Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting Packet - Water Resources Advisory Board - 1/23/2012 WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD MEETING Monday, 23 January 2012 - Special Meeting Date 7:00 p.m. 13th Street Conference Room 1720 13th Street Agenda Highlights: I. Call to order. (7:00 p.m.) II. Approval of minutes from the 19 December 2011 meeting (7:01 p.m.) III. * Public Comment Period. (7:10 p.m.) IV. Information Item: Emerging Contaminants (7:15 p.m.) V. Informational item: Update on Low Impact Development (7:45 p.m.) VI. Matters from Board/Staff. (8:15 p.m.) VII. Discussion about Future Schedule (8:30 p.m.) VIII. Adjournment. (8:35 p.m.) * Public Comment Item Information: Contact the WRAB Secretary, Laurel Olsen-Horen at (303) 441-3203 or olsenl(c)bouldercolorado.gov . Packets are available in the reference section of the Main Library and on-line at http://tiv, vww.bouldercolorado.gov, Departments, Public Works, Utilities, Water Resources Advisory Board. Agenda item times are approximate. WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Upcoming Agenda Items Revised 1-9-2012 January 23, 2011 (Rescheduled) • Information Item: Update on Low Impact Development (B. Campbell) • Matters Item: Update on Carter Lake Pipeline 1041 (Harberg) • Information Item: Emerging Contaminants (Linenfelser) February 27, 2011 (Rescheduled) • Tentative - Update on Financial - Rates/Bonds/Reserves (Baird/Harberg) • Tentative - Boating on Barker Reservoir Update (Linenfelser) • Tentative - Boulder Creek Flood Mapping March 19, 2012 • Last meeting for Bill DeOreo • Tentative - Update on South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Study (Bauer/Harberg) • Tentative - Update on Fluoride in drinking water (Linenfelser/Crittenden) • Tentative - Update on Water Rights for Xcel Energy Valmont Plant (Hutton) April 26, 2012 • First meeting for new WRAB member • Election of Officers • Update and discussion of 2013 Utilities Budget, CIP, Rates (Baird/Harberg) • Tentative - Update on Instream Flow Programs (Hutton) • Tentative - Boating on Barker Reservoir - Draft IGA (Linenfelser) • Tentative - Update on Technology and Benchmarks (Crittenden/Douvil le/Crean/Harb erg/Gallo ) May 21, 2012 • Update and discussion of 2013 Utilities Budget, CIP, Rates (Baird/Harberg) • Tentative - Update on Source Water protection and enhancement (Linenfelser) June 18, 2012 • Recommendation on 2013 Utilities Budget including CIP and rates (Baird/Harberg) • Tentative - Updates to Public Works Design and Construction Standards July 16, 2012 August 20, 2012 • Tentative - Update on Federal and State regulations for wastewater (Douville/Linenfel ser) September 17, 2012 October 22, 2012 November 19, 2012 December 17, 2012 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES Name of Board / Commission: Water Resources Advisory Board Date of Meeting: 19 December 2011 Contact Information of Person Preparing Minutes: Laurel Olsen-Horen: 303-441-3203 Board Members Present: Bill DeOreo, Susan Iott, Chuck Howe, Kate Ryan, Vicki Scharnhorst Board Members Absent: Staff Present: Jeff Arthur. Director of Public Works for Utilities Bob Harberg, Engineering Project Management Coordinator Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Coordinator Joe Castro, Facilities and Fleet Manager Michelle Wind, Drinking Water Program Supervisor Keith Walzak, Parks Planning Manager Alice Guthrie, Parks and Recreation Superintendent Matthew Claussen, Urban Parks Resource Manager Stacy Cole, Facilities Supervisor - Reservoir Management and Operations Chris Douville. Wastewater Treatment Coordinator Russ Sands, Water Conservation Program Manager Laurel Olsen-Horen, Board Secretary Meeting Type: Regular Agenda Item 1- Call to Order [7:02 p.m.] This meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Agenda Item 2 - Approval of the 21 November 2011 Meeting Minutes: [7:02 p.m.] Motion to approve as amended by: DeOreo; Seconded by: Howe Motion Passes; 3:2 Iott and Schamhorst abstained since they were absent at the November meeting Agenda Item 3 - Public Participation and Comment [7:06 p.m.] Public Comment: Mark Boumansour: Mr. Boumansour would like to give praise to city staff on their dedicated work on energy efficiency. The City of Boulder has been a national leader in self-generation which is an incredible accomplishment for a community of Boulder's size. Mr. Boumansour would like to encourage the city to continue being a national leader in micro-hydro activities. As the city continues to venture forward with municipalization discussions, please keep in mind the great opportunities available in order to keep Boulder as a national leader. Agenda Item 4 - Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council regarding acceptance of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan [7:10 p.m.] Michelle Wind and Bret Linenfelser presented item to the board. Executive Summary from Packet Materials: On November 21, 2011, WRAB held a public hearing and considered a recommendation to City Council on acceptance of the Parks and Recreation Department's Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP). The November 21, 2011 memorandum is provided as Attachment A. During the public hearing, members of the public addressed the board with concerns primarily related to traffic, noise, water quality, and wildlife impacts from special events. WRAB moved to table the discussion and recommended that additional discussions with neighborhood residents occur to address issues prior to further consideration. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) considered the BRMP at its November 28, 2011 meeting. WRAB Chair DeOreo attended the meeting and provided the PRAB with a summary of WRAB's concerns and suggested alternatives. PRAB moved to continue the BRMP to December 5, 2011 to allow further discussion, particularly with residents of the Valhalla neighborhood, related to special events and to allow consideration of additional materials provided by board members. Parks and Recreation and Utilities Department staff subsequently held additional meetings with members of PRAB and Valhalla neighborhood residents. On December 5, 2011, PRAB recommended approval of the BRMP with amendments resulting from these meetings. A surmnary of PRAB modifications is provided as Attachment B. The additional public process and plan amendments generally appear to address the areas of concern raised by WRAB. Additional meetings were conducted as proposed and changes have been incorporated to better WRAB Minutes 19 December 2011 Page No. 1 address special events. While a detailed "carrying capacity" analysis is not proposed to be conducted as part of the master planning process, the PRAB recommendation proposes linuting special events to current levels until additional analysis is completed as part of a Site Management Plan process. Utilities will be involved in the development of that plan as well as ongoing adaptive management of the reservoir. WRAB discussion included: [7:19 p.m.] • A board member shared their appreciation to Parks staff on their incorporation of the comments from the November WRAB meeting public comment period. There was a lot of comment provided, and this month's memo seems to have incorporated those continents nicely. • Does the city still anticipate allowing up to two special events per day`? Staff response: The policy items in the plan (page 60) are very specific, and after taking into consideration the comments from the Valhalla neighborhood, staff pulled all of the numbers out of the policy and replaced them with the bullets in Attachment B. Exact numbers will be developed after staff has done a site management plan. Staff anticipates keeping the special events at the current levels of the past three years. • One of the major goals of the WRAB is to protect source water. Boulder County has expressed their opinion that the 1041permit for the second Carter Lake Pipeline be denied which could be an issue for the city. If the pipeline were not an option, than protecting the water at the reservoir would be much more important. • WRAB would like to be involved in the development plan, and suggest that staff keep the level of participants at the reservoir be kept at 15,000 until work is done that shows special events are not adversely affecting the reservoir. Staff response: the 2012 events are already on the calendar, but have not yet completed the final permitting process. • Could a study of all the options:. complete protection of the reservoir to some community use. It's odd that we protect Barker Reservoir as a water source, but not the Boulder Reservoir. There isn't any water quality data currently to show that there are any problems. Staff response: staff does have a fairly specific data set to monitor water quality. However, staff does not have specific data related to special events (immediately before and after) and their impact on the raw water source. In 2012, staff will look into procuring that specific data. Public Comment: [7:37 p.m.] Neil Anderson: Mr. Anderson has been one of the participating neighbors that has been involved in this whole process. Mr. Anderson appreciates the parks staff incorporating the comments of the Valhalla neighbors, especially around the issues around the number of events and also how those special events are managed. This issue is a real concern for the neighbors as it impacts not only the environment but the quality of life for those that live around the reservoir. Motion, moved by DeOreo; seconded by: Iott, WRAB recommends that the City Council accept the BRMP. Furthermore, the WRAB recommends that the City Manager evaluate the water quality and environmental impacts of special events as part of the development of a Site Management Plan for the reservoir and determine thresholds as appropriate to address impacts to the reservoir's primary function as a drinking water facility; with a further recommendation to the City Manager that the level of special events is set at 85% of the past three years, and limit the number of signature special events to one per month. Vote: 1:4 Motion fails Second Motion: Moved by Ryan, seconded by Scharnhorst; The Water Resources Advisory Board finds the proposed Boulder Reservoir Master Plan is generally in conformance with the city's Water Quality Strategic Plan, which supports each of the three i'tility Master Plans, including the Water Utility Master Plan. The WRAB recommends that City Council accept the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan incorporating the amendments of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. The WRAB recommends that the City Manager evaluate the water quality and environmental impacts of special events as part of the development of a Site Management Plan for the reservoir and determine thresholds as appropriate to address impacts to the reservoir's primary function as a drinking water facility. Furthermore the WRAB recommends a moratorium on additional new special events (as of today's date) until the Site Management Plan is adopted. Vote: 4:1; Board member Howe objected due to the lack of data WRAB Minutes 19 December 2011 Page No. 2 Agenda Item 5 - Informational item on Energy Efficiencies and Usage [8:20 p.m.] Joe Castro and Chris Douville presented item to the board. Power Point presentation given for this agenda item. Executive Summary from Packet Materials: The purpose of this agenda item is to update the WRAB on energy efficiency work completed or planned at Utilities Division facilities. Also, highlights of energy use and management at the wastewater treatment facility will be shared. Agenda Item 6 - Informational item on Revenue Stabilization [9:12 p.m.] Ken Baird presented item to the board Executive Summary from Packet Materials: WRAB has asked for information regarding water revenue stabilization, specifically analyzing use of revenues coming from the top two blocks in the rate structure, Blocks 4 and 5. As conservation efforts continue and more customers stay within their water budget, it is important to ensure that the revenues and expenditures are in alignment. Staff conducted analysis on what the Block 2 (base) rate would have to be for the required revenue to come from only Blocks 1-3. Using the rate model for 2012, the new base rate would be $3.65, compared to the adopted base rate of $3.00. Staff also looked at Block 4 and 5 usage and revenue trends since the inception of water budgets in 2007. Upper block usage declined in the initial years of the water budget approach, but appears to have leveled off. WRAB discussion included: [9:20 p.m.] The WRAB asked some clarifying questions of the materials. Agenda Item 7 - Matters from the Board and Staff [9:25 p.m.] Matters from the Board: Board member Howe brought up the below matter(s): • The Nederland group is putting the final touches to limiting boating on Barker Reservoir, and may have a presentation ready by February. • Where does the city stand with the IGA with CU regarding grey water? Staff response: In November, staff sent a joint letter from both the city and the university to Northern Colorado Water to try to get some clarification on the re-use options. It appears that the only viable option is using Windy Gap Water, which has potential complications. Staffs has not heard back from Northern yet, and are in the meantime working on what the logistics would be. Board member Ryan brought up the below matter(s): • The letter from WRAB to the City Council for Council's annual retreat. The Board discussed edits of the letter for final submittal to the Council. Matters from Staff: Arthur brought up the below matter(s): • The Carter Lake Pipeline has gone through the initial staff review for the 1041. The county staff has recommended denial of the permit. This will go before the County Commissioners on Jan. l0a' • Pinellas County discontinued Fluoridation; there are approximately 20-24 cities/towns that have the ability to add their own fluoride. • There is an existing trail out at the WTF which the city is going to partner with the county in repairing it. There will be an IGA for the financing aspect. Agenda Item 8 - Discussion on Future Schedule [9:52 p.m.] January meeting will be on the fourth Monday, 23 January February meeting will be on the fourth Monday, 27 February Agenda Item 9 -Adjournment [10:02 p.m.] There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m. Motion to adjourn by: DeOreo; Seconded by: Howe Motion Passes 5:0 Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: The next WRAB meeting will be Monday, 23 January 2012 at 7:00 p.m., special meeting date due to the WRAB Minutes 19 December 2011 Page No. 3 Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday, at the 13" Street Conference Room located at 1720 13` 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 19 December 2011 Page No. 4 CITY OF BOULDER WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD INFORMATION ITEM MEETING DATE: January 23, 2012 AGENDA TITLE: Informational Item - Coordinated Water Quality Monitoring Program for Emerging Contaminants. PRESENTERS: Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities Michelle Wind, Drinking Water Program Supervisor Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Coordinator Jim Shelley, Source Water Protection Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Scientific advances have produced numerous compounds that facilitate everyday life, treat illness, and save lives through human and veterinary medicine. One byproduct of these advances is the entry of chemicals into the environment, including pharmaceuticals, synthetic fragrances, detergents, disinfectants, plasticizers, and preservatives that can be present in wastewater, or agricultural and urban runoff. New information has shown that these contaminants may impact the environment and drinking water supplies, but the detailed facts to establish the need for a regulatory standard have yet to be developed. The City of Boulder (city) initiated water quality monitoring for a group of emerging contaminants in its source water and finished drinking water in 2008. The monitoring is at a research level to get an understanding of occurrence and establish a baseline for some of these constituents. Although primarily unregulated in surface water and drinking water, these types of contaminants are of increasing interest to researchers and the public. This agenda item provides an update to the WRAB on the city's monitoring and making the information available to the public. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic - Economic impacts have yet to be determined from the possible regulation of emerging contaminants. Future economic impacts could be in the form of water rate increases due to capital improvements required to meet new regulatory requirements. • Environmental - Results and information gathered from monitoring for emerging contaminants can have long-term environmental benefits related to future regulations or bans on certain products that contain emerging contaminants. Information on emerging contaminants has initiated pharmaceutical take-back programs in Boulder and surrounding AGENDA ITEM # IV ; PAGE 1 communities that has reduced the potential for disposing emerging contaminant containing products into local landfills and the sanitary sewer system. • Social - Study information is being used to educate the public on the potential effects of certain products that contain emerging contaminants. The city has initiated a free pharmaceutical take-back program, which is open to all Boulder residents, and residents can drop off expired or unused pharmaceuticals for proper disposal. The city is also teaming with local and regional entities to monitor for emerging contaminants in a joint effort. OTHER IMPACTS Fiscal: The city is teaming with local and regional entities to monitor for emerging contaminants. The city pays a proportion of the total cost based on the number of sampling locations where collected data are beneficial to the city. The estimated annual city cost for monitoring emerging contaminants is approximately $20,000. BACKGROUND Increasing sensitivity of chemical analytical technologies has revealed previously immeasurable constituents in water. In the water industry these compounds are generally termed emerging contaminants due to the growing interest and research in their potential effect on the environment and public health and the recent ability to measure these compounds at very low levels. A 2008 Associated Press investigation, reporting that some major water providers across the country have detected trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in their water supplies, heightened interest and raised the question of what the city is doing with regard to monitoring pharmaceuticals in drinking water. Emerging contaminants can refer to a broad range of endocrine disrupting compounds, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products, and they can include synthetic or natural compounds. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products are a group of compounds consisting of human and veterinary drugs (prescription and over-the-counter) and consumer products, such as lotions, sunscreens, antibacterial soaps and household cleaning products. These compounds have been detected nationwide in trace amounts in surface water, drinking water and wastewater effluent due to today's advanced technology and ability to detect more compounds at very low levels. Some emerging contaminants are being found at very low levels in the range of parts per trillion or less. To put this in perspective a part per trillion is equivalent to less than one drop in an Olympic size pool. Many of these emerging contaminants are not regulated by the state and federal government and standards (allowable levels) have not been developed for drinking water or surface water. As a result, the city is not required to monitoring for these contaminants. The fact that a substance is detectable in water does not necessarily mean the substance is harmful to humans and extensive research is underway. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other organizations including the American Water Works Association and the Water Research Foundation are conducting and/or supporting a large amount of research on this topic. Research areas include development and improvement of analytical testing methods, monitoring water quality throughout the United States for occurrence information, evaluating the removal AGENDA ITEM # IV ; PAGE 2 effectiveness of treatment processes, and potential environmental and human health impacts. The city has participated in the following Water Research Foundation Projects: • Endocrine Disrupting Compounds/Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (EDC/PPCP) Benchmarking and Monitoring Strategies for Drinking Water Utilities • Building a National Utility Network to Address EDC/PPCP Issues • Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes Towards EDCs and PPCPs In Drinking Water The EPA regulates more than 90 specific contaminants in public drinking water supplies because of known or suspected human health effects. An additional 40 or so "unregulated contaminants" are monitored at public drinking water systems to assist in determining if they need to be regulated. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) includes a process to identify and list unregulated contaminants which may require a national drinking water regulation in the future. EPA must periodically publish a list (Contaminant Candidate List) of contaminants and select a number of contaminants for consideration for future regulation and it is anticipated that EPA will use this process for evaluating the need to regulate emerging contaminants. Nationally, water professionals are evaluating the ability of water treatment facilities to remove emerging contaminants and are also working on possible enhanced treatment technologies. But until the possible effects of emerging contaminants can be better defined, and regulatory levels set, it is difficult to know what level of treatment is necessary, and whether additional treatment is required beyond current levels. ANALYSIS Nationally, there is mounting evidence that low levels of emerging contaminants are present in waters systems and sediments which may affect wildlife, sometimes causing non-lethal but adverse ecological health effects. Although no direct adverse impact on human health has been established from consuming drinking water treated to current EPA standards, the presence of very low levels of emerging contaminants in the source waters used for drinking water supplies is a potential cause for concern. Since 2004, the city has been actively involved with the University of Colorado and the United States Geological Survey in evaluating the presence and impacts of emerging contaminants on Boulder Creek from the city's wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) discharge. Since little information was know about what emerging contaminants might be in the city's raw and treated drinking water, emerging contaminant monitoring was initiated in 2008. Since late 2009, the city has participated in coordinated annual monitoring for emerging contaminants, throughout the eastern Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) system, with Northern Water and other C-BT drinking water users. Samples are collected from a total of 20 sample sites within the C-BT system, with the city responsible for collecting samples at four source water sites (Boulder Reservoir, Boulder Feeder Canal, Barker Reservoir, and Lakewood Reservoir) and two treated drinking water sites, one at the Betasso water treatment facility (WTF) and one at the Boulder Reservoir WTF, for a total of 6 sampling locations. The city collects two or three samples per year to represent spring runoff AGENDA ITEM # IV ; PAGE 3 (high flow), late summer (low flow, recreation, and crop/weed management conditions), and winter (low flow). Approximately 200 emerging contaminants per sample are analyzed during each monitoring event, and include pharmaceuticals and personal care products, pesticides and hormones (synthetic and natural). A complete list of constituents is provided in Attachment A. Coordinated monitoring costs are split between the eight study participants, and city's annual analytical costs have ranged from $10,000 to $24,000. The city's projected 2012 analytical cost is $20,000. Results of Emerging Contaminant Monitoring The laboratory used to analyze samples (Center for Environmental Mass Spectrometry on the University of Colorado campus) uses two analytical methods. One method scans for 150 pharmaceuticals and pesticides at a slightly higher detection limit, and the second is an ultra- sensitive method that analyzes a select set of approximately 50 compounds or targets (e.g. constituents most commonly detected locally and nationally and some targeted constituents) at a lower detection level of 1 nanogram/liter (ng/L, i.e., part per trillion). Table 1 summarizes the constituents detected in the city's source and finished waters. The laboratory detection limits are extremely low, ng/L. Generally, water quality data is presented in units of milligrams/liter (parts per million) or micrograms/liter (parts per billion). Most of the constituents are not regulated in drinking water or surface water, but drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are included in the table where applicable. A general description or use of each constituent is also provided. Based on the results shown in Table 1, and the list of all constituents analyzed (Attachment A), it is evident that the detection of emerging contaminants is inconsistent and some constituents have never been detected (20 out of 200 constituents analyzed have been detected). Betasso WTF Source Water • No constituents detected in the Lakewood source. • The number of pharmaceuticals detected in Barker Reservoir indicate an influence from the Town of Nederland WWTF and septic systems. • The new Nederland WWTF may help reduce certain constituents. • There are no drinking water MCLs for constituents detected. Boulder Reservoir WTF Source Water • The pesticides/herbicides detected in the Boulder Feeder Canal and Boulder Reservoir indicate influence from weed management along Boulder Feeder Canal and crop lands along canal. These constituents were detected in sampling events conducted in June, July, and August. • Pharmaceuticals in the Boulder Feeder Canal indicate an influence from septic systems. AGENDA ITEM # IV ; PAGE 4 Table 1 - Emerging Contaminants Detected in City of Boulder Raw and Treated Water (2008-2011) Drinking Lab No. of Constituent Water Detection Events Min Max Location Group Constituent Description MCL, Limit Detected Detected, Detected, , (11 total ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L events)' Barker Household Sucralose Artificial NA 15 2 17.6 53.1 Reservoir Products Sweetener Caffeine Stimulant NA 3/5 5 4 415 Carbamazepine Anticonvulsant NA 1 1 2.1 2.1 Clarithromycin Antibiotic NA 1 2 2.4 3.2 Cotinine Stimulant NA 1/10 2 2 9.1 Pharmaceutical Gemfibrozil Lipid regulator NA 5 3 1.6 18.2 Ibuprofen Antiinflammatory NA 1 1 1.8 1.8 Lamotrigine Anticonvulsant NA 5 1 14.8 14.8 Metoprolol Antianginal NA 1 1 1.8 1.8 Sulfamethoxazole Antibiotic NA 1 2 1.3 6.6 Venlafaxine Antidepressant NA 1 1 3 3 Betasso Household Sucralose Artificial NA 15 1 27 27 WTF Products Sweetener Finished Caffeine Stimulant NA 3/5 4 11 142 Pharmaceutical Cotinine Stimulant NA 1/10 1 4.6 4.6 Boulder 2,4-D Herbicide 70000 5 4 10.5 140.7 Feeder Herbicides and Diuron Herbicide NA 115 1 4.2 4.2 Canal Pesticides Fluridone Herbicide NA 5 3 13.4 319.8 Household Sucralose Artificial NA 15 2 31.3 299.4 Products Sweetener Personal Care DEET Insect Repellant NA 5 1 5 5 Products Acetaminophen Analgesic NA 5 1 6 6 Caffeine Stimulant NA 3/5 3 5.9 97.9 Pharmaceutical Cotinine Stimulant NA 1/10 1 1.6 1.6 Gemfibrozil Lipid regulator NA 115 1 1 1 Sulfamethoxazole Antibiotic N.A 1 2 1.8 2.7 Boulder 2,4-D Herbicide 70000 5 7 19.7 127.2 Reservoir Herbicides and Atrazine Herbicide 3000 1 3 5 5 Pesticides Diuron Herbicide NA 1/5 4 1.8 11.6 Fluridone Herbicide NA 5 6 9.4 43.8 Household Sucralose Artificial NA 15 2 13 45 Products Sweetener Personal Care DEET Insect Repellant NA 5 4 10 54.7 Products Caffeine Stimulant NA 3/5 5 4.3 27.9 Pharmaceutical Cotinine Stimulant NA 1/10 4 1.4 4.6 Venlafaxine Antidepressant NA 1 1 1.6 1.6 Endocrine Progesterone Reproductive NA 0.1 1 0.1 0.1 Disruptors Hormone Boulder 2,4,6- Phenolic Reservoir Trichlorophenol Endocrine NA 0.1 1 0.2 0.2 WTF Endocrine (ug/L) Disruptor Finished Disruptors Phenylphenol Phenolic (ug/L) Endocrine NA 0.1 1 0.1 0.1 Disruptor 2,4-D Herbicide 70000 5 5 8.8 89 Herbicides and Atrazine Herbicide 3000 5 1 5 5 Pesticides Fluridone Herbicide NA 5 5 8.6 44.7 Household Sucralose Artificial NA 15 2 27.2 27.9 Products Sweetener Personal Care DEET Insect Repellant NA 5 3 10 35.9 Products Phanuaceutical Caffeine Stimulant NA 3/5 3 5.7 34.7 Cotinine Stimulant NA 1/10 4 1.2 4.2 ' Not all constituents were monitored in all 11 events. Highlighted cells indicate a single detection at the detection limit and more data is needed to confirm. Highlighted cells indicate constituent regulated by SDWA. AGENDA ITEM 4 IV ; PAGE 5 Treated Drinking Water • Betasso WTF - Three of the constituents detected in the raw water were detected in the finished water. • Boulder Reservoir WTF - The two regulated herbicides detected were at levels significantly below the MCL. City staff is working with Northern Water on different weed management practices in and along the Boulder Feeder Canal. - The single detections of 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol and phenylphenol were at the laboratory detection limit and further data is needed to confirm their presence. Production of 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol(used as anti-mildew treatment, pesticide, and wood preservative) was discontinued in the U.S. in the 1980s. Phenylphenol is a fungicide and general household and industrial surface disinfectant. - Detected household products, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals could be from human contact in the reservoir or from human contact and wastewater discharge that makes its way to Boulder Reservoir via the Boulder Feeder Canal and Dry Creek. NEXT STEPS The city will continue to monitor for emerging contaminants in source water and treated water, through the coordinated monitoring program, at least through 2012. The program continues to be refined, to balance the number of constituents and analytical costs, but also to develop a sufficient database to compare with potential future regulatory requirements. Through the coordinated monitoring program, the city and other participants are working with the University of Colorado laboratory researchers to develop a written report that helps explain the methods and information and caveats related to the data. This information is intended to help explain the information as it is provided to the public by all the entities and provide more consistent and accurate interpretation. In 2012, the city will be posting the emerging contaminant monitoring program information and data on the city Web site. Information will include monitored constituents and locations, whether an emerging contaminant has been detected, and if detected, its range of concentration. Information on each emerging contaminant, including potential sources (medication, personal care product, etc.) will also be provided. The city will coordinate and fund a pharmaceutical take-back day in 2012. Previous pharmaceutical take-back events have been very successful, collecting up to 1,000 pounds of expired or unused pharmaceuticals, some of which contain various emerging contaminants. The city will also continue to provide education and outreach regarding the potential impacts of emerging contaminants through posting information on the city Web site or various education and outreach events. ATTACHMENTS A - List of Constituents Monitored AGENDA ITEM # IV ; PAGE 6 Attachment A - List of Constituents Monitored Pharmaceuticals Suite (CU Lab) Pesticides Suite (CU Lab) Low Levels Suite (CU Lab) (Method LC/TOF-MS) (Method LC/TOF-MS) (Method LC/MS-MS) 1 :111, ;I 1,7-Dimethylxanthine 100 ng/L Acetamiprid 10 ng/L 2,4-D 5 ng/L Acetaminophen 50 ng/L Acetochlor 15 ng/L Acetaminophen 5 ng/L Albuterol (Salbutamol) 10 ng/L Alachlor 15 ng/L Atenolol 5 ng/L Ampicillin 10 ng/L Aldicarb 10 ng/L BAM 10 ng/L Azithromycin 10 ng/L Aldicarb Sulfoxide 50 ng/L Bisphenol A 20 ng/L Caffeine 10 ng/L Ametryn 3 ng/L Bupropion 1 ng/L Carbamazepine 10 ng/L Atrazine 2 ng/L Caffeine 3/5 ng/L Cefotaxime 10 ng/L Azoxystrobin 5 ng/L Carbamazepine 1 ng/L Cimetidine 10 ng/L Benalaxyl 5 ng/L Clarithromycin 1 ng/L Ciprofloxacin 10 ng/L Bendiocarb 10 ng/L Cotinine 1 ng/L Clarithromycin 10 ng/L Bromuconazole 10 ng/L DEET 5 ng/L Cloxacillin 50 ng/L Buprofezin 3 ng/L Diazinon 1 ng/L Codeine 5 ng/L Bupropion TBD ng/L Diltiazem 5 ng/L Cotinine 10 ng/L Butylate 20 ng/L Diphenhydramine 5 ng/L Dehydronifedi pine 2 ng/L Carbaryl 10 ng/L Diuron 5 ng/L Diclofenac 50 ng/L Carbendazim 10 ng/L Erythromycin 10 ng/L Digoxigenin 25 ng/L Carbofuran 10 ng/L Fluridone 5 ng/L Digoxin 25 ng/L Chlorfenvinphos 10 ng/L Gemfibrozil 5 ng/L Diltiazem 5 ng/L Chlorotoluron 10 ng/L Metoprolol 1 ng/L Diphenhydramine 2 ng/L Chlorpyrifos methyl 50 ng/L Propanolol 1 ng/L Enrofloxacin 5 ng/L Cyanazine 5 ng/L Sulfa methoxazole 1/2 ng/L Erythromycin 5 ng/L Cyproconazole 5 ng/L Trimethoprim 5 ng/L Flumequine 20 ng/L Cyromazine 10 ng/L Fluoxetine 25 ng/L DEET 20 ng/L # of Low Level Analytes 22 Gemfibrozil 25 ng/L Deethylatrazine 5 ng/L Ibuprofen 100 ng/L Deethylterbuthylazine 3 ng/L Lamotrigine 5 ng/L Deisopropylatrazine 10 ng/L Hormone Minimicking Compounds (UL Lab) Lincomycin 5 ng/L Dextrorphan TBD ng/L Lomefloxacin 5 ng/L Diazinon 1 ng/L Analyte MRL Units Metformin 50 ng/L Dichlorvos 10 ng/L Bisphenol A 0.1 ug/L Miconazole 10 ng/L Difenoconazole 10 ng/L Nonylphenol, isomer mix 0.5 ug/L Naproxen 100 ng/L Difenoxuron 5 ng/L 4-n-Octylphenol 0.5 ug/L Norfloxacin 10 ng/L Diflubenzuron 15 ng/L 4-tert-Octylphenol 0.5 ug/L Ofloxacin 5 ng/L Dimethachlor 20 ng/L Pentachlorophenol 0.1 ug/L Oxacillin 20 ng/L Dimethenamide 15 ng/L Phenylphenol 0.1 ug/L Oxohnic Acid 20 ng/L Dimethoate 5 ng/L Tetra bromobisphenol A 0.1 ug/L Ranitidine 10 ng/L Dimethomorph 5 ng/L 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0.1 ug/L Roxithromycin 5 ng/L Diphenylamine 3 ng/L Diethylstilbestrol (DES) 0.5 ng/L Sarafloxacin 5 ng/L Diuron 5 ng/L 17alpha-Estradiol 0.5 ng/L Sucralose 15 ng/L Ethiofencarb 5 ng/L 17beta-Estradiol 0.5 ng/L Sulfachloropyridazine 25 ng/L Fenamiphos 5 ng/L Estriol 0.5 ng/L Sulfadiazine 100 ng/L Fenuron 15 ng/L Estrone 0.5 ng/L Sulfadimethoxine 10 ng/L Fipronil 20 ng/L 17alpha-Ethynylestradiol 0.5 ng/L Sulfamerazine 50 ng/L Flufenacet 10 ng/L cis-Testosterone 0.1 ng/L Sulfamethazine 20 ng/L Flufenoxuron 50 ng/L trans-Testosterone 0.1 ng/L Sulfamethizole 50 ng/L Fluometuron 5 ng/L Bisphenol A 0.1 ug/L Sulfamethoxazole 25 ng/L Flutolanil 5 ng/L Progesterone 0.1 ng/L Sulfanilamide 100 ng/L Hexaflumuron SO ng/L Thiabendazole 10 ng/L Hexazinone 3 ng/L # of HMC Analytes 18 Triclocarban 25 ng/L Hydroxyatrazine 10 ng/L Trimethoprim 10 ng/L Imazalil 1 ng/L Total Number of Analytes 194 Tylosin 25 ng/L Imazapyr 2 ng/L Venlafaxine 1 ng/L Imazaquin 2 ng/L Viginiamycin 25 ng/L Imidacloprid 10 ng/L Warfarin 25 ng/L Iprodione 50 ng/L Irgarol1051 2 ng/L # of Pharmaceuticals 55 Irgarol metabolite 2 ng/L Isofenphos 3 ng/L Isoproturon 5 ng/L Lenacil 20 ng/L Linuron 50 ng/L Lufenuron 50 ng/L Malaoxon 5 ng/L Malathion 5 ng/L Mebendazole 3 ng/L Metalaxyl 10 ng/L Metamitron 3 ng/L Methidathion 10 ng/L Methiocarb 10 ng/L Methomyl 15 ng/L Metolachlor 5 ng/L Metolcarb 15 ng/L Metribuzin 2 ng/L Molinate 20 ng/L Monuron 10 ng/L Nicosulfuron 10 ng/L Parathion ethyl 20 ng/L Parathion methyl 50 ng/L Pendimethalin 20 ng/L Phosmet 25 ng/L Prochloraz 10 ng/L Profenofos 25 ng/L Promecarb 15 ng/L Prometon 1 ng/L Prometryn 1 ng/L Propachlor 10 ng/L Propanil 25 ng/L Propazine 2 ng/L Propiconazole 5 ng/L Prosulfocarb 15 ng/L Simazine 3 ng/L Spiroxamine 10 ng/L Teflubenzuron 50 ng/L Terbuthylazine 2 ng/L Terbutryn 1 ng/L Thiabendazole 10 ng/L Thiacloprid 10 ng/L Thiocyclam 25 ng/L Triflumizole 5 ng/L # of Pesticides 99 CITY OF BOULDER WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD INFORMATION ITEM MEETING DATE: January 23, 2012 AGENDA TITLE: Information Item - Low Impact Development Standards PRESENTER: Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities Brian Campbell, Civil Engineer II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the 2011 WRAB retreat, the board requested that staff provide a future update on the use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques. LID is a holistic stormwater management approach based on replicating natural runoff patterns. Standards for LID and other stormwater best management practices (BMPs) are established in the city's Design and Construction Standards (DCS) and the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (BRC). These regulations were most recently updated in 2005 as part of the implementation of the city's Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. At that time, stormwater treatment was a rapidly evolving field and the city regulations were drafted to allow for the use of innovative approaches. The regulations have allowed for a variety of stormwater management approaches including LID techniques. Later this year, staff plans to propose changes to the DCS based on more comprehensive BMP performance data now available from the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) and anticipated regulatory changes at the state and federal level. WRAB will have the opportunity to review the draft changes prior to City Council consideration. BACKGROUND: LID is a holistic stormwater management approach intended to mimic predevelopment hydrology by using design techniques that infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate, and detain stormwater close to its source. Techniques are based on the premise that stormwater management should not be seen as stormwater disposal and differ from traditional approaches where runoff is generated, conveyed, and then managed in large end-of-pipe facilities. Examples of commonly used LID practices include vegetated buffers, swales, green roofs, and permeable pavers. Stormwater activities in the City of Boulder are subject to a variety of federal, state, and local regulations. Regulations govern the design and construction of new public facilities as well as other activities that impact the city's municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) and waters of the State of Colorado. The city's stormwater regulations are contained in the BRC and DCS. The BRC includes city regulations related to illicit discharge, maintenance of facilities, floodplain development, and stream, wetland and Agenda Item V Page 1 waterbody protection. The DCS is adopted by ordinance as part of the city's land use regulations and specifies requirements for both public and private construction projects. The city's stormwater standards were last updated in 2005 as part of changes related to the city's MS4 permit. Due to the rapidly evolving nature of stormwater quality treatment technology, previous DCS updates included a provision to allow applicants to propose alternative technologies with supporting engineering analysis. This provision has been utilized to pilot various technologies including green roofs, pervious pavers, and underground vault systems (see Attachment A for some examples of projects in the city that have incorporated LID techniques). Although the city has encouraged the use of LID, the Extended Detention Basin (EDB) as described in the UDFCD Drainage Criteria Manual Volume III generally remains the most commonly used stormwater management approach. An EDB slowly releases a portion of a storm called the Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) over a 40 hour period to allow contaminants to settle out. This approach focuses on removal of Total Suspended Solids, but does not specifically target other pollutants, such as phosphorous, nitrogen, and heavy metals, that regularly migrate with stormwater runoff. UDFCD has recently completed a major update of its criteria manual based on experience with the various practices mentioned as well as emerging technologies. The City of Boulder participated in that effort and staff anticipates incorporating the UDFCD effort into proposed future DCS, changes. In particular, UDFCD has provided improved guidance regarding LID techniques. The new UDFCD manual provides a better methodology for quantifying their effectiveness relative to other treatment options. At the federal level, the EPA is currently considering new regulations that include setting limits on pollutants carried in stormwater runoff and discharged into State Waters. Pollutants that may be regulated include Total Suspended Solids, phosphorous, nitrogen, and heavy metals. These regulations could require the city to continually test the 12 major outfalls located within the city's MS4 permit area to ensure compliance. The use of LID in the planning and development process may help mitigate many of these pollutants and thus assist the city in maintaining compliance. As part of the 2012 budget process, City Council approved a two year fixed-term position to focus on updates to the DCS, including the standards for stormwater management. This position will be filled in the next few months and it is anticipated that a package of more minor updates will be forwarded for consideration in 2012 followed by more substantive updates in 2013. WRAB will have the opportunity to review proposed updates prior to City Council consideration. ANALYSIS: A detailed analysis of stormwater management techniques and regulatory approaches will be performed as part of the proposed updates to the DCS. In addition to determining appropriate best management practices, the analysis will also need to consider compliance thresholds and maintenance requirements. Agenda Item V Page 2 Staff anticipates that the proposed menu of acceptable BMPs will continue to mirror the UDFCD Drainage Criteria Manual Volume III. UDCFD provides a comprehensive set of best management practices, including LID techniques. General consistency with UDFCD leverages significant regional research, allows use of existing design tools, and helps minimize the resources necessary to keep standards current. The recent addition of BMP performance data to the manual will play a key role in evaluating development proposals that employ multiple stormwater management approaches. Continued availability of a variance process to allow for innovation and piloting of alternative approaches is also likely to be proposed. A critical function of the DCS is to provide guidance on what techniques from the UDFCD menu are appropriate for various development scenarios. The current DCS generally requires WCQV or equivalent for major projects with an "extent practicable" standard for lesser projects. At the time of the last DCS update, there were concerns about the feasibility of requiring full WQCV on all redevelopment projects. For example, dedicating a portion of a downtown site for a water quality pond as part of redevelopment was not considered a practical option. With advancements in LID techniques such as green roofs and permeable pavement, there appears to be an opportunity to improve treatment of runoff from redevelopment sites without significant land use impacts. There may also be benefits to mandating LID techniques for certain types of projects. For example, surface parking lots over a certain size or exceeding parking requirements could potentially be required to use alternative paving materials. Changes to thresholds may have a significant impact on site design and project feasibility and will need to be vetted through a stakeholder process. Another important element of the updates will be requirements for maintenance. One of the advantages to conventional stormwater treatment techniques is that maintenance needs tend to be conspicuous. Surface ponds allow for easy detection of accumulated sediment and debris as well as identification of damage or modification of outlet structures. Maintenance can generally be completed without the need for special training or equipment. Conversely, for a pervious parking area to function effectively it generally requires periodically vacuuming to restore infiltration properties. This need is considerably less apparent from a visual inspection. Rooftop and underground approaches have the potential to be out of sight and out of mind without a structured monitoring and maintenance protocol. Updates to BRC requirements for BMP maintenance and increased city inspection resources will both need to be considered to ensure that selected approaches provide long term effectiveness. NEXT STEPS: Staff anticipates that an initial round of proposed revisions to the DCS will be forwarded to WRAB in the third quarter of 2012. Agenda Item V Page 3 ATTACHMENT A EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS WITH LID IN THE CITY OF BOULDER PROJECT NAME LID BMP USED LOCATION RED OAK PARK VEGETATED SWALES VALMONT JUST EAST AND PERVIOUS PAVERS OF FOLSOM WALGREEN'S PERVIOUS PAVERS 2870 28TH STREET MOUNTAIN VIEW MOUNTAIN VIEW H PERVIOUS PAVERS DRIVE BETWEEN 4 DRIVE AND 5TH STREET NORTH BROADWAY PERVIOUS PAVERS 4481 NORTH STRIP MALL BROADWAY NAROPA PERVIOUS PAVERS 2130 ARAPAHOE AVENUE UPTOWN BROADWAY VORTECHNICS WATER NORTH BROADWAY & QUALITY UNIT ROSEWOOD AVE. MUNICIPAL BUILDING VORTECHNICS WATER CANYON & BROADWAY QUALITY UNIT STORMCEPTOR WATER 28 ST. FRONTAGE LANDMARK LOFTS QUALITY UNIT ROAD AND COLLEGE AVE 29TH STREET MALL STORMCEPTOR WATER 28TH STREET BETWEEN QUALITY UNITS ARAPAHOE AND PEARL TOBY'S LANE PERVIOUS PAVERS EAST SIDE OF 55TH SOUTH OF ARAPAHOE BOULDER COUNTY ADDICTION RECOVERY GREEN ROOF 3470 BROADWAY CENTER SINGLE FAMILY GREEN ROOF 2925 15TH STREET RESIDENCE SINGLE FAMILY GREEN ROOF 3173 3' STREET RESIDENCE 1655 WALNUT GREEN ROOF AND RAIN 1655 WALNUT GARDENS VALMONT BIKE PARK BIOSWALES VALMONT ROAD & AIRPORT ROAD LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS r; 1 `mod'- ► 1 , j - RN, I i is e T; lie _ _ ~ - ~ - - III ~~~~~~~~~r - - . _ -IMF ~ r7>w" - t - BY: Brian Campbell, P.E., CFM ® f w, Y'S LANE January 23 ` 0.1.0 Summary • Define LID • Current City Standards • MS4 Permit Requirements 40 nor; 4. r~i • Types of LID BMP s used in the City OXILS • Specific Examples of LID in Boulder j- - • Analysis of LID Techniques rr _ 414 + F OIL _ • Future State & Federal Regulations K • Future DCS Updates Ool • Questions 3 LID Defined LID is a holistic stormwater management approach intended to mimic pre-development hydrology by using design techniques that infiltrate, store, evaporate, and detain stormwater close to its source. w~ Current City Standards • Can be found in the DCS and BRC • Reference to UDFCD Manuals • Projects that increase impervious area are required to provide detention with a few exemptions. *All projects are required to provide WQCV to the "maximum extent practicable" unless the site is over 1 acre, then full WQCV based on UDFCD Vol III is required. -imirt-Al R- .i. ~ 4X'1=74~ + yf Yi~,,._'. 1" ..r..... ° ,r $ - ~_.,yu' liY1 r, a.~ w. z i ,t ♦ a+°. p 'e~~ rt MS4 Permit Requirements • The CWA provides that storm water permits for MS4 discharges shall contain controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the "maximum extent practicable " and such other provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants. Types of used in City . Ai,j y}: • Green Roof's V); A , a • B i o-swa I e s 1XI * j • Pervious Pavers =4~ ' : • Manufactured Unit's ` • Rain Gardens • Media Filter (Sand/Compost) pr • Detention Pond's {g~ Local Examples ~.i,~ ~ / ' J' {vim-/' ~ ~ k w ' Y: - -AW F 1 MA ft 9e _ ~„n „W„ Local Examples Esc `''-s~Si ■ .1~1. 't WlI fi9~F`.- r:• _ - _ _ 43:X -~t+i'.i' .f4 1t.,rt ~'-_~1 Fl''y, er vrE y .(n - s ~X~<Y.M'~..1'~ ~ -,s~h?~ °~'~^r•'` y t~,4 tt~'~T~T ~ f r _ ~'r*'~ _ M~ J`~Y.~~Y~' 1"....'-~~. as'. r ~ *„i ~ ~ jJ Y Z. ~ -*t m:w' ri 'D. ]`-v-y c ~ ~ 'F i3,~^r~i ~ a. +.;.5^4'x` £e~'- 3k !i?'. c. ~ Y ' ~ _ J'~ i y ~r ~ j..~5. a• ? uG Af.~ > ~ r~t~c~.'^r~t YS. ~~e~ _n.~--rJ ~,~fi ~ .1~ii Jt3 ~ ' Z -~/s ~ o„ ~.~t yL r~'~..~,~i~. { } ,rr~'~:~'sa - ~-+~-P a'~!~ tj+ ru 'r Jr~„77►►""AA ra`~ p ~ .fir - i 'a F ~+~.-Y•-• i ~ ~ e! R, ..y a ~f G:. !,a '~C„`•.,+~'Sr to ti~i~ All t r L'Ei. 'iy -x A .r. - • i A ~ W~A~~~~'~ L" a _ ~ . ~ Sys ~,~,1~ ~ y r. r ~ J ~ `fir; , r Mimi ''~0 vl~, f I _ Results of Techniques Pollutant (Average % Removal)* TSS Phosphorous Nitrogen Heavy Metals Bio-Swale 53% 20% None Up to 57% Detention 63% None None Up to 50% m Basin Manuf. 44% 36% 2% Up to 36% Device Media 81% 47% 25% Up to 85% Filter Permeable 37% 17% N/A Up to 71% Paver's * Data acquired from the International BMP Database Studies Other things to consider: • Maintenance • Inspections/Inspectors • Initial Costs • Land Use Planning • Use of Multiple BMP's • Climate • Cost of Real Estate • Construction Activities • Future Regulations Future State & Federal Regs. • EPA regulations to set limits and require monitoring of Total Maximum Daily Load Wasteload Allocations for Stormwater Sources and NPDES Permit Rqmts. • State and Fed. Regulation requiring proposed developments to use pre-developed hydrology in determining detention and water quality capture volume requirements. Future DCS Updates • Align with the UDFCD Updates • Potential to require the use of LID for proposed developments • Initial Round of Updates to be forwarded to WRAB in 3rd Quarter of 2012 • Final Round of Updates to be forwarded to WRAB in 3rd Quarter of 2013 k, J Questions for WRAB What are WRAB's thoughts and concerns for requiring the use of LID in proposed developments throughout the City? Is the requirement of LID for proposed developments something WRAB would consider supporting? -V.- IIIII!~-7 Jill ;Z, rc, icy. „a ~ 1J~sS d7r JY Val Red Oak Park -