at Tom Watson Park and Coot Lake. • Increases swimming opportunities at the
reservoir and increases visitation
• Current annual visitation through the 55th Street trailhead is roughly to the North Shore.
150,000 and 500,000 through the Coot Lake trailhead. • Changes the quality of the experience on the North Shore and Coot Lake
Visitors and • Current parking at 55th Street, Coot Lake, and Tom Watson Park generally for visitors from a quiet, passive use area to a more populated use
area.
accommodates current visitation levels (except on busy summer • User fee would be charged to all visitors to the area (runners, swimmers,
Neighbors weekends). cyclists, etc.).
• Little noise impact from North Shore and Coot Lake area. • Increases parking demand at 55th Street, Coot Lake and Tom Watson Park.
• Likely increases ambient noise levels from increased number of people and
swimmers in the area.
• Increases traffic on 63rd Street.
Open Space and Mountain Parks Open Space and Mountain Parks City Police and Fire
Impacts to • Increasing use of the 55th Street trailhead will create increasing demand for • Closure of the 55th Street parking lot without eliminating the trailhead will
• Increases need for safety and enforcement services.
Other and use of the Eagle Trailhead as an alternate parking location and may put more demand on the Eagle Trailhead and may result in a need for
Departments result in a need for OSMP to make improvements to the parking lot at an OSMP to make improvements to the parking lot at an approximate cost of
and approximate cost of $100,000 (e.g. lot expansion, pit toilets). $100,000 (e.g. lot expansion, pit toilets).
Agencies City Transportation Department and Boulder County
• Increases traffic on 63rd Street. Also increases potential for illegal parking
along 55th Street to access trailhead.
• Development of swim beach and additional trails will require city wetlands
Regulatory permit and possible mitigation.
implications . Amendments to dog leash regulations may be needed.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 43
ATTACHMENT J:
Proposed Special Events Policy
What are Special Events? Current Practice Proposed Policy
(Based on 2010 schedule)
• 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. Key Pros & Cons . Increasing the number of special events permitted at the reservoir relative to the current
practice) will involve more capital and annual operational costs, however, increased revenue will
more than recover those costs.
• Increasing the number of special events will increase impacts to visitors through park closures
What are "Signature" Events? and delayed openings and to neighbors through an increase in traffic along 51St Street.
• Signature events are those special events involving 1200 or more Maximum Events Permitted - High Season (April - September)
participants or requiring public entryway or high use area restrictions
or closures (e.g. gate or boating closures). Special events per day 2 2
Where may Special Events take place? Special events per month 10 20
• Special events may be permitted for activities using the South Shore, Signature events per month 2 2
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 Park or high use area closures per month 1 2
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 Maximum Events Permitted - Low Season (October - March)
management areas unless it is a previously permitted event.
• Pedestrian-only trails and habitat conservation areas may not be used
Special events per day <1 1
for special events.
Special events per month 1 10
Signature events per month <1 2
Park or high use area closures per month 0 2
Additional events may be permitted at staff discretion if the following standards will be met:
1. No amplified sound before 7a.m. and after 7 p.m.
2. The event will not result in the park exceeding the maximum number of closure days.
3. The anticipated parking need does not exceed 2000.
4. County permits for sheriff and road use may be obtained (if applicable)
Special events involving 100 or more participants will not be permitted on the July 4th or Memorial
Day holidays. Preference will be given to returning events.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 44
Im act Analysis
Current Practice Proposed Policy
(Based on 2010 schedule)
Estimated Costs and Revenue: ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: $960,000 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: $910,000
(includes unmet needs) (improvements to overflow lots and entry gate, new equipment) (same as current plus additional equipment)
ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL COST: $42,0001year ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL COST: $57,0001year
(event coordination, maintenance, parking and boat inspection staff) (same as current plus additional maintenance and parking staff)
REVENUE: $300,000/year POTENTIAL REVENUE: $500,000+/year
Water Quality and Aquatic Nuisance • Currently, there is a minimal risk of human body-related contaminants from swimming • Potential increase in contaminants related to
body contact (depending on type and size of
Species events. events).
• Zebra and quagga mussels have not been detected in the reservoir or Coot Lake. There • Minimal increase in aquatic nuisance species risk relative to boating
events (depending on
is currently a low to medium to risk of aquatic nuisance infestation from special events. type of events).
Social Impacts • The reservoir is currently a regional facility with annual participation in special events at • Potentially decreases the number of boat passholders.
over 205,000. . Incrementally increases the following.
• Special events at the reservoir contribute to the range of recreational opportunities - range of recreational opportunities in the community and support for local
businesses
available to the local and regional community. - number of closure days and delayed beach openings during the high season
• Signature events support general businesses in Boulder by attracting participants from - number of days with potential road closures and increased traffic on 51St
Street
other Front Range communities. - impacts to Fire Training Center access
• Five weekend closure days during the high season and delayed beach openings have an
impact on boaters, swimmers and other users of the South Shore.
• Access to parking on the South Shore is difficult or unavailable during large events.
• Traffic along 51St Street is increased on large event days.
• Large events impact the Fire Training Center by reducing the potential number of training
days (as long as access to FTC is through the main entry gate).
• Entry and exit traffic during large events can raise ambient noise levels in the
neighborhood.
• Running events along 51St Street can cause road closures, traffic and safety issues.
Impacts to Other Departments and • Boulder County transportation and sheriff departments (traffic, safety and road closures). Incremental increase in current impacts.
Agencies • Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (impacts to feeder canal, roads, bridge).
Comparison to Best Practices and Supports participatory outdoor sports events along the Front Range. Consistent with a rising demand for participatory outdoor sports
event venues along the
Emerging Trends Front Range.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE 45