HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - Draft Minutes - Water Resources - December 15, 2008 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Advisory Board
DATE OF MEETING: December 15, 2008
NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Suzanne Lieberman, 303-441-3266
NAMES OF MEMBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF, AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT:
BOARD MEMBERS -Bart Miller, Robin Byers, Kelly DiNatale, William DeOreo, Susan Iott
STAFF -Ned Williams; Bret Linenfelser; Carol Ellinghouse; Bob Harberg; Joe Taddeucci; Joanna Crean;
Dou las Sullivan; Kim Hutton; Rich Thornton, Pro'ect Mana er - HDR, Suzanne Lieberman, secretary.
WHAT TYPE OF MEETING (BOLD ONE) REGULAR] [SPECIAL] [QUASI-JUDICIAL]
Agenda Item 1-Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m.
Agenda Item 2 -Meeting Minutes -October 20, 2008 and November 17, 2008. (discussed after Agenda
Item 8).
Motion: Miller -Move to approve October 20, 2008 minutes as amended.
Seconded: Byers
Vote: 5-0 in favor, Motion passed
November 17 minutes will be reviewed at the January meeting.
Agenda Item 3 -Public Participation and Comment.
Chuck Howe: Thunderbird Lake. Howe and his neighborhood have tried to restore lake for five years to
pre-drought conditions. Disappointed at September PRAB meeting: great presentation but doesn't like no-
additional-water alternative; would like WRAB to consider fire-plug water alternative: the minimal way to
sustain the environment. Surrounding neighborhood has been given too little weight in decision-making
process. Miller: Do you prefer Option C (one fill/year) versus multiple-filUyear? Howe: Probably more
than one fill to compensate for evapotranspiration. DiNatale: Cause of lowered water table? Howe:
Probably delayed effect of residential development - impervious surface, runoff into storm sewers -sump
pumps haven't been working for 1.5 years compared to five years ago. Miller: This is non-agenda now
and then regular agenda item in January. DiNatale: Would residents be happy with additional 1.5 acre-feet
per year of water added? Howe: Yes. DiNatale: What if adding water -water level up but still vegetative
growth? Howe: Understanding is that vegetation would be managed. DeOreo: Linking lake with
stormwater system as part of detention? Howe: An alternative, yes, but not a reliable or high-quality
supply. You'd have to create an artificial wetland for infiltration to groundwater for stormwater into
aquifer but doesn't know anyone who has taken this alternative seriously. [Byers arrives at 6:14 p.m.]
Agenda Item 4
Matters from Board -
• DeNatale: Update on Water Conservation Supervisor position. Feedback from employees of
other cities that starting pay too low and that the posting gave the impression it had been
downgraded. Williams: Position is closed - it was upgraded from when Paul Lander occupied
position. Linenfelser: Will likely interview in January. Terms of reference for position modified
since Paul Lander was there. Williams: There is discretion in starting-salary, depending upon skill
and ability and equity with other positions. Linenfelser: Would be great to have someone selected
by the end of the month.
• DeOreo: Update on DeOreo's "Key Points of Boulder's Drought Plan and Action Items"
(100-house sample) study. [DeOreo distributes handout - p. A-29 in 2007 annual report.] 2007
single-family consumption class: 99.4 thousand gallons per single family account is average city-
wide -significantly lower than historical figure. If data in annual report is correct, we would have
expected shift in "re-use study" sample: signifies a drop in annual indoor water use, not just a
significant dro in outdoor use. Iott arrives at 6:25 .m.] So, are household o ulations
WRAB Summary
December 15, 2008
Page No. 1
decreasing or are people upgrading to higher-efficiency appliances? DiNatale: Reduction for
most providers along Front Range. DeOreo: Would be usefizl to revisit a few more homes to
confirm causes of reduction, also in 2008 annual report; useful for drought and source water
master plan. DiNatale: Even if it's a behavioral change, should have conservation program
reinforce the behavior. Miller: Not sure whether 2007 was an average year - would be useful to
have a few more years. DeOreo: Yes, definitely worth surveying more homes. Byers: Number of
people per household could have dropped (pops/scrapes study). 80% of the city is either 2 people
per house or 2 people with one or two kids - might be limited by survey methodology but results
still surprising.
¦ Byers: Back-flow prevention issue and well survey. Has learned that building codes statewide
are going to require fire sprinkler systems (until now it has only been commercial improvements);
if this is the case, need to get onboard with back-flow prevention because a lot more assemblies
will need to be inspected. Williams: If a fire sprinkler system is required in Boulder for new
construction, a separate line is required (a separate tap on the main). Byers: Another concern is
allocation of resources (only one person handling an already inundated position).
• Miller: Article on structural improvements on South Boulder Creek diversion.
Refi~rbishment of creek bed unrelated to flow -happy to see improvements. Ellinghouse: Yes,
Open Space involved with improving structures for fish passage.
Matters from Staff -
• Williams: Follow-up on Thunderbird Lake management options. Previously heard from Mr.
Howe. No staff presentation tonight but WRAB has Parks and Recreation memo on analysis and
options. Staff encouraged to get WRAB recommendation at January 12 meeting. WRAB should
contact staff if it wants a tour or contact staff with additional questions. Not intending to do new
studies but can provide simple responses at January meeting. Iott: Does memo explain
groundwater connection to lake sufficiently? Ellinghouse: No detail on subflow. Howe: Water
table only historic source of water for lake. Ellinghouse: Drain structure originally configured for
agriculture/irrigation ~-contributed to drop in water table and not likely to be as high as it was
histaricaIly. DiNatale: Any associated water rights? Ellinghouse: Yes, a seepage right. Old
decree -says it doesn't need to be administered as part of the creek. Drain can be kept under the
older water right to the extent that it captures old groundwater. Byers: How much has already
been spent on studies? Seems excessive, e.g. sampling. Fold sampling into education (grade
schools), get them to help with data collection and really make it a community asset. Linenfelser:
Stream teams -part of implementing programs. Howe: Great idea. Byers: Seems like a lot of
little things we could do to get more bang for the buck, e.g. using volunteers. Miller: Pages 8-9
(one fill Option C) total estimated cost? Williams: Breakdown on spreadsheet -Option Co
DiNatale: Why do we need a wetland permit if we're restoring it to natural levels? Williams: A
city wetlands permit is needed whenever a project impacts acity-mapped wetland. Byers: Yes, but
seems like you should be able to get a waiver on the permit. Williams: Staff will respond to these
concerns in January. Miller: Ask staff for other similar examples of ponds that have gotten
exemptions. DiNatale: And what would be the administrative procedure for waiving a wetlands
permit? Byers: How bad is the chlorine component and can we find a cheaper way to do it?
DiNatale: How is the city de-chlorinating for water-line flushing? DiNatale: Incremental costs to
treat the 1.5 acre feet of water? Ellinghouse: May and June, yes would just be looking at
treatment costs. Williams: Discussion in January will be about potentially different rate structure
for specific uses. Byers: The area has a pretty substantial monument (Arleigh Burke) -when was
it approved and what will happen if this is returned to a swamp? Was it included as part of master
plan for park? This is an important issue not discussed in report. Dig up old plats to inform
decision on this. Howe: Initially strong backing of retired military that maintains the memorial -
uncontrolled reed growth. Only response has been to cut a very small visual path to the memorial.
Yes, great concern about it. DiNatale: If this is a regular CWA 404 process and wetlands
encroach, allowed to restore wetlands to high-water line, so not sure how city can require more
stringent regulations. Williams: City has more stringent requirements than the federal government
-perfectly valid. Can always try to get a waiver or amend ordinance. Byers: Interested in
correlation between consumption drop and drop in water table in the surrounding neighborhoods?
Iott: Policy implications -has this been done at any other city lakes? Filling a lake in this fashion?
What is the risk of having to do this more frequently in other areas? Ellinghouse: Viele Lake is
the onl other lake that could otentiall be rabiematic. DiNatale: Maxwell Lake and
WRAB Summary
December 15, 2008
Page No. 2
Wonderland Lake receive direct diversions and seepage from Silver Lake Ditch, but this is not
treated water. Miller: Request for answers to these questions and concerns prior to the January
meeting.
+ Williams: Future WRAB meeting location. 29~' Street, City Library and West Senior Center
associated with costs and/or time restrictions. 13~' Street room available. Miller: Main
consideration -meeting location should be more convenient for public than it is currently (at
Yards) with access to mass transit. DeOreoByers: 29°i Street preferable to li~ Street in terms of
safety concerns (better lit, central, security, more public from movie theater). Miller: Williams
and Lieberman will research and confirm 29a' Street as a new meeting location.
Agenda Item 5 -Review and feedback on the AW WA QualServe peer review.
Crean have the presentation. On October 17, 2008 the American Water Works Association (AWWA)/
Water Environment Federation (WEF) peer review of the Utilities water and wastewater operations was
completed. A report was provided to WRAB and staff which contained both strengths and opportunities for
improvement. The next step is to develop an implementation plan to address the opportunities for
improvement. As the first part of developing an implementation plan, staff presented the proposed guiding
principles and prioritization method in order to solicit feedback from WRAB. The feedback will be
incorporated into the prioritization process and a draft implementation plan will be brought back for
consideration at the Jan. 12, 2009 WRAB meeting.
Public Comment: There was none. ,
WRAB discussion included: Training concerns are more critical than staff meetings; methodology for
determining how activities fit into Tier I versus Tier II, Tier I as a combination of essential, desirable and
_ discretionary items; prioritizations will be reflected in budget; approval for highlighting and providing
support mechanisms for activities staff already is handling well and whether any of these activities will
have to be sacrificed to accomplish some of the new ones -including changes in staffing and business
r...__ ~ processes; need for timeframes for Tier III activities (as with Tier I and Tier II activities); discussion on
,:--ems;- _ Peer Review agenda item at subsequent WRAB meetings and including a public hearing, request for
executive summary for public with next iteration.
__,r Agenda Item 6 -Review final Source Water Master Plan, Volume 2.
Taddeucci gave the presentation. Staff hand delivered an updated final draft of Volume I and a final draft of
Volume II of the SWMP at the November 17, 2008 meeting. During that meeting, staff and WRAB
members discussed that the WRAB anticipates taking two meetings (Dec.15 and Jan.12) to review,
comment and make a final recommendation on the SWMP.
The SWMP Community Study Group was informed by email that the public review, comment and
approval process will begin with the December and January WRAB meetings and that after a WRAB
recommendation, the SWMP will go to the city Planning Board and then on to City Council.
Public Comment: There was none.
WRAB Discussion included: Inserting revised pages (minor editorial changes: figures and added
discussion on water budget) since the November meeting; discussion of "philosophically similar" outdoor
water budgets on added redlined page, establishing monthly budgets, not charging city departments for
water use but monitored for improved long-term analysis -decision-making room for charging individual
departments in the future; "flexibility to manage" intended for different-sized application rates; praise for
report's historical treatment of water in Boulder; request for summary of initial Windy Gap costs (p. 3-7).
Need for citation in 3.2.2.4. Request for mention of point in time when Boulder's direct flow rights moved
upstream. Page 3-12 -Fraser River misspelled. 3.2.2.12 -need for another sentence about the over-topping
event; need to insert costs for hydropower and explanation of "cogeneration." 3.2.2.14 -explain conveyed
rights; whether to include a more explicit discussion of policy options (or avoid it altogether) -the need for
city to avoid appearing as though it is adopting new policy without council accepting it; increase discussion
of in-place policies later in report; handling feedback from the Community Study Group, formally
addressing re-visitation of reliability criteria. Include discussion of the Water Conservation Futures study
on p. 2-3; discussion of review process: January WRAB (final recommendation of both volumes) with
another ublic hearing, then lannin board, then City Council; no feedback from citizen stud anel, 'ust
WRAB Summary
December 15, 2008
Page No. 3
informed that this was gearing up for formal review; discussion of what items have been officially
approved; discussion of how "drought" is defined in report. Typos: 4.1.9 - "the" misspelled, Figure 43
needs to be tightened up (could be due to printer issues). Pages 5.22 to 5.26: Table 5-5 -concern with
adequate in-stream flow for habitat protection criteria given junior rights: city has contracted to protect up
to needed amounts even though some rights aze out of priority; recommend clarification of reassessing
habitat criteria and fmding ways to meet them in report; need for discussion of utilities' -and other city
departments' -use of their water rights and the uses' impact on ratepayers; discussion of conservation
easement water rights.
Agenda Item 7 -Final Recommendation on Wastewater Collection System Master Plan.
Sullivan and Thornton gave the presentation. The Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (WWCSMP)
is primarily a technical analysis intended to address issues concerning the condition and capacity of the
collection system and associated operations and maintenance work programs. Utilities staff presented the
draft WWCSMP to the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) in October 2008.
The WWCSP will be a part of the Wastewater Utility Master Plan (WWUP) which will be the overarching
planning document intended to present key issues, projects and budgets for the City's Wastewater Utility
including the collection system, wastewater treatment plant and associated water quality and support
programs.
The WWCSMP has identified a list of capital project recommendations for wastewater conveyance
improvements throughout the city. This list includes 18 potential hydraulic projects which are organized
into three categories (Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3). Tier 1 projects represent major system deficiencies; Tier 2
projects represent moderate system deficiencies; and Tier 3 projects represent nuisance system deficiencies.
There are five Tier 1 problems, seven Tier 2 problems and six Tier 3 problems identified. These potential
projects range in cost from $500,000 to $1,200,000. A map of the recommended CIP is shown in Figure
OES-3.
• Tier 1 (S projects) _ $5,000,000
• Tier 2 (7 projects) = $`?.3,000,000
• Tier 3 (6 Projects) ~ $4.0000
• Total (18 projects) _ $32,000,000
Utilities staff will .review the master plan's list of capital project recommendations to assist in the
development of the Wastewater Utility's Capital Improvements Plan (C1P).
The fmal version of the WWCSMP document includes additional information for two areas which were not
presented in the draft version of the WWCSMP, presented in October. Section 3.3.3 provides a summary
of the system's rainfall induced inflow & infiltration (RDII). Section 8 provides a comprehensive overview
of the Collection System Maintenance program.
WRAB Discussion included: Whether rain versus snow events impact results for infiltration analysis;
whether there is too much line-cleaning; how the QualServe and wastewater plans interface; rationale for
3% inflation; use of 2007 DRCOG data and recommendation that data for the build-out conditions be
footnoted.
Motion: DeOreo: Move to accept fmal recommendation on Wastewater Collection System Master Plan,
Friendly amendment (Miller): WRAB moves to accept the fmal recommendation on draft Volume I of
the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan and supporting documentation.
Seconded as modified:
Vote: 5-0 in favor, Motion passed
Discussion of Motion: Request for clarifying underlying problem (e.g. SSO) for the budget people.
Agenda Item 8 -Update on Wastewater Utility Master Plan.
Sullivan and Thornton gave the presentation. Utilities staff is in the process of completing the Wastewater
Utility Master Plan (WLTIVIP). The purpose of the WUMP is to provide an overarching master plan that
addresses the City's Wastewater Utili needs and assists in the develo ment of the Wastewater Utilit
WRAB Summary
December 15, 2008
Page No. 4
Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The WUMP presides over three wastewater related planning documents
including: the Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan (WWTPMP); the Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan (WWCSMP); and the Water Quality Strategic Plan (WQSP).
The Wastewater Utility Master Plan is the overarching planning document that is intended to present key
issues, projects and budgets for the City's Wastewater Utility. The WUMP document will summarize the
utility's following components: policies and guiding principles, wastewater collection system, operations
and maintenance, wastewater treatment plant, water quality and environmental services and support
programs, and financial considerations.
Utilities staff will review the master plan's list of capital project recommendations to assist in the
development of the Wastewater Utility's Capital Improvements Plan (CIP).
WRAB Discussion included: Expanding "key policies for evaluating lower energy usage facilities" to
"implementing renewable energy technologies where feasible" plus optimizing cogeneration; whether
"meeting or exceeding" state or federal permits is the same as "anticipating"; request that Nederland
provide compatible data since Boulder moving forward with IGA with Nederland (under "Key Policies -
Updating GIS"); how to incorporate sourcewater issues in WUMP; discussion of status of solar project -
resolving wetlands and prairie dog issues before moving forward.
Agenda Item 9 -Discussion of schedule and agenda items for future meetings.
WRAB decided to hold January meeting at the regular 7:00 p.ni. time with no changes to agenda.
Discussion regarding field trip to, Thunderbird Lake. Thunderbird Lake agenda item will be scheduled first,
followed by Source Water Master Plan agenda item.
Agenda Item 10-Adjournment
Motion: Motion to adjourn by Iott.
Seconded by: DiNatale.
Vote: 5-0 in favor, passed.
~ Meeting adjourned at 10:37 PM.
"r Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next WRAB meeting will be Monday, January 12 - 7 p.m., regular meeting, special date, Municipal
Services Center, 5050 East Pearl Street unless otherwise decided by staff and the board.
These are summary minutes. Audio tapes for full record are available through Central Records or on the
WRAB web site.
Minutes approved by:
Date:
WRAB Summary
December 15, 2008
Page No. 5