HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - Draft Minutes - Water Resources - January 12, 2009 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Advisory Board
DATE OF MEETING: January 12, 2009
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; Joe Taddeucci; Kim Hutton; Joanna Crean;
Donna Scott; Alice Guthrie -Parks and Recreation; Joy Master -Parks and Recreation; Jeff Arthur -
Planning and Development Services; Katie Knapp -Planning and Development Services; Claudia Brown -
consultant, Biohabitats, Inc.; Matt Claussen -Parks and Recreation; Chad Julian -Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board (PRAB); Chris Douville -coordinator, Wastewater Treatment Plant.
WHAT TYPE OF MEETING (BOLD ONE) [REGULAR] [SPECIAL] [QUASI-JUDICIAL]
Agenda Item 1 -Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m.
Agenda Item 2 -Meeting Minutes -November 17, 2008 and December 15, 2008.
Motion: Miller -Move to approve November 17, 2008 minutes as amended.
Seconded: Byers
Vote: 5-0 in favor, Motion passed
[Iott arrives at 7:13 p.m.] WRAB agreed to review the December 15 minutes at the February 23, 2009
meeting.
Agenda Item 3 -Public Participation and Comment.
Chris Copp: Water fluoridation. Previously corresponded with DeOreo, forwarded to WRAB. Wants
~ WRAB to look squarely at facts. National Research Council report on 4 ppm safety standard -toxic effects
to all body systems. Would be willing to help out in the future with presentations, speakers. Miller: Voters
{ took up the issue in 2007 and it was defeated; hot topic for about a year. Not sure when the issue is up
again or would be taken up otherwise. DeOreo: Incumbent on WRAB to show that fluoridation is safe
and effective and he is not convinced. A question of whether WRAB should take it up again with public
hearing. DiNatale: Discusses differences between academy study levels and drinking water application
levels. Last time, it was a problem with trace contaminants in the fluoride, disguised problem. Copp: Still
doesn't change the fact that fluoride is not safe. Byers: This has to pass by citizen vote and that means it
has to be referred by Council or be a citizen's initiative. Miller: WRAB will have to decide if it wants to
bring up issue again.
7:32 p.m. Closure of Public Comment on non-agenda items.
Agenda Item 4
Matters from Board -
• DiNatale: Status on fluoride application for a future meeting? Williams: Yes. Byers: Also give
proponents of Clean Water Advocates ballot item notice of agenda item as a courtesy.
• DiNatale: Fourmile and Wonderland Creeks floodplain issues status. Williams: Council did
not take action on agenda item in November but wanted to further talk about floodplain
management issues at Apri128th study session; hopefully will have further info to bring back to
WRAB afterwards. Council's concerns included school emergency evacuations and whether to
apply non-containment policy as with Boulder Creek or at least consistency with other floodways.
• DeOreo: Drought Response Plan agenda item. Wants it to be a set of recommendations, not
just a discussion. Has drafted a 1-page set of drought response and planning recommendations
[distributes handout]. Wants WRAB to think about policies to recommend to Council. Has
incorporated research from meeting with state drought coordinator and incorporated work from
National Drought Center, Colorado Drought Planner (DNR). Asks for break-down of water use by
block.
WRAB Summary
January 12, 2009
Page No. 1
• DilYatale: Would like to see breakdown of water use by block (commercial, residential), fit in to
water budgets from summer 2008, and compared to 2007. DeOreo: Suggests putting this data in
2008 Annual Report with monthly usage by block for each class.
Matters from Staff -
• Williams: WRAB meeting location. 29`~ Street Conference room has 9:00 PM closing-time. So
three options: 29`~ Street with 6-9 PM meeting; 13~' Street Conference room without time
constraints or continue to meet at Yards. Iott: 13`~ Street big enough to accommodate public here
tonight. Miller: Also good proximity to bus. Miller: WRAB will vote later in the meeting.
Agenda Item 5-Public hearing and consideration of a motion recommending a management option
for Thunderbird Lake at Burke Park.
Guthrie gave the presentation. The purpose of this item is to provide the Water Resources Advisory Board
(WRAB) with additional information on potential management options for ThunderbLrd Lake as discussed
at the December 15, 2008 WRAB meeting. The WRAB is asked to make a recommendation to the City
Council on a management option for the lake. Along with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's
(PRAB) recommendation and public inp~a, the WRAB's recommendation will be provided to City Co~,.ncil
at the February 17, 2009 meeting. PRAB voted at then' September 22, 2008 meeting ~~l to approve Option
B, Adaptive Management-No Supplemental Water.
The key elements identified for Thunderbird Lake are the changing hydrology of the area and the capital
and ongoing funds that will be required for ongoing management of the lake. Staff and consultants have
been investigating actions to manage the lake including evaluating ways to add water. A comprehensive
evaluation of each considered option can be found in Attachment A and was provided to the WRAB on
December 15.
Recognizing that a plan of action had not yet been determined for Thunderbird Lake, $200,000 for potential
capital improvements was approved in the ?009 Capital Imps wement Program (CIP) budget. When a
management option is identified, Parks and Re~~reatiE,r. DF,paitment staff will determine the ongoing ~
maintenance costs of the recrn~rxrrended option and discuss funding options, include re-prioritizing corn:-nt ,
work tasks or ~s?nti~y-ng trade-offs ~.;r icductions in service le gels. In 2008, approximately $115,000 has
been spent on consul±ant, and management aciiens, not i~~cluding staff time. These expenses were funded ~
by a suppleinrntal l..udet request.
To assist in the decision-making proces.~, staff has included a matrix of benefits and impacts for Pach nptio;;
(Attachment A-1) and has provided additional information on cost estimates for each option (Attachment
B). These documents were provided to the WRAB in the December 15, 2008 meeting packet Responses
to questions raised by WRAB members at the December 15 meeting are included in Attachment C.
Staff recommendation to PRAB was for Adaptive Management. The WRAB is asked to recommend a
management strategy, given the City Council filters of economic, environmental and social sustainability.
Questions to Staff from WRAB: Could alternatives be revisited on a yearly basis? Difference in wetland
permit between options? Amount of water needed to fill? (5.5 acre-feet to bring up to old high-water ri~ark;
2-acre surface area; park irrigation is 12-15"/year.) Possibly making system more complicated than it
needs to be. Age of lake`? (Early 1900s-1920s.) Date of Frasier Meadows development? (ca. 1960s.) Stan
of water quality issues? (ca. early 2000s drought.) Justification for wetlands permit? Groundwater flow
situation`? Impacts of Frasier Meadows development? Is wetlands permit fee waivable? Is a hybr°id of
options solution (e.g., f 11 and well) a possibility'? L; there a preference to let this area become a wet
meadow by succession rather than maintain it as a man~•made feature?
Public Comment: (8:53 p.m.)
• Chuck Howe: Residents have been fighting for five years to prevent deterioration; human values
missing from argument, aesthetics of lake as a recreational area, large retirement cornrriunity, not
just about ecosystem health; lake supports Arleigh Burke memorial. Consensus about *his at
public hearings. Frasier Manor -sump pumps have not run in last 18 months; wetland dry ~
ar. two
years. Feels conununity wants to fill from city water su lies, which would also llri rove water
WILAB Summary
January 12, 2009
Page No. 2
quality. Byers: Is it accurate from the packet that design/siting of Arleigh Burke memorial not
major consideration or was there a master plan? Howe: Not in the area when memorial was
established, but military officer's group maintaining monument strongly supports citizen's group
position.
• Bill Sabin: Seniors other than those associated with Frasier Meadows use lake; should be
managed as an urban park, not open space. Iott: Willingness to pay of surrounding residents?
Howe: Hard to calculate, but budget doesn't seem like an issue for residents.
• Marylee Zurick: President of the Happy Hazels -Frasier Meadows women's group. Younger
families moving into neighborhood now. Mosquitoes a big problem. Not wetlands, which
resulted from the drought, and not open space. Would like city to listen to neighbors, who are
unanimous on the issue, and help them fix the lake. Neighbors not interested in adaptive
management. Part of our taxes could be used to pay for it; already maintaining medians and
flowers. Byers: Preferred alternatives? Zurick: Likes dual option, or even dredging and starting
over.
• Chad Julian: Vice Chair of PRAB. Didn't take formal action on potable water issue. Considered
the lake unnatural, built for irrigation. Lowered water table has many causes, as discussed. Main
issues -costs, timeliness, setting precedent, e.g. Viele Lake, sustainability, impact to department's
workload, neighborhood involvement/setting expectations, water budgets, impact of treated water
usage. Byers: Neighborhood concerns? Turnout? Julian: About 100 at first meeting, not many at
PRAB meeting where final vote was taken. DeOreo: WRAB has never gotten comprehensive
water budget from Parks, making it difficult to decide re: whether potable water use reasonable;
any way of obtaining budget? Julian: Sounds good in theory, but difficult in practice. Guthrie: In
E , the future, water budget discussion on PRAB calendar; we work closely with Williams and Crean.
~y Williams: City has established water budgets for all municipal meters. DeOreo: WRAB needs to
;~4.~-...,. see water budgets from other departments to help inform discussion: e.g. acres irrigated, mixture
~ of plants, actual use.
Jim Knopf: Struggled with water budgets being on WRAB for five years. City should think about
Thunderbird Lake in the context of the water budget and drought management plan. Has been
asked many times about evapotranspiration of similar areas: numbers for Kentucky Bluegrass
~ lawn conversion alternative don't add up -should result in 18 gallons per square foot, not 15,
assuming full watering. Sump pumps/changing water levels: took up similar issue of wet meadow
north of Baseline near South Boulder Creek, which was related to north-south line of houses
pumping basements, so Planning Board needs to address increasing impact of pumping
groundwater because of cumulative effects. Zurick: Neighborhood pulled together twice with
hundreds of people speaking in a unanimous voice. Convinced we got our point across, but we
haven't -frustrating.
9:22 p.m. Close of Public Comment.
WRAB discussion included:
Clarifications: rationalization for discharge permit; rationalization for wetland permits under existing
code; need for purchasing water rights for augmentation based on augmentation plan and whether for
Boulder Creek or just South Boulder Creek; discussion of various options for transferring water rights. For
options A and B, whether staff/boards will be revisiting chosen plan in terms of adaptive management up
for discussion; for options B and C, difference in scope of wetland permits; clarification of water quantity
for single-fill; clarification of impacts on groundwater flow and of groundwater flow on lake level; whether
a permit fee waiver for the wetland permit possible because it is an infra-city application process, whether
timing for development review realistic; discussion of desired option if money not a factor; need for
timeliest option, partly because of elderly residents. If using potable water; temporary dechlorination
options,for single- and multiple-fills. PRAB hasn't made decisions system-wide, only for Thunderbird.
Discussion: whether WRAB needs to see Parks' water budgets before making a recommendation on a
articular o tion; whether recommendation is within WRAB's mandate in terms of whether the
WRAB Summary
January 12, 2009
Page No. 3
recommendation involves a "water resource" {most likely, if long-term) and emphasizing the conservation
aspect of water in the recommendation; preference for C or D because both options currently budgeted and
align with public consensus. Option D as the preferred alternative since four acre-feet of water insignificant
in terms of overall system, but making dechlorination cheaper. Putting Parks' water budget in drought
response plan so WRAB is not telling Parks what to do. Rationale for Parks paying for Thunderbird
restoration versus other water uses. Larger issue of groundwater decline raised by Knopf more troubling:
being more realistic about what city maintains, also in terms of precedent. Praise for thoroughness of
alternatives. Potable water ok but encourage Parks to seek out better investments in terms ofnon-potable
options. Discussion of how/whether a drought would affect recommendation.
Motion (DeOreo):
Whereas:
1. The official policy of the City of Boulder is for all water use in the City to be governed by approved
water budgets. Baseline water budgets allow 15 gallons per sr~uare foot (2~ in~.~hes) of water far
~ maintenance of turf, and we see no reason why maintaining lake levels is any less valid a use for water than
maintenance of turf;
Z. Use of potable water for maintenance of lake levels is acceptable to WRAB as long as this i5 done within
the context of an overall water budget and drought response plan for ~.he park.
Therefore, WRAB makes the following recommendation with respect to Thunderbird Lake at 3urke Park:
Of the 8 options presented to WRAB, we would recommend the use of Option D (Potable Water -multiple
fills per year), but encourage the Parks Department to continue to investigate alternatives to develop other
non-potable options.
Seconded: Miller
Vote: 3-2 in favor, Motion passed.
0)issent (loft): Aitlsough only 4 acre-feet of water per year involved, plan is not consistent w~t,'i Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan on sustainable resources, use of a%iaptive management and PRAB better
eq~.iil7ced to ha~~~iie the Eiroblsm than WRAB.
~ Dissect (Byers): Uk d~ ith fillip ;with potable water short-termm {O;~tior~.13} but a;;.ees with resi~jents that
human side of she issue has bc;sn..gnored; City created covenant vrith the n;;~bh{aurhood :o maintain the 1~ ice
when la,>co was established, ar..d also when Burks memorial tn~as estblished. and needs t~~ hone, it; p~~tabio
I water i%11 option just 3 band-aid. A permanent solution is needed, with a groundwater well, Optir~n E; as the
best long-term option.
[Discussion of whether to postpone remaining agenda items due to lateness of hour or proceed with all
agenda items as scheduled. WRAB decided to proceed with the agenda as scheduled. A brief recess was
taken, after which the scheduled agenda resumed.]
Agenda Item 6 -Recommendation to City Council on the Source Water Master Plan (SWMP).
Taddeucci gave the presentation. Staff hand delivered an updated final draft of Volume I and a final draft
~f Volume II of the SWMP at the November 17, 2008 meetirg. Daring that meeting staff and ~~IRAB
members discussed that the WRAB anticipates taking two meetin„~ {J~ec:.15 and 3an.12} to review,
comment and make a final recommendation on the SWMP.
A.t the hecember 15, '1008 meeting staff a;.ld WRAB members discussed Volume II of ti e S~wMP. WRAB '
Inemb~,rs provided input on a number of items. Those items •ind staff's reco~ri_;ne~i~~led resolutions ai-e
summarized in the memo.
Public Comment: There was none.
WRAB Discussion included: p. 4 -whether "pres;,ribed" the, correct word - no, a finding., more than a
recommendation -changed to "designated"; p. 2 t~rpo -policies re;g:~rding the sourcewaier "is"; p. 5-70
whether sentence is supposed to end with ellipsis -staff will checle. [All page n~unbers pertain to the
memo, referenr,ing Volume Il of the SWMP.]
WRAB Summary
January 12, 2009
Page No. 4
Motion (Byers): Move that WRAB recommend to City Council the Source Water Master Plan in its latest
iteration including edits made in the meeting memo for the January 12, 2009 WRAB meeting.
Seconded: Miller
Vote: 5-0 in favor, Motion passed.
Agenda Item 7 - WRAB consideration of prioritization for the "Opportunities for Improvement"
identified in American Water Works Association (AWWA)/Water Environment Federation (WEF)
Peer Review Report.
Crean gave 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 identified both strengths and opportunities for
improvement. Staff met with WRAB on Dec. 15, 2008 to solicit feedback on the guiding principles and
prioritization method for developing an implementation plan. The feedback has been incorporated and an
initial prioritization of the opportunities for improvement was to be presented to WRAB at the Jan. 12,
2009 meeting. Feedback will be incorporated and a proposed implementation plan will be distributed to
City Council in a Weekly Information Packet memorandum in March, 2009.
Public Comment: There was none.
WRAB Discussion included: discomfort with having WRAB's roles and responsibilities (Item No. 2) get
Implementation Priority 1 Tier ranking, when WRAB had low input into ranking process; clarification of
rationale for pay-as-you-go bonding (no. 42 at page 9 and no. 74 at page 7); whether concern with city
holding reserves has more to do with reserves or the way city is paying off its bonds. Request for more
detail (i.e., which workgroups) on "opportunity for improving" item pertaining to "some workgroups
consistently overrun budgets" (no. 43). Shifting Boulder Canyon Hydro from a 2 to a 1 in terms of moving
faster as an energy issue (no. 61) or at least splitting issue into Tier 1 and Tier 2. Whether Utilities getting
help with solar panel issue. Discussion of safety items as always Tier 1. Rationale for not including
analysis on treated water main breaks. Rationale for no. 60 getting Tier 2 ranking if city is currently
•
working on it. Discussion of next steps: staff will incorporate results into budget process over next few
i~_•..
years, particularly the Tier 1 and 2 items.
- w
Agenc~`a'If"em 8 -Update and feedback on the Water Quality Strategic Plan.
Scott and Linenfelser gave the presentation. A Water Quality Strategic Plan (WQSP) is being developed
by Utilities staff in coordination with the Planning Deparhnent. The purpose of the WQSP is to define the
city's goals for water quality and develop strategies to achieve these goals. The WQSP will be
implemented by the Water Quality and Environmental Services (WQES) Group, within the Utilities
Division. This item provides an overview of the draft WQSP and responds to comments received from
WRAB members during the meeting on July 21, 2008.
Public Comment: There was none.
WRAB Discussion included: What partnerships are involved with monitoring and to what extent work
will be farmed out to labs? Need for Council to know we have funding shortage to implement the plan but
giving Nederland money for WWTP improvements through an IGA. Pros and cons of upgrading the
Nederland WWTP, prioritization of issues and who should be responsible for funding the Nederland
WWTP. Some praise for report and some criticism: too much repetition of recommendations without
clarifying plan with clear strategies; next part will include action items -this is only the overarching
document. Confusion with recommendations appearing before performance measures; table on p. 10 out of
place. Suggestion to include most interesting parameters for each stream reach on maps, make interactive.
Whether to list among emerging contaminants natural or only man-made endocrine disruptors.
Agenda Item 9 -Update on Water Quality Studies, Regulations and Permitting.
Douville and Linenfelser gave the presentation. The Water Quality and Environmental Services (WQES)
Group and the Wastewater Treatment Group are working jointly on various water quality studies to address
current and future regulations.. These regulations affect both the 75`~ Street wastewater treatment facility
(WWTF) discharge permit and the city of Boulder Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit.
13-15 MGD throughput at plant. Over the past few years the WWTF has experienced sporadic
exceedances of co er effluent limits ands ecial studies have been initiated to develo site-s ecific co er
WRAB Summary
January 12, 2009
Page No. 5
water quality standards for Boulder Creek. In 2008, nitrogen modeling was completed in the Boulder
Creek and St. Vrain Creek basins to update the 2003 ammonia total maximum daily load (TMDL). The
update addressed new state-wide ammonia water quality standards and a new ammonia model.
In January 2008, the 75~' Street WWTF Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) discharge permit
expired and was administratively extended by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division (Division). A
CDPS permit renewal application was submitted to the Division in August, 2007. Additionally in 2008,
WQES staff were actively involved in various Division Work Groups and water quality studies to address
new regulatory requirements and water quality standards for temperature, nutrients, bacteria (E. coli),
nonylphenol and emerging contaminants.
All of these efforts are linked together with the results of special studies and Work Group participation
helping to support the 75~` Street WWTF CDPS permit renewal process, the city's MS4 stormwater permit,
and help the City of Boulder plan for future regulatoryry impacts.
Public Comment: There was none.
WRAB Discussion included: effects of 200'7_ drought cin baseline flow measurement; clarification of
method and variables involved in measuring ammonia; whether there are back-up systems. Involvement in
middle school and elementary school education. 30~day averages probably reachable; daily maximums
may be problematic. Temperature modifications for nitrogen until approx. 2011. Consistency of standards
over state with H2O Jo as state-wide symbol ;whether there will be a driver for enforcement to generate
cash for some of the agencies; whether city has reserves to deal with penalties. Causes of Boulder's
relatively high copper effluent concentration. Role for WRAB?Boulder can do its own studies to try to
have state EPA raise effluent limits because laboratory studies do not currently sufficiently represent
natural conditions. Use of matrix in memo as a product. Breakdown of substances at Boulder's last
pharmaceutical take-back day only in terms of controlled substances.
Agenda Item 10 --Discussion of schedule~and agenda items for future meetings.
Relocation of WR<~B meetings. 29~' Street out because of time constraints. WRAB agrees to try 13`~
Street Conference Roorn (if available) for the February 23`d meeting.
Agenda Item 11-Adjournment ~ -
Motion:lVIotion to adjourn by Byers.
Seconded by: Miller
Vote: 5-0 in favor, passed.
Meeting adjourned at 12:28 AM.
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next WRAB meeting will be Monday, February 23`d - 7 p.m.*, regular meeting, special date, at the
13~` Street Conference Room (if available) 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
January 12, 2009
Page No. 6