[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: FW: S. Bldr Dam

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Spence, Cindy

From: Morzel, Lisa
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 10:42 AM
To: Ellis, Lesli <EllisL at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:EllisL at bouldercolorado.gov>>; HOTLINE <HOTLINE at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:HOTLINE at bouldercolorado.gov>>
Cc: Arthur, Jeff <ArthurJ at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:ArthurJ at bouldercolorado.gov>>; Taddeucci, Joe <Taddeuccij at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:Taddeuccij at bouldercolorado.gov>>; Clark, Kevin <ClarkK at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:ClarkK at bouldercolorado.gov>>; Jones, Suzanne <JonesS at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:JonesS at bouldercolorado.gov>>; external-Elizabeth -Payton <Liz at bouldergarden.net<mailto:Liz at bouldergarden.net>>
Subject: Re: S. Bldr Dam

Hi Leslie,

I have three questions for tonight regarding BVCP update specific to CU South property.

1. The first came from a meeting several of us had yesterday with our public works staff and is stated below. Some of us have been trying to figure out where we were getting hung up in our meeting.
it was the 170(?) acre feet of storage behind the new dam. It's such a small number. The assertion that the project is "elevation-driven not volume-driven" didn't resonate with me because the two parameters, volume and elevation, still need to align common sense wise.

Maybe the way to think of the 170 af is as the wedge on top of the x,xxx af that is already temporarily detained behind US 36 under the existing configuration. That wide blue ribbon north of the creek and west of US 36 has some enormous volume that is also part of the project and will be held behind the new dam.

It might be helpful if that entire volume were known by the public and decision-makers. Maybe even display the full volume of detention in a graphic similar to the aerial graphic of the small pond for the public to grasp the value of it. I too am having problems reconciling this relatively small volume behind the new dam vs previous volume calculations for detention.

I don't know that the small pond number is helpful. People will look at it in terms of $/af, like I did, and think it sounds wrong.

2. I would also like to know what criteria were used to designate 220 acres of the 308 acres of land now known as CU South as OS-O?  Was it wetlands, shallow groundwater, species of concern, urban shaping or what?

3. Whatever happened to the reclamation requirement originally required when the mining application was submitted?  Why was the mined part of this property never reclaimed as most other mined properties have been required to do?

Thank you

Lisa