Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting Packet - Water Resources Advisory Board - 3/19/2012 WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD MEETING Monday, 19 March 7:00 p.m. 13th Street Conference Room 1777 Broadway; 2°a Floor Agenda Highlights: I. Call to order. (7:00 p.m.) II. Approval of minutes from the 27 February 2012 meeting (7:01 p.m.) III. *Public Comment Period. (7:10 p.m.) IV. Matters from Board and Staff. (7:20 p.m.) o Matters from Staff - Update on Potential Expansion of Eldora Ski Resort V. Information Item - Update on Water Rights for Xcel Energy Valmont Plant (7:40 p.m.) VI. Information Item - 2012 Budget Process Overview (8:00 p.m.) VII. Discussion about Future Schedule (8:20 p.m.) VIII. Adjournment. (8:30 p.m.) * Public Comment Item Information: Contact the WRAB Secretary, Laurel Olsen-Horen at (303) 441-3203 or olsenl(a),bouldercolorado.gov . Packets are available in the reference section of the Main Library and on-line at hqp://www.bouldercolorado.gov, Departments, Public Works, Utilities, Water Resources Advisory Board. Agenda item times are approximate. CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES Name of Board / Commission: Water Resources Advisory Board Date of Meeting: 27 February 2012 Contact Information of Person Preparing Minutes: Kaaren Davis; 303-441-3233 Board Members Present: Bill DeOreo, Susan Iott, Kate Ryan, Chuck Howe Board Members Absent: Vicki Scharnhorst Staff Present: Jeff Arthur. Director of Public Works for Utilities Bob Harberg, Engineering Project Management Coordinator Bret Lmenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Coordinator Jeff Dillon, Parks and Planning Superintendent Annie Noble, Greenwavs Coordinator Matt Claussen, Urban Resource Manager Christie Coleman, Engineering Project Manager Dave Webster, Boulder County Transportation Carol Ellinghouse, Temporary Administrative Specialist Moe Tabrizi, CU Director of Campus Sustainability Jonathan Akins, PE., CU Campus Civil Engineer JoAnn Silverstein, P.E., CU Professor, CEAE Katie Spahr, CU Graduate Student, CEAE Steve Buckbee, Engineering Project Manager Russ Sands, Water Conservation Specialist Travis Ramos, Temporary Civil Engineer Greg Koch, Anderson Consulting Kaaren Davis, Board Secretary Meeting Type: Regular Agenda Item 1- Call to Order [7:03 p.m.] This meeting was called to order at 7:03p.m. Agenda Item 2 - Approval of the 23 January 2012 Meeting Minutes: [7:04 p.m.] Motion to approve as amended by: Ryan Seconded by: DeOreo Motion Passes, 3-0-1 Howe abstains as he was not present at the meeting detailed in the minutes. Agenda Item 3 - Public Participation and Comment [7:07 p.m.] Public Comment: • Payson Sheets, speaking on behalf of the Middle Boulder Creek Coalition: Concerned about the Boulder Watershed, particularly Middle Boulder Creek, if the adjacent ski resort (Eldora) is permitted to expand. Resort wishes to run 7 new trails with lifts and service roads, pumping stations and other infrastructure. This is against their 1997 agreement with the forest service. Concerned that sediment load will not decrease, will instead increase. Snow making will increase considerably and the compound Snow-Max used to make snow (banned in two European countries based on water quality), and Carbaryl (used to fight pine beetles) will have adverse effects on the water quality. The Coalition has met with the forest service recently. Forest service is interested in WRAB's opinion. Forest service acknowledges that there are three sensitive species within the area that would be affected. R'RAB Discussion included: Clarification that the Forest Service acknowledges that the proposed expansion would violate the current agreement, but that the Ski Resort is allowed to ask for this modification. WRAB would be interested to see this issue come back with more information and the involved parties at some point in the future. Motion: Howe, give Mr. Sheets 10 minutes to speak. Seconded: Iott Vote:3-0 Agenda Item 4 - Matters [10:37 p.m.] From the Board: Board member Ryan brought up the below matter(s): • Gave an update on the Fourmile Creek item presented at the Greenways Advisory Meeting the previous week. Board member DeOreo brought up the below matter(s): • Asked after the snowpack at the watershed. Staff response: It is too early to tell for sure, but thus WRAB Minutes 27 February 2012 Page No. 1 far, watershed levels are normal. From Staff: • Boating on Barker: Nederland board of trustees is discussing. City of Boulder is waiting to see what they come up with. Move Ryan: Move "Matters" to end. Seconded: DeOreo. Vote 4-0 Agenda Item 5 - Public hearing and WRAB consideration of a recommendation to the City Manager regarding Extension of the Thunderbird Lake Pilot Project. [7:20 p.m.] Bret Linenfelser and Matt Claussen gave the presentation. Executive Summary from Packet Materials: In 2007, members of the community contacted the City of Boulder (city) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) and City Council requesting that the city increase the water level of Thunderbird Lake and improve its aesthetic quality. Parks and Recreation Department staff held two neighborhood meetings to discuss the changes in the lake and to gather community input on potential management options. Subsequently, staff hired Biohabitats, Inc. to prepare a report that would address the history of the lake, evaluate current conditions and develop management options for consideration. Eight management options were presented to PRAB on September 22, 2008 and PRAB voted to approve Option B, Adaptive Management - No Supplemental Water. WRAB considered this item at its January 12, 2009 meeting (see Attachment A) and recommended Option D - Use of Potable Water with multiple fills per year. PRAB and %ATRAB recommendations were provided to City Council at a February 19, 2009 public hearing where the Parks and Recreation Department received direction from City Council to pursue Option D - Use of Potable Water - multiple fills per year, over a three year study period (2009 through 2011). The three year study period was completed at the end of 2011 and a final report was developed by Parks and Recreation staff (see Attachment B). Overall, water quality and the aesthetic quality of Thunderbird Lake improved with the addition of potable water, the installation of an aeration system and enhancement of surrounding wetlands. The addition of water beyond the lake's water budget was required to achieve the goals of the study on an annual and seasonal basis. Parks and Recreation staff is proposing extension of the pilot period to allow additional analysis of alternatives that could reduce associated water demands and improve the long term sustainability of the management. WRAB is being asked to provide a recommendation on continued use of an approach generally consistent with "Option D- User of Potable Water - multiple fills" during the extended pilot period. Parks and Recreation expects to bring forward a recommendation on a longer term management plan following completion of the extended pilot. Public Comment: [7:40 p.m.] • None. Public Comment was closed WRAB Discussion Included: [7:41 p.m.] • The input that Frasier Meadows retirement community is very enthusiastic about maintaining the lake, though this does not include a willingness to pay. • Commendations to Parks and Recreation for exceptional management of this project and the excellent report prepared at the end of the official trial period. • Talks happening with Horizon School to use the space as a learning environment • The idea that the water budget for an open body of water should be higher due to evaporation. • A desire to see an overall budget for all of Parks and Recreation's water uses as well as a Parks and Recreation drought management system as a public hearing item later. • Continued efforts to find options that allow for adding less water to the lake moving forward to meet the City's core values of conservation and sustainability identified in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Motion by: Iott Seconded by: Howe To pass the recommendation as written in the memo as follows: "The Water Resources Advisory Board recommends that the City Manager extend the Thunderbird Lake Pilot project through December 31, 2012, WRAB Minutes 27 February 2012 Page No. 2 that the lake be maintained in a manner generally consistent with the previously reconnnended "Option D - Potable Water - multiple fills per year" during this period, that the City Manager continue to explore options to improve the sustainability of the lake management plan, and that assessment of any associated plant investment fees be deferred pending establishment of a long term management plan and water budget." Friendly amendment by Iott: Seconded by: Howe WRAB recommends that the staff recommendations as detailed in the five bullets on page nine of the memo also be included into the recommendation to the City Manager. Vote: 4-0. Motion Passes Agenda Item 6 - Public hearing and WRAB consideration of a recommendation to City Council regarding the Boulder Creek Flood Mapping Study. [7:55 p.m.] Christie Coleman gave the presentation. PDF presentation given for this agenda item. Executive Summary from Packet Materials: A proposed update of the Boulder Creek floodplain mapping has been completed in order to better define Boulder Creek's flood risk. The existing Boulder Creek flood mapping computer and topographic models are over 20 years old and reflect modeling techniques and field conditions that are no longer accurate. The proposed study uses the current industry standard computer model and updated field topography. The proposed study area extends from approximately three-quarters of a mile east of 615` Street upstream to the mouth of Boulder Canyon west of Boulder's city limits. The WRAB moved to accept the updated study and recommended that Planning Board and City Council approve submittal of the study to FEMA at its July 18, 2012 meeting. Following WRAB consideration, additional base mapping information was identified and incorporated into the study resulting in some changes to the proposed mapping. WRAB is being asked to review the updated information, hold an additional public hearing, and make a recommendation based on the new mapping. Public Comment: [8:17 p.m.] • David Rose: Lives in the county but has to deal with the city flood mapping that is coming at him and his neigbors. In 2004 LIDAR survey could not discern a temporary pile of asphalt being processed. The reports do not reflect the removal of that pile. Rating was altered accordingly. Conveyance zone is being defined in our area but we do not feel that is appropriate or possible. We feel this is a shallow sheet flooding area. Working with city staff on this issue. Hopefully this new information can be incorporated. Staff response: City will need to resolve these issues with Boulder County, prior to submission to FEMA. The City cannot submit for the County areas without Boulder County's community acknowledgement signature. David Rose provided survey information to reflect the removal of the asphalt pile and that information has been incorporated into the mapping. City staff has asked the Curt Parker (the consultant working for the property owners in this area) to submit his floodway conveyance zone analysis which is the critical information the City needs to review. Thus far, there has been no such submission so the City cannot conclude whether any changes to its plan are warranted. • Curt Parker: Is the consultant hired by the 57'1' street property owners. Was a water resource engineer for the County in the 90s. These properties are very vulnerable to flooding and it is a very complicated hydrology. There have been tremendous changes since the mapping in 1983. Working with Boulder County to find the cumulative effects of these changes. The flood mapping is as much a community planning tool as it is a flood mapping exercise. Through the properties are affected it is fairly shallow flooding. It is very hard to accurately predict water behavior. FEMA guidelines address the type of situation this neighborhood is in with shallow flood zone designation. • David Leserman: Lives in Cordry Court. Thanks to city staff for coordinating with his engineer and trying to incorporate the engineers recommended changes. Mr Lesserman brought a handout for the Board and for city staff to see if they agree with its conclusions. He is happy to have this work out so that his house is no longer in the conveyance zone. He is happy to have WRAB approve this plan as presented tonight and wants WRAB to know that when they approve this plan it is with his house outside the conveyance zone. WRAB Discussion Included: 8:05 .m. WRAB Minutes 27 February 2012 Page No. 3 • What parts of Cordry Court remain in the conveyance zone. • The level of concurrence between staff analysis and the analysis of the consultant hire by the Cordry Court neighbors. • How HEC-RAS is used compared to previous methods. • How the Conveyance Zone designation affects building and buildings within the zone as compared to designation within the High Hazard Zone. • Assurances from staff that all data in the study is now up to date. • How much flexibility remains in the process to change designations to "shallow flooding" as work with the County progresses and before submission to FEMA. • The use of "shallow flooding" as a purely technical rather than a policy designation. • Clarification on Mr. Lesserman's property as follows: Currently the conveyance zone meets FEMA rules and allows Mr. Lesserman's property to be outside. However, if any other changes are made in this area (though staff anticipates no modifications) the model no longer complies with FEMA regulations. Staff is comfortable with the current configuration, but FEMA may ask for reconfiguration for more gradual transition in boundaries. Motion by: Howe Seconded by: DeOreo WRAB approves the item as per the staff recommendation as follows: "The Water Resources Advisory Board recommends that Planning Board and City Council accept the proposed Boulder Creek Floodplain Mapping Study, submit the study to FEMA for approval, and use the more restrictive of the existing and proposed mapping in the regulation of all annexations and development proposals during the FEMA review period." Vote: 4-0 Motion Passes Agenda Item 7 - Public Hearing and WRAB consideration of a recommendation to City Council regarding CU Williams Village Graywater Recirculation Memorandum of Understanding. [9:05 p.m.] Jeff Arthur gave the staff presentation. Moe Tabrizi, JoAnn Silverstein, Jonathan Akins and Katie Spahr of the University of Colorado at Boulder presented additional information. Power Point presentation given for this agenda item. Executive Summary from Packet Materials: The Williams Village North residence hall on the University of Colorado (CU) campus was constructed with the capability to treat wastewater from showers and lavatory sinks and recirculate it for toilet flushing prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. The system is currently inactive pending approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (Attachment A) between the city and CU regarding its operation. The CU recirculation project and the general topic of water reuse were presented and discussed at the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) meetings on November 15, 2010, December 14, 2010 and July 18, 2011. The following link provides access to the information presented at these meetings: http://www.bouldercolorado.,aoN,,'index.php?option=coin content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=1189. At the July 18, 2011 meeting, 'vN RAB considered a draft MOU with CU and adopted a motion stating that WRAB was supportive of the general concept of recirculation of water as described in the MOU. As part of the motion, WRAB requested that an environmental and economic analysis of the project be completed prior to final approval of the MOU. In addition, the WRAB requested that CU submit a proposal of data to be collected from the recirculation project. The city and CU have collaborated to prepare information in response to WRAB's request. CU has completed an environmental and economic analysis (Attachment B) that focuses on the most conservative scenario available for the recirculation project. Under this scenario, the city would provide sufficient Windy Gap water, which is specifically allowed to be reused, within the city water system for operating the project. This conservative approach would protect the city's water rights and water yields. The city and CU are continuing to explore other options that could be more environmentally and economically sustainable including use of Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) water. The approval of an MOU does not preclude further consideration of other water options and may provide data that could help support those efforts. Public Comment: [9:30 p.m.] WRAB Minutes 27 February 2012 Page No. 4 • None. Public Comment was closed. WRAB Discussion Included: [9:30 p.m.] • Flow measurements and where meters will be placed. A recommendation that ammonia be measured as well. • Comparisons to CSU's program for using graywater for outdoor watering. Lower chlorine demand and fewer odor problems anticipated with CU's program because of heavier use of removal technologies. • Options going forward including CU purchasing its own Windy Gap or CBT water for this program. Staff: there was some discussion around CU's Anderson Ditch shares, but this seemed to be an impractical option. This is a study program so options will continue to be suggested and studied as the program progresses. • Potential costs in PIF's to a customer (CU) for the augmentation water required. Consumptive use of the City's water system. • Staff's position that a major benefit to this program is the research component. The program is a way to get metrics for an understudied area so that answers can be provided to questions that have and will arise. • Concerns over making concrete or final the use of CBT or Windy Gap water as the only option. "Off ramps" are important. • Staff noted that City Attorney is still evaluating whether MOU is staff level or requires City Council consideration. . Motion by: Ryan Seconded by: Howe WRAB approves the recommendation as set forth by staff as follows: "The Water Resources Advisory Board recommends that City Council approve a Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Colorado to allow operation of an on-site wastewater recirculation system in the Building 2A Residence Hall at the Williams Village North." Vote: 3-1 Motion Passes. DeOreo dissenting DeOreo: This system is being treated differently than any other in the City and setting a bad precedent by disaggregating the city system into individual uses, and confusing re-use of effluent with re-use of graywater. Motion by: Ryan Seconded by: Howe WRAB approves the reconunendation as set forth by staff as follows: "The Water Resources Advisory Board recommends that the City Manager continue to pursue options to operate the city's water system in a manner that minimizes the environmental and economic impacts of the Williams Village recirculation project and adequately protects the city's water rights and water supplies." Vote: 3-1 Motion Passes. DeOreo dissenting Agenda Item 8 - Information item: Staff briefing and WRAB input regarding Treated Water Production and Distribution Volume Auditing. [10:15 p.m.] Steve Buckbee and Travis Ramos gave the presentation. Powerpoint presentation was given. Executive Summary from Packet Materials: In 2011 the City undertook an examination of current best practices and the City's methodology for auditing treated water production and distribution volumes. The attached technical report attempts to address areas where the City needs to improve in order to improve the efficiency of its water operations. [10:30 p.m.] No action on the part of the Board is requested at this time. Agenda Item 9 - Discussion on Future Schedule [10:42 p.m.] Topics may include: Budget. Other tentative items are being discussed and will be firmed up closer to the date. Staff will look into the Middle Boulder Creek issue to determine whether there is any action to be take or not. Agenda Item 10 - Adjournment [10:45 p.m.] There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. WRAB Minutes 27 February 2012 Page No. 5 Motion to adjourn by: DeOreo; Seconded by: Ryan Motion Passes 4:0 Date, Time, and Location of Neat Meeting: The next WRAB meeting will be Monday, 19 March 2012 at 7:00 p.m., at the 1P Street Conference Room located at 1720 1P Street, -unless otherwise decided by staff and the Board. APPROVED BY: ATTESTED BY: Board Chair Board Secretary Date Date An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary, is available on the Water Resources Advisory Board web page. WRAB Minutes 27 February 2012 Page No. 6 Colorado Nutrient Criteria Dtz7,R ReSLI!t~. fF'e Maid-, t2-14, 20l2 'ric arin"g- b Commission Decides on Colorado Nutrient Criteria The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (Commission) provided preliminary approval of the new Nutrient Control Regulation 85 and changes to Regulation 31, the Basic Standards; these regulations will set total phosphorus (TP) and total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) permit limits for the largest wastewater dischargers and set phosphorus and nitrogen interim values for both lakes and reservoirs and rivers and streams. The unanimous vote, which will be finalized at the Commission hearing on May 14, 2012, accepted most of what the Water Quality Control Division (Division) proposed, with several changes that are outlined in this summary. Table 1 below provides the draft final Regulation 85 permit limits for new dischargers and existing dischargers (excluding existing dischargers <_1 MGD that use waste stabilization ponds, are owned by a disadvantaged community, or have a design capacity 5 0.5 MGD). This regulation will be effective immediately - the permit limits will be incorporated into permits at the next renewal and compliance schedules will be used to allow the permittee time to come into compliance with these limits. Table 1. Draft Final Nutrient Permit Limits (Reg. 85) Annual MedianTP' 95th PercentileTP2 Annual Median7INI 95th Percentile TIN2 Existing Dischargers3 1.0 mg/L 2.5 mg/L 15 mg/L 20 mg/L New Dischargers4 0.7 mg/L 1.75 mg/L 7 ni 14 mg/L Notes, 1. Median of all samples taken in most recent 12 calendar months. 2. The 951^ Percentile of all samples taken in the most recent 12 calendar months. 3. Delayed unfit 513112022 for dischargers subject to existing control regulations 71-74, have design capacity 2 MGD, or who discharge in low priority hydrologic units code watersheds (Purgatoire, Upper Arkansas-John Martin Reservoir, Upper San Juan, Upper Arkansas-Lake Meredith, Upper White, San Luis, Chico, Kii Middle South Platte -Sterling, San Miguel, Alamosa-Trinchera, McElmo, Lower Gunnison, Arkansas Headwaters, Upper Yampa, Upper Gunnison, and Uncompahgre). 4. Dischargers who submit a complete request for preliminary effluent limils to the Division on or after May 31, 2012. Table 2 provides a summary of the Regulation 31 interim values that will serve as water quality goals for the state as they move forward with statewide standards in the future. Table 2. Draft Final Nutrient Interim Values (Reg 31.17) Cold Water Warm Water TP (mg/L) TN (mg/L) Chlorophyll TP (ni TN (ni Chlorophyll Rivers and Streams 0.111 1.251 150 mg/m2 3 0.171 2.011 150 mg/m2 3 Lakes and Reservoirs 0.0252 0.4262 8 pg/L 4 0.0832 0.9102 20 pg/L 4 (Aquatic Life Use') Direct Use Water Supply NA NA 5 pg/L 4 NA NA 5 pg/L4 Lakes and Reservoirs Notes: 1. Annual median; 1-in-5 year exceedence frequency. 2. July 1- Sept 30 average in mixed layer (median of multiple depths); 1-In-5 year exceedence frequency. For lakes and reservoirs >25 acres. 3. July 1 -Sept 30 maximum attached algae, not to exceed. 4. July 1- Sept 30 average chlorophyll in the mixed layer (median of multiple depths);1-in-5 year exceedence frequency. Reg. 31 interim values are not standards at this time, but can be adopted as standards in specific water bodies for TP and chlorophyll before May 31, 2022 and for nitrogen between May 31, 2017 and May 31, 2022: • In waters upstream of existing domestic permitted dischargers with significant nutrient discharges and existing non-domestic facilities subject to Reg. 85 permit limits. • In Direct Use Water Supply Lakes and Reservoirs (have to be approved by Commission). • Under other circumstances determined by the Commission where Regulation 85 will not result in adequate control of nutrients. After May 31, 2022, the interim values can be adopted into any segment through the basin hearings. BrownAwCatdwelt Summary of Changes to Division's Proposal Although the exact changes the Commission made to the Division's proposal will not be assured until the final versions of Regulation 31 and 85 are adopted on May 14th, the general changes made to the Division's proposal are provided below. Regulation 85 • Changed the TIN permit limit in Reg. 85 for existing facilities from 10 mg/L to 15 mg/L. • Allowed use of a Category 46 demonstration plan to keep a segment off the 303(d) list if impairment of the narrative standard is determined to be the result of nutrient enrichment and dischargers are complying with Regulation 85 permit limits. • Granted industrial dischargers the same exclusions from complying with Reg. 85 permit limits as domestic facilities. • Allowed dischargers who can show that their WQBELs for TP and TIN calculated using the Reg. 31 interim values are less restrictive than the Reg. 85 permit limits to have the less restrictive WQBEL as their permit limit. Regulation 31 • Changed language that allows site specific standards for nutrients to read "where evidence demonstrates" rather than referring to expected conditions. • Refined the applicability of the rivers and streams chlorophyll a interim value of 150 mg/m2 only to streams where the sampling protocol will work (to avoid application • May 2012 -Reg 85 and 31 final; of the interim value in sandy-bottom streams). TP and TIN effluent limits • Added language defining Direct Use Water Supplies in 31.13(1)(d)(i)(13)(1) as follows: lake or reservoir that is used regularly to provide raw water directly to a water effective at permit renewal. treatment plant P and Chi to be considered in • N upstream areas in Basin Hearings: ' March 2013 -Dischargers begin effluent monitoring. • June 2013 - Rio and Arkansas Basins What's Next? • June 2014 - Upper and Lower Colorado Basins Planning for Your Permit • June 2015 - South Platte Basin If the Reg. 85 permit limits apply to you, you have probably already started thinking • June 2016 - Basic Standards about how you might meet the TP=1 mg/L and TIN=15 mg/L permit limits. With the less restrictive TIN limit, maybe your facility could focus on operational changes alone to Hearing- TP, TN, and chlorophyll meet these limits. If you have to make capital improvements, you can plan for the interim values can be timing of these improvements by assuming that your permit will be renewed within a reconsidered. year of your basin's next hearing (see the Nutrient Schedule side bar). Your permit will include a compliance schedule that you can negotiate with the Division, depending on P, Chi, and N to be considered in the scope and cost of the work that will need to be done to bring your facility into upstream areas in Basin Hearings: compliance with the Reg. 85 permit limits. There are likely several ways in which you could meet these permit limits and an alternatives analysis of these options will give you • 2017 - San Juan and Gunnison the pros and cons with choosing a given path. Basins • 2018 - Rio and Arkansas Basins Preparing for the Future • 2019 - Upper and Lower Per Reg. 85, all domestic dischargers and many industrial dischargers are required to Colorado Basins perform monitoring to characterize the load coming from their discharges as well as its • 2020 - South Platte Basin impact on the receiving waterbody. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) have to develop a discharge assessment report that identifies data gaps, which may 2021 -Basic Standards Hearing lead to additional sampling. These monitoring efforts will go a long way toward - TP, TN, and chlorophyll interim identifying the nutrient loads from point sources, but will do nothing to characterize the values can be reconsidered. other sources of nutrients in your watershed. Working with watershed groups and other coalitions of watershed agencies and organizations forming around the data collection TP, TN, and Chi standards can be effort is critical. The idea is that these groups will share in the collection of watershed- considered for all segments based data, including nonpoint source and other water quality, habitat, and aquatic life data. This combined effort will reduce the monitoring costs for a single entity, prepare through Basin Hearings. watersheds for upcoming hearings where interim values will be reviewed, and will prepare agencies for developing site-specific standards, variances, and temporary I F modifications. In short, the collection of additional information and the combination of Osarah Reeves multiple entities working in concert will position you to obtain the most reasonable `~(303) 239-5411 nutrient permit limits and allow you to use the tools available to address nutrient standards as Colorado moves forward on nutrient standards in the future. Brown-wCaidweili CITY OF BOULDER WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD INFORMATION ITEM MEETING DATE: March, 19, 2012 AGENDA TITLE: Information Item - Xcel Valmont Generating Station Water Resources PRESENTER: Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities Kim Hutton, Water Resources Specialist EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This memorandum is in response to a request from the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) for information on water resources associated with the Xcel Energy Valmont Generating Station. Xcel Energy has announced its intent to discontinue coal-fired power generation at the facility by 2017. Alternative methods of power generation could have reduced water demands. Should Xcel elect to sell water rights or Valmont Reservoir, these assets could be of interest to the City of Boulder. Staff is continuing to evaluate potential uses, precise consumptive use amounts, and water quality issues to better understand the potential value of these assets should they become available for future purchase. BACKGROUND Xcel Energy announced that they will be discontinuing coal-fired power generation at their Valmont Generating Station by 2017. After discontinuing coal, it is possible that Xcel will want to sell some water resource assets because alternative methods of power generation will not have the same water demands as coal-fired power production'. The city will want to understand the value of these assets in relation to its own water system prior to any actual sale or marketing by Xcel as there may be a substantial amount of water and storage available. 1 For example, if more combined cycle gas turbines were added to this location they might need about 60 acre-feet of water per year for cooling processes versus the 900 acre-feet a year currently required by coal. Agenda Item 5; Page 1 Xcel's Water Resources Xcel's Valmont Plant is located at 63rd Street and Arapahoe Avenue (see Attachment A). Xcel's property includes the 540-acre Valmont Reservoir, which has approximately 11,200 acre-feet of storage capacity. Water stored in Valmont Reservoir has been historically used to provide cooling process water for the Valmont Generating Station and to provide irrigation water to the Leggett Ditch. Xcel operates Valmont Reservoir to keep it as full as possible in order to maximize the efficiency of the Valmont Generating Station. The principal historical beneficial uses of water stored in Valmont Reservoir include: - Approximately 1,100 acre-feet per year of consumptive use associated with plant operations (900 acre-feet for cooling evaporation and 200 acre-feet for air emissions reduction). - Until 2001, delivery of up to 1,278 acre-feet per year of irrigation water to the Leggett Ditch. Valmont Reservoir is filled via storage rights decreed for Leggett, Hillcrest and Valmont Reservoirs, and direct flow rights from the Jones and Donnelly, Enterprise, Dry Creek No. 2, and East Boulder ditches that have been changed from irrigation to industrial use. Any historical use analysis of these direct flow water rights would not include previous agricultural uses. It is possible that Xcel will have discretion over what amounts of consumable water are associated with which ditch or storage right, however it is unknown at this time how that allocation may be determined. Leggett Ditch Company As previously mentioned, Xcel has an annual obligation to deliver up to 1,278 acre-feet of water to the Leggett Ditch. Until 2001, Xcel met this obligation by releasing water from Valmont Reservoir. Beginning in 2001, Xcel met its delivery obligation with CBT water released from Boulder Reservoir, and irrigation deliveries from Valmont Reservoir were discontinued. The current structure of the agreement between Xcel and the Leggett Ditch Company is unknown at this time. Therefore, it is uncertain how this delivery obligation would impact interested buyers. However, if the 1,278 acre-feet of historical irrigation use were available, there could be up to an additional 750 acre-feet of consumptive use associated with these rights. z Valmont Reservoir is actually a series of three interconnected reservoirs, which are individually known as Hillcrest Reservoir, Leggett Owen Reservoir, and Valmont Reservoir. Hillcrest and Leggett are former irrigation reservoirs, whereas Valmont Reservoir was built by Xcel. Construction of Valmont Reservoir incorporated the storage capacities of Hillcrest and Leggett Reservoirs. Agenda Item 5; Page 2 Delivered Consumed amount (acre- amount Use feet) (acre-feet Available for change in use? Power cooling 900 Yes Air emissions 192 Yes reduction Leggett Ditch up to 1,278 Up to 750 Unknown contractual obligation Natural 2,100 No - natural evaporation is not evaporation considered a beneficial use. If Xcel were to argue it is, such an assertion would be decided in water court. ANALYSIS The city may have use for Xcel's water rights and/or available Valmont storage if it becomes available for purchase. Possible uses might include: • Additional firming of Boulder's Windy Gap supplies; • Exchange up to Boulder's upper system reservoirs and diversion pipelines; • Additional supply in years when Colorado Big-Thompson (CBT) water is undeliverable under a Colorado Compact call situation; • South Boulder Creek Instream Flow/Gross Environmental Pool; and • Recreation or wildlife area. NEXT STEPS Staff is continuing to evaluate potential uses, precise consumptive use amounts, and water quality issues to better understand the potential value of these assets prior to their potential sale. Agenda Item 5; Page 3 All - - Greg--- s4 z v o pd MD-A In i utt_. Mill i h ' e4&e Mill 4eJl f I = M \ CD ; C) Valmont Reservoir f +y Or Leggett Owen r or e Reservoir ear + % d LeUpt Oy Fox Ria9e C Hillcrest Reservoir ' ..l ' B f I ~~1`et ~ r 1tGh ~ B I ter Se D - II Ara a_h w _ If ry, 5 L r- g o ° Z, (D o L ee ^ Cott° =-,Drys = " . 1-Arlington ' - - - - - Creeks and Ditches CREEK C INTERMITTENT CREEK N - - DITCH n Location of Xcel's Valmont Generating Station -J LATERAL Q City of Boulder owned property 0 900 1,800 3,600 Feet Q owned property Xcel I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I © 2012 City of Boulder, Colorado SUBJECT TO REVISION All rights reserved. The information depicted is provided as a graphical representation only. City of Boulder provides no guarantee, express or implied, as to the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained hereon. CITY OF BOULDER WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD INFORMATION ITEM MEETING DATE: March 19, 2012 AGENDA TITLE: Information Item - 2013 Budget Process PRESENTERS: Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities Ken Baird, Financial Manager The city is preparing for the annual budget process for creating a six-year planning budget, this year for 2013-2018. Within this process, funds are appropriated for the first year, 2013. Per the Boulder Revised Code, the Water Resources Advisory Board's responsibilities include reviewing all environmental assessments and capital improvements conducted or proposed by the utilities division." The current schedule of budget milestones is provided below, with elements involving the WRAB highlighted in bold italics. The full budget calendar is attached. Milestone Date Preliminary WRAB Budget Discussion April 16, 2012 • Includes updated Fund Financials with 2011 actual revenues and expenses • Preliminary 2013-2018 CIP City Council Study Session on Budget April 24, 2012 WRAB meeting - review updated CIP May 21, 2012 • Revised Fund Financials incorporating budget guidelines for 2013 • Updated 2013-2018 CIP Proposed Budget Submittal to City Manager May 29, 2012 WRAB Recommendation on CIP June 18, 2012 • Final WRAB discussion on 2013-2018 CIP • WRAB recommendation to Planning Board and City Council Planning Board CIP Hearing July 19, 2012 City Council CIP Study Session Aug. 14, 2012 Nest Steps This is an informational item to allow WRAB members the opportunity to ask questions and provide comments on the proposed schedule. No formal WRAB action is being requested at this time. Budget Director: Eric Nickell x3007 Budget Manager: Peggy Bunzli x1848 Fin. Projects Manager: James Clanton x3001 2012 KEY BUDGET DATES Budget Analyst: David Mallett x7246 r City of Boulder Version, 3 - Updated Febrzrai~y 28, 2012 Budget Analyst: Elena Lazarevska x4006 2013 Budget Development Info Due to Budget Office Staff Meeting ❑ Info From Budget to Depts. ❑ Public Meeting January February March April Info Due to Budget Offic~ Info From Budget to Departments S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Feb. 15 - Final PBB Inventories Due Feb. 14 - PBB Scoring and Costing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 H 7 Guidelines Sent Out 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Mar. 12 - Department PBB Scorecards Due Feb. 21 - 2013 PBB Guidelines to Depts 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14111516 17 18 11 12 13 14 15 16117 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . Mar. 16 - ATB/ Carryover Requests Due Apr. 6 - Peer Review Committee Results 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 2122 23 24 25 189 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 2425 26 27 28 30 Mar. 19 - Budget/ Policy Issues Due Sent to Depts. 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 Apr. 6 - Guideline Info from Depts. Apr. 30 - Budget Guidelines to Depts. Apr. 11- Updated PBB Costing and PBB July 27 - Final EBT Budget and Policy May June July August Score Appeals Due Decisions Made S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Apr. 20 - CIP Project Sheets Due Public Meeting E 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 j 4 May 29 - Final Budget and CIP Docu- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ments Due Jan 17 - City Council Economic Update 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10'11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 E20 21 12 13 E15 16 17 18 Aug. 3 - Updates to Budget from EBT Apr. 24 - City Council Budget Study Ses 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17118 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - Decisions due 27 28 29130 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 31 sion Oct 5 - 2nd ATB Requests Due May 1 & 15 -1st ATB /Carryover Read- - ings Staff Meeting l September October November December July 19 - Planning Board CIP Hearing S M T W T F S S MT WT F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Mar. 19 - CIP Information Sharing Meet- Aug. 14 - City Council CIP Study Ses- 1 1 2 3 4 S6 1 2 3 1 ing Sion 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5© 7 8 9 10 2 3® 5 6 7 8 May 4 -Budget Kickoff Meeting Sept. 11 & 25 - 2013 Budget Study Ses June 11-29 - Department Budget Meet- sions 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ings Oct. 16 & Nov 6 - 2013 Budget City 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 E21 22 23 24 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Council Readings 23 24 E26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29