Colorado Transportation Funding

Posted by admin on May 08, 2012
Infrastructure, Sustainability / Comments Off

By Chris Rundall

Here in Colorado, consumers pay a 40.4 cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline: of this tax, 18.4 cents goes to the federal government and 22 cents goes to the state.  The state tax portion, which funds maintenance and improvements to our state’s roads and bridges, has not changed since 1991; however, inflation and improved vehicle fuel efficiency has reduced the impact that the fuel tax has on funding transportation improvement projects.  As increasing this tax would require voter approval, and anticipating that a tax increase would be not be successful in a public vote, the state approved the FASTER bill in 2009, which increased vehicle registration fees with the goal of bringing in $250 million annually for road and bridge projects.

During a CDOT event last year,the current director, Don Hunt,spokeabout transportation funding shortfalls and possible funding alternatives that may be explored, such as toll roads and public-private partnerships.  Mr. Hunt also mentioned the mileage-based tax idea that has been debated over the last several years, with pilot programs for this concept conducted in Oregon and Minnesota. The following graphic provides the basic concept behind this option.  Opponents of the “pay by the mile” approach feel it is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy due to the required in-vehicle device.

This is a complicated issue with no perfect solutions.  Ideally, steps are made soon to lead us down a path that provides a more sustainable funding source for our state transportation systems.

For more information, please email chris (at) baselinecorp (dot) com.

Tags: ,

Urban Infill Development

Posted by admin on April 05, 2012
Infrastructure, Land Planning, Surveying / Comments Off

In the Denver Metro area and Northern Colorado when “urban infill” projects are mentioned, we might think of the downtown Denver area just North of Coors Field or Stapleton as prime examples of the term.  Wikipedia defines infill as “the use of land within a built-up area for further construction; especially as part of a community redevelopment or growth management program or as part of smart growth. It focuses on the reuse and repositioning of obsolete or underutilized building and sites.”


{Photo of empty Denver storefront from Denverinfill.com}

The 2008 recession has left an unusual amount of empty buildings and unused tracts within our municipal boundaries. We’ve all seen it: the empty building and parking lot that used to be a car dealership, or the boarded-up vacant building that used to be a grocery store just around the corner.

While many of us share the goal of a thriving, vibrant community and agree that these closed businesses don’t indicate this type of community, the decision to go with an urban infill project versus an urban expansion project is complex. So, what are some of the pros and cons of urban infill in order to help weigh a decision on a development site?

Pros of Urban Infill

  • Ability to utilize existing infrastructure/facilities
  • More transportation options for those that will be utilizing the proposed use
  • Businesses are closer to residents and existing facilities and vice versa (existing market)
  • Possibility of utilizing historic structures and/or mature landscaping
  • Investing in the existing community
  • Possibility of incentives provided by the municipality
  • Reduction in the municipal costs associated with maintaining suburban areas

Cons of Urban Infill

  • Unique and increased project constraints
  • Can be more costly than suburban development
  • Zone Change or Use by Special Review (“USR”) requirement if current land use classification does not fit proposed land use classification (and possible increased buffering requirements if neighboring uses differ from proposed use)
  • Heightened expectations/concerns from businesses and residents in areas surrounding the new development
  • Possible need to upgrade and/or relocate existing infrastructure to support the new development, including on-site and off-site utilities

Tags: ,

Low-impact development (Lessons Learned, Practical Tips)

Posted by admin on April 03, 2012
Engineering, Land Planning, Water and Wastewater / Comments Off

Low-impact development (LID) is a term used to describe a land planning and engineering design approach to managing storm water runoff. LID emphasizes conservation and use of on-site natural features to protect water quality. This approach implements engineered small-scale hydrologic controls to replicate the pre-development hydrologic regime of watersheds through infiltrating, filtering, storing, evaporating, and detaining runoff close to its source.

Baseline has been involved in numerous stormwater management projects that utilize LID techniques over the last decade. Here are some of the things the company has learned and practical considerations to keep in mind when planning and implementing LID and disconnection strategies:

  • Infiltration is cost-effective in porous soil but not an option when the soil is contaminated.
  • Colorado’s high clay content and expansive soils often require amendment and underdrains to allow for LID techniques to be effective.
  • For structures with basements, the outfall should occur far enough away from the building and proper drainage should be maintained away from all foundations.
  • Installing new infiltration systems around existing basements should be avoided unless the walls are retrofitted with waterproofing.
  • For buildings larger than two stories high, an underground roofdrain dispersion structure may be necessary because of the volume and speed of the runoff.

Strategies

  • Promote infiltration at the surface by using engineered topsoil and be sure to select the right plantings for erosion control.
  • Don’t undersize the rocks used for splash blocks or inlets, and make sure all users are OK with their appearance before using this method.
  • Target a grade for bioswales between 0.5 and 1 percent; steeper bioswales will act as a ditch and suffer from erosion.
  • Keep in mind that if you use wood mulch and your bioretention areas fill up with water, the chips can float away into parking lots and clog stormwater inlets.
  • Infiltration zones should be built at the end of construction projects when the site is most stable and site runoff won’t clog these areas.
  • Aboveground disconnection techniques will result in short-term ponded water, which some might view as an eyesore. Therefore, property owners, building users and the community need to be educated about the environmental benefits of these strategies and the role they play in protecting waterways.

For more information, please contact Noah Nemmers, noah (at) baselinecorp (dot) com.

 

Tags: , , , ,

Fracking and Water Usage

Posted by admin on April 02, 2012
Sustainability, Water and Wastewater / Comments Off

by Rick Behning, P.E.

One of the concerns related to the fracking process is water usage.  Kenneth Carlson, co-director of the Colorado Energy-Water Consortium, was interviewed for a recent Greeley Tribune article.  The article explains that 0.1 percent of water diverted for beneficial use will be used for fracking over the 5 year span from 2010 to 2015.

Based on water usage, it turns out the new horizontal wells are more efficient than the directional or vertical wells that used to dominate the drilling along the Front Range.  This water is required to be pumped into the well casing at very high pressures to fracture the production target zones.  The water that is flushed back out has to be treated or disposed of.  New technologies are emerging to potentially treat this water so it can be reused rather than being pumped into the ground, where it is essential no longer available for use.

For more information on treating fracking water, please contact eric.dole (at) baselinecorp . com.

 

Tags: , ,

Economic Downturn and Land Planning for Self Storage

Posted by admin on March 29, 2012
Land Planning / Comments Off

The economic downturn of the past several years, while devastating to the real estate and financial markets, has simultaneously created opportunity for many industries.  Rental properties are in high demand, many law fields are busier now than ever, and car mechanics are swamped with aging vehicle maintenance.  One wouldn’t expect land development to remain as a viable opportunity in the current economy; however, there is still a demand for new development in some select areas.

One is self-serve storage units.  These facilities are cheap to erect and maintain, and have proven to be gold mines for some investors.  A recent article in the Greeley Tribune stated that one area storage facility is at nearly 100% capacity, partly due to foreclosures in the area.  And folks who don’t look to be moving their stuff out anytime soon.  This high demand equals opportunity for some Greeley facilities.  American Self Serv Storage is building another 55,000-square-foot adjacent to their existing facility.  They are banking on the demand not letting up anytime soon and are going to be ready to take advantage of the opportunity.

Tags: , ,

Colorado’s Stringent Floodplain Rules

Posted by admin on March 06, 2012
Land Planning / Comments Off

In an effort to increase public safety and reduce flood losses across the state, the Colorado Water Conservation Board issued new floodplain rules and regulations that became effective on January 14, 2011.  These rules build off of the FEMA rules with the hope to provides uniform standards for regulatory floodplains in Colorado and activities in those floodplains.  For your reading pleasure, the rules can be found here: http://cwcb.state.co.us/legal/Documents/Rules/CWCBFloodRulesRegs2010.pdf.

 One of the more stringent criteria found in the CWCB rules concerns floodway designation.  The floodway is defined as the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be kept free of obstructions in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height.  In the past this designated height was one foot. However, with the new Colorado rules this has been reduced to ½ foot.  The following is an exerpt from the CWCB rules concerning floodway designation:

The CWCB recognizes that Designated Floodways are administrative limits and tools used by communities to regulate existing and future Floodplain developments within their jurisdictions. This Rule 8(A) does not require communities to automatically map ½ foot floodways within their jurisdictions. However, at such time when floodways are to be delineated through Physical Map Revisions involving local government participation, communities shall delineate floodways for the revised reaches based on ½-foot rise criteria. Letters of Map Revision to existing floodway delineations may continue to use the floodway criteria in place at the time of the existing floodway delineation. Until such time that floodways are revised and designated, communities may continue to regulate their mapped one-foot floodways. For reaches where a transition must be shown to connect new studies to existing studies with different floodway criteria, the transition length shall not exceed 2,000 feet.

 Special interests within the state have expressed their opposition to the floodway change.  Sand and gravel pits are often located adjacent to rivers.  By reducing the floodway height to a ½ foot the limits of the floodway will expand thereby pushing the sand and gravel operations further from the river.      

If you have a question for Baseline’s experts, please email rick (at) baselinecorp.com.  For more information, please visit the Colorado Water Conservation Board and floodsafety.com

Tags: , ,

How to Invest for Potential Future Fracking Regulation

Posted by admin on February 14, 2012
Oil and Gas, Water and Wastewater / Comments Off

The following article was published on www.bakkenoil.org on January 23, 2012.

Michael Filloon has a recent five-part series of articles over at Seeking Alpha on investing for potential of EPA regulation of fracking in the near future as a result of public concerns about water usage and contamination. Below is a synopsis of his excellent analysis, but for a more in depth assessment of how to invest, be sure to check out his writing.

Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is an industry practice of pumping a pressurized mixture of water, quartz sand, and proprietary chemicals. An average well requires 80,000 gallons of water for drilling, the fracturing process requires 3.8 million gallons of frac mixture, and one million gallons of water is returned to the surface and is currently trucked to treatment centers. Various environmental groups are concerned with the use of millions of gallons of water and the potential to contaminate the local ground water.

While the industry is too vital and too profitable to be affected by these concerns, this could lead to epa regulations and fracking changes. These changes will affect other elements of the industry including transportation of frack water, on-site clean water supply equipment, and alternative fracking fluids. These changes are where the opportunity to profit lies.

Concern from groundwater pollution has not officially been deemed an issue by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). There is precedent for concern though. Chesapeake contaminated 16 families’ drinking water and was ordered to pay $900,000 and Encana has to provide safe drinking water for 21 households. A Denbury well reported leaking at one of its sites. There were no issues with the leak found, but it opens the possibility in the minds of the public.

So what areas of change are expected to receive tighter regulations? One is the proper placement of cement casings to prevent accidental leaks. Another could be dimensional and structural pits for catching leaks and runoffs and containing them. The third is the chemicals that go into fracking fluids. The fracking recipes are tightly held by the industry, but a push to safe or biodegradable chemicals is likely. Fourth is a separation and processing of frac water so the water can be returned to the natural supply. Fifth is the amount of frac water allowed to be left underground when the process is complete. Recognizing these upcoming changes leave opportunities for profit if you find the correct industries early.

You have to role-play in your mind a little the effect of these likely changes. If the majority of the changes is a push to returning fresh water to the local water supply what industries will this impact? One would think companies that are creating onsite treatment centers like General Electric (GE) and its mobile evaporators. Mobile treatment centers would remove sand and grit (with the possibility of reuse), remove metals, kill bacteria, and remove salts. This water could then be reused for another well at the same site.

If the producers of these mobile treatment plants can prove that the process pays for themselves with reduced transportation and treatment costs you will see a very fast rate of growth in the industry. It would also suggest bearish sentiment on transport companies that profit by transporting the water (currently about 200 trucks per well) offsite to be stores or treated. If the majority of the impact is in output regulation, that would suggest bullish sentiment on companies that provide testing like Xylem because it may be cheaper to show that you are not polluting the area then changing your current process.

The more regulations, containment, and treatment required the more expensive the whole process becomes. Eventually this opens the window to research and capital costs associated with changing to new “green” fracking chemicals. Flotek is one company creating new age fracking chemicals called microemulsifiers has already gained traction before new regulations. Another chemical play is Newpark with 7.5% market share, but 81% within the United States. Newpark has the potential to expand within the US on green technology and internationally.

To play devil’s advocate to all the smaller company plays is the rate of growth in the industry. The buyer of all these products, the drillers, will want to take advantage of every new well opportunity it is allowed. A killer of many new products is the inability to produce at the rate of growth in the industry. If the political leanings move towards domestic energy production companies like Heckmann Corporation (HEK) which is large, established, and has the ability to respond quickly could be poised to profit because it has the ability to get the wells producing quickly regardless of new technologies. Also, they have the capital to purchase new proven technologies and implement them quickly.

The energy sector has many opportunities to profit. Regulations change the field by breaking the status quo and giving smaller nimble companies the chance to gain market share and kill other industries that haven’t created a flexible business plan. By investing in these companies before the regulations are forced on the industry you can catch the large upside jump when the rest of the investing community piles on. Regardless if you choose to short drillers because there will be more expenses put on them, invest long with chemical companies or on-site water treatment companies, you should not ignore the impact of epa regulations and fracking on the industry.

Tags: , ,

U.S. water infrastructure receives nearly failing grade

Posted by admin on February 02, 2012
Infrastructure, Water and Wastewater / Comments Off

by John Mclain

The Water Innovations Alliance (WIA) recently completed an assessment of the state of the U.S. water infrastructure, which was given an overall grade of D- by the American Society of Civil Engineers in its most recent infrastructure report card.

Underlying that nearly failing grade, the WIA produced some startling statistics in a recent newsletter (not yet posted to their website):

  • More than 20% of water treatment systems in the United States – serving 49 million people — have violated provisions of the  Safe Drinking Water Act at some point in the past five years
  • About 15% of municipal water is lost to leaks, representing 7 billion gallons of clean drinking water PER DAY
  • The U.S. water system represents more than 4% of total U.S. electricity usage
  • Up to 20 years of significant investment are required to stabilize and modernize the U.S. water infrastructure, with about $300 billion capital required

Read more at http://advancedenergyblog.clevelandfoundation.org/, and call on Baseline to point funds your direction to make much-needed upgrades to your infrastructure.

 

Email john (at) baselinecorp.com for more information.

Tags: , , ,

Sustainable Pavement Design – The future of pavement

Posted by admin on January 26, 2012
Infrastructure, Land Planning, Sustainability / Comments Off

By Noah Nemmers P.E.

As pavement technology continues to change and advance, a major emphasis is being put on environmental stewardship. Highway administration’s efforts are increasingly aimed at the industry’s overall use of recycled materials, environmental and ecological constrains, as well as the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP). Better determining the current condition of the country’s pavements will serve as a roadmap for where we go next in continuing to advance and implement today’s array of pavement technology, and in achieving our ultimate goal of sustainable and longer-lasting pavements. In order for designers to truly address the issues and needs in creating a sustainable pavement design, a good set of guidelines is needed.

Martina Soderfund, whose thesis paper sparked the Greenroads project, suggests six categories for sustainable design consideration and use in developing a rating system:

1. Sustainable Alignment

For most roads, cost of construction is the highest priority determinate of path.  However, including this category in the consideration of sustainability ratings would add additional points for roads that avoided certain habitat types, such as wetlands, forests, farmlands, or other ecologically sensitive areas.

2. Materials and Resources

Asphalt, gravel, and tar have a high environmental footprint due to extraction, transportation, and use.  The materials and resources category would reward projects that made efforts to reduce these impacts.

3. Stormwater Management

Seldom recognized by the general public, the continually increasing percentage of impervious land cover has negative implications for stormwater runoff and management.  Promoting stormwater quality and quantity control through this category increases awareness of road impact and encourages the use of pervious surfaces.

4. Energy and Environmental Control

This category addresses some of the more subtle and inherent effects of typical roadway design.  It evaluates the quality of design, while considering effects on light pollution, the heat island effect, quieter pavements, eco-viaducts (wildlife and fauna crossings), visual quality, and pedestrian/bicyclist access.

5. Construction Activities

The temporary activities of the roadway construction are a major source of pollution, waste, energy use, and health issues.  Major concerns of this section can be categorized as: site disturbance, waste materials generation, noise pollution, emissions & energy usage, and the health of workers.

6. Innovation and Design

The credit definition of the last section is awarded for additional performance above the requirements set in the previous sections.  Consider it extra credit or bonus points for exceptional performance in a particular category.

Photo from the movares.com:


The Sustainable Highway concept project tries to solve the same issues of decreasing greenhouse gases and improving air quality by changing the roads rather than the cars that drive on them. The Sustainable Highway concept is a lightweight, laminated glass canopy above the roadway that filters dust particles from the roadway before releasing air into the atmosphere. The canopy is also equipped with solar panels that produce clean energy and decrease carbon monoxide emissions.

Regardless of how high of a priority sustainability is becoming, we will be using roads for years to come.  Instead of throwing up our hands in defeat at the environmental impact they produce, forward thinkers encourage attempts to mitigate impacts.

For information or assistance in your next roadway project, contact Baseline by phone (303)940-9966 or by email at noah@baselinecorp.com.

 

Tags: , , ,

Current Snowpack and Reservoir Storage in Colorado

Posted by admin on January 19, 2012
Water and Wastewater / Comments Off

By Chris Rundall

In the state of Colorado, where our offices are headquartered, there is constant concern over snowpack levels and reservoir fill.  Because snowfall in the Rockies provides the main source of water for the state’s reservoirs, we keep a close eye on annual percentages and averages. Currently, the statewide snow pack is well below where we were last year at this time.  According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) ,Colorado’s statewide snow pack  as of January 6, 2012, was 71% of average and 52% of last year’s readings.  Here in Steamboat Springs, the snow pack in the Yampa River Basin is 57% of average. (See the detailed list of snow pack averages for each basin here).

From a statewide reservoir storage standpoint, last spring’s above-average snow pack and subsequent runoff has kept reservoir storage above average.  It will be interesting to see where reservoir storage levels sit come next fall .  The following map (and subsequent updated versions) can be found on the NRCS website.  There is an abundance of well-presented and informative maps and graphs on their website for further research and information.

One worrying by-product of the current snow drought will be the potential for large scale forest fires this summer. With the vast amounts of fuel in the form of beetle killed pine, the threat of a massive forest fire lurks.

Municipalities, government agencies, water districts and ski resorts, as well as other water rights holders, will be closely monitoring these issues.

Hopefully the La Nina weather patterns take shape and we won’t have to worry about fire and low reservoir levels this summer: my skis and I are waiting patiently for that La Nina winter we were promised!

Tags: , , ,