No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06 Adopting Then 1996 Region XII Water Quality Management PlanRESOLUTION NO. 6 SERIES OF 't99fi A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THEN '1996 REGION Kll WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN s WHEREAS, protecting the quality of water resources in Vai! is important to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community; and WHEREAS, Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act requires plans for coordinated regional approaches to water quality management which must periodically be revised and updated; and WHEREAS, the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG), of which the Town of Vail is a member, has been designated by the Governor as the area wide waste treatment management planning authority under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act; and WHEREAS, the 208 Water Quality Management Plan compliments the recommended actions in the Vail Non Point Source Pian and the Eagle River Watershed Pian; and WHEREAS, The Town of Vail wishes to adopt the 1996 208 Plan as revised and submitted as a planning guide in order to promote and encourage reasonable and prudent efforts at protecting and improving water quality. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: The Town Council hereby adopts the attached 1996 Region Xll Water Quality Management Plan as a planning guide to promote and encourage reasonable and prudent-efforts at protecting and improving water quality in the Gore Creek Basin. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ,~ day of t? ~, 1996. Robert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: Holly McGutcheon, Tawn Clerk C:IR~SOLU96.6 Resolution IVo. 6, Series of 7996 EAGLE RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 02129/96 DRAFT ~ ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 WATERSHED OVERVIEW E - 3 1.1 Geography and Hydrology E - 3 1.2 Land Uses and Populatian Characteristics E - 5 1.3 Watershed Water Quality Management E - 5 2.0 WATERSHED WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT E -6 2.1 Upper Eagle River Watershed E _7 2.1.1 Eagle River from Belden to Gore Creek E -8 2.2 Gore Creek E _1 p 2.2.1 Gare Creek Above Black Gore Creek E -11 2.2.2 Gare Creek Below Black Gore Creek E -11 2.3 Lower Eagle River Watershed E -13 2.3.1 Mainstem Eagle River Fram Gore Creek to Datsera E -13 2.3.2 Beaver Creek E -15 2.3.3 Milk and Alkali Creeks E -15 2.3.4 Brush Creek E -16 2.3.5 Gypsum Creek E -16 2.4 CWCB Watershed fnstream Flows E -16 3.0 WATER QUALITY ISSUES E -21 3.1 Point Source Issues E -21 3.1.1 Municipal Discharges E -21 3.1.2 Eagle River Watershed Population Statistics and E -24 Projections 3.1.3 Industrial Discharges E _25 3.1.4 Point Source Issues -Summary E -25 3.2 Point Source Recommendatians E -26 3.3 ~Nonpoint Source issues -E _26 3.3.1 Mining Activities E -26 3.3.2 Urban and Construction Activities E -27 3.3:3 Hydralagic Modifications E -27 3.3.3.1 Transbasin Diversions E -27 3.3.3.2 In-Basin Diversions E -28 3.3.4 Recreational Activities E _2g 3.3.5 Agricultural Ac#ivities E _2g 3.3.6 Milk and Alkali Creeks ~E _29 3.4 Nonpaint Source Recommendations E -29 E-1 4.0 WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS E -30 4.1 Existing Projects E -30 4.1.1 Eagle Mine Site Remedial Action Plan and Record E -30 of Decision 4.1.2 Vail Nonpoint Source Management Plan E -30 4.1.3 Milk and Alkali Creek Drainage Project E -31 4.1.4 Black Lakes Enlargement Project ~E -31 4.1.5 Eagle River Watershed Plan E -31 4.1.6 Gore Creek Partnership E -32 4.2 Future Project Needs E -32 5.0 LAND USE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO WATER QUALITY E - 32 PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT fi.0 WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS E - 33 6.1 Ammonia Wasteload Allocations E - 33 7.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING NEEDS E - 33 7.1 Existing Monitoring Efforts E - 33 7.2 Water Quality Monitoring Needs E - 33 0 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS E - 34 8.1 Existing Classifications and Standards E - 34 8.1.1 Designated Use Impairment Stream Segments E - 34 8.1.2 303(d} List Segments E - 38 8.2 Recommendations E - 38 8.2.1 Support of Existing Standards and Temporary Modifications E - 38 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 7 Eagle River Watershed Map Table 12 Eagle Mine Investigation Table 13 Eagle River Watershed Instream Flows Table 14 -Eagle River Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facili#ies Table 15 Eagle County Population Statistics and Projections Table 16 Eagle River Water Quality Standards and Classifications Table 17 Eagle River Watershed Designated Use impairment Segments Table 18 Eagle River Watershed 303(d) List E- 4 E- 8 E- 17 E - 22 E - 24 E - 35 E - 37 E - 39 E-2 EAGLE RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT ALAN 0212919fi DRAFT 1.4 1NATERSHED OVERVIEW 1.1 Geoaraohv and Hvdmloav The Eagle River watershed lies almost entirely within Eagle County (a small portion of northeast Pitkin County lies within the watershed) and encompasses a 944 square mite {604,160 acres) area in northwestern Colorado. The Eagle River originates near the southeastern border of the County and flows northwesterly for about 35 miles to Dowd Junction, and then westward to the Colorado River at Dotsero. Principal tributaries of the Eagle are: Turkey Creek; an easterly tributary near Red Cliff; Cross Creek, a southerly tributary emerging from the Hoiy Cross . Wilderness near Minturn; Gore Creek, emerging from the mountains east of Vail and flowing through the Town of Vail; Beaver Creek, a southern tributary near Avon; Milk Creek, a northern tributary near Wolcott; Brush Creek, a southern tributary and the largest tributary downstream from Gore Creek; and Gypsum Creek, a southern tributary joining the Eagle River at Gypsum. A map of the watershed in shown in Figure 7. In the upper Eagle watershed (Gore Creek and the Eagle River above Dowd Junction}, average annual precipitation is 28 inches, two-thirds of which falls as snow. In the lower areas of the watershed (below Dowd Junction}, annual precipitation ranges from 12 to 19 inches, with about 60% falling as snow. Seventy-five percent of the annual runoff occurs between May and July as a result of snowmelt. Major snow fall typically occurs February through April. Thunderstorm activity from July through September produces signi€icant, although short lived rainfall events. Stream flows have marked seasonal variability, with highest flows occurring during the snow melt period, and low flows, sustained by ground water, occurring August through April. Stream flow also varies from year to year based on snow pack, with wet year flows being several times greater and longer in duration than dry years. Historical annual average streamflow for the Eagle River is estimated to be 415,000 acre feet below Gypsum Creek (Eagle River Assembly, Phase I Report, September 1994). Several small storage reservoirs and one larger reservoir exist in the watershed. Homestake Reservoir is located high in the southern portion of the watershed. This reservoir has a storage capacity of 44,360 acre feet and a surface area of 300 acres. This reservoir is used exclusively for eastern slope diversion. Two reservoirs are owned and operated by Climax Molybdenum Company on their property: Robinson and Eagle Park Reservoir (Industrial Pond 4), with a combined E-3 figure 7 r ~~t~rsh~d ~~~• f ~ r~ ur r~ w . i t rjf ~~~ ~ I Jf ~,\ m i l t r~3 j ~ ff ~ l~~i f ti r ~ ~ f t+~ I rrrr~ r\ iv R 4} 4 3 1 ti` y t* If' ~atJ r i ~~~f~ t}... r..~w., t` 1 ti` t 1 sx n j i Q1 ~4f • i ~ a7 * q y f~~ i af rye. Wi 1 mom. 1~w~ wN+ s~1s ~.,,, r r 4.~1 .,.,,~..... 4 i, y ~~ r7 1lV1 ; J f 1 i Sri rr r.. ref ~ , rr n~ o~ 7 t4 f.~~~~ ~~ G S. 1 1 5 P m's~~©m Ti a O OS W 0~ current capacity of 6,000 acre feet. ,Climax is currently remediating and possibly enlargingthese reservoirs with the intent of marketing some of their water rights which are currently not being used. The Black Lake Reservoirs are located at the headwaters of Gore Creek. These two reservoirs have a combined capacity of 300 acre feet, and are used by the Town of Vail to augment stream flows in Gore Creek and replace water diverted for snow making. Nottingham Lake in Avon has a storage capacity off 00 acre feet. Four transbasin diversion projects carry water from the headwaters of the Eagle River to the Arkansas River basin. These projects divert an annual average of 34,000 acre feet during the snowmelt period. Additional conditional water rights for out-of-basin diversions could yield an additional 100,000 acre feet if they were all developed (Eagle River Assembly Phase I Report). 1.2 Land Uses and Population Characteristics Public lands {Forest Service at approximately 380,000 acres and the Bureau of Land Management at approximately 95,000 acres) account for 77% of the total Eagle River watershed. The major population centers are Vail, Eagle-Vail, Avon, Edwards, Eagle, and Gypsum. The 1990 permanent population in the watershed was approximately 20,000 people. The average annual growth rate of the county over the last three years (1994} has been 4.91%. Average daily winter population in the Vai I Valley for 1994-1995 was 21,673. Economic and land use activities in Eagle River watershed include: recreation; mining; agriculture (including logging}; and urban development. The major mining areas in the county are the Eagle Mine, located near Mintum; and the Cyprus Climax Mine located on the continental divide at Fremont Pass. Agricultural products consist mainly of livestock, hay, and timber, with most of the irrigated farmland located in the Eagle River valley downstream from Gore Creek to Dotsero. Urban development in the county is primarily associated with construction of condominiums and homes along Gore Creek and the Eagle River in the vicinity of Vail and Avon, although development pressure and land prices has pushed development increasingly down valley. i.3 Watershed Water Quality Manaaement An effort called the Eagle River Council, composed of local, state, and federal agencies, as well as ranchers, environmentalists, and recreational interests undertook a number of projects (mainly nonpoint source projects in the Milk and Alkali Creek areas) in the mid to late 1980s, This group is no longer ac#ive. Another group, the Eagle River Environmental and Business Alliance (EREBA), was awarded a Technical Assistance Grant to communicate clean up activites to the E-5 community and to represent the community in reviews of documents and activities associated with the Eagle Mine. In 1994, local communities and Eagle County, recognizing the need to address issues related to the Eagle River on an integrated basis untook an effort called the Eagle River Watershed Plan. The Plan, suppor#ed by the towns, the County, state and federal agencies, and local interested citizens, is attempting to address: water quantity; water quality; recreation; wildlife; and land use issues in an integrated manner. The Plan is expected to be completed by fall of 1995. The group producing the plan is expecting to continue with plann#ng and management activities related to the Eag#e River after the document is produced. This Water Quality Management Plan was dove#oped during the Eagle River Watershed Plan effort, using the public outreach and input efforts of that plan. This Plan focuses more attention on the specifics of water quality -the assessment, paint and nonpoint source issues, and recommendations. Bath plans are attempts to identify issues related to Eagle River as a community resource, and means of protecting, and in some cases enhancing the existing uses of this asset. 2.Q WATERSHED WATER QUAL[TY ASSESSMENT Streams in the Eagle River watershed are classified for protection of Coldwater aquatic life (trout.), secondary contact recreation (incidental contact); water supply and agricultural uses. Generally speaking, water quality of the Eagle River is very good. During most of the year, the river and its tributaries exceed the water quality standards set to protect its designated uses. In spite of good overall water quality, some segments of the Eagle River are not fully supportive of their designated uses, i.e. some of the uses previously mentioned are impacted by poor water quality. The Eagle River from its source to Belden has been determined by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division to be not supportive of designated uses due to metals contamination. From Belden to Gore Creek the river is designated water quality limited due to metals and sediment. Cross Creek from its source to the Eagle River has been designated as not supporting its designated uses due to metals contamination. The Eagle River from Gilman to its confluence with Gore Creek and from Gore Creek to the confluence with the Colorado River have received temporary modifications for manganese under the water quality standards due to acid mine drainage. Temporary standards are less stringent than statewide standards established to allow full utilization of designated uses of the stream segment. Temporary modifications are intended to allow time for clean up of existing pollution problems. E-6 Gore Creek and the Eagle River are water quality limited segments with load allocations requiring advanced wastewater treatment for ammonia removal for discharges at Vail and the Upper Eagle Valley to meet standards for un-ionized ammonia. The Eagle River from Gore Creek to the Colorado River is classified as a partially supporting designated uses due to metals contamination. 2.1 Upper Eagle River Watershed (Eagle River Segments 'l. Z. 3. 4. 5. B. and 7~ Water quality in the upper reaches of the Eagle River is excellent. A 1993 study by Hydrosphere for Vail Associates' Snowmaking Water Supply Facilities 1041 permit application, found that water quality in the east fork of the Eagle River is generally within standards #or all parameters, with occasional exceedances of standards for dissolved silver and total recoverable iron. Fish sampling for Climax Molybdenum Company on the East Fork of the Eagle River in 1994 found brook trout, brown trout and mottled sculpin. Density and biomass estimates were fi14 trout per hectare (248 per acre}, and 27 kg per hectare {24 pounds per acre). 1994 fish populations were Power than in 1990 and 1991, however, the population age structure and presence of young of the year indicate an stable, naturally reproducing trout population in this section of the watershed. The presence of sculpin, a sensitive fish species, indicates good water quality. The macroinvertebrate community found at the site had a preponderance afi species sensitive to water quality perturbations. Ephemeroptera {mayflies) were represented by seven species, and plecoptera, coleoptera. dip#era, and turbeliaria were also collected. Species densities were cower in 1994 than in 1991. The wastewater flow into the municipal wastewater treatment plant at Red Cliff significantly exceed the plant's hydraulic capacity due to several issues. One is that a large majority of the citizens allow their domestic water to run continually during the colder months in order to prevent their pipes from freezing and bursting. The other cause of the overloading of plant capacity is due to severe infiltration/inflow lll) problems. There have been several attempts to decrease the Ill problems, but with little success. The town is continuing to study the problem and has been working with the Department of Local Affairs and the Water Quality Control Division to find a viable solution. The Division of Wildlife has a sampling site below Red Cliff as a reference station for the Eagle Mine Site. Trout population estimates have been conducted each year, beginning in 1990. Number of trout per acre have ranged from 234 to 534, and pounds per acre have ranged from 70 to 948. These numbers are indicative of highly productive waters {"Gold Medal Waters" designation has a criteria of greater than 40 pounds per acre). sculpin have also been found consistently at this site. Macro invertebra#e species diversities at this site in 1993 and 1994 were 3.1 and 4.0, respectively. E-7 a a • 2.1.1 Eagle River from Belden to Gore Creek (Eagle River Segment 5) The Eagle Mine and its related facilities is a primary source of water quality pollution in the watershed. The mine is located adjacent to the Eagle River, upstream of Mintum. Mining impacts have caused concentrations of numerous metals to exceed standards adopted by the Water Quality Control Commission for protection of aquatic life and drinking water. The stream segment most affected by the mine is from Gilman to Gore Creek. In this six mile stretch, aquatic habitat and water quality is significantly degraded. Insect life and fish populations are extremely limited. Historically, water quality in this area has been worse during low stream flaw periods, as higher flows during spring runoff diluted the metals present in site runoff. Downstream of Gore Creek, metal concentrations due to the impacts of the mine can also exceed stream standards, although less frequently. The Eagle Mine has been designated a SuperFund site and many aspects of the historic mining operation are being reclaimed. Water quality in the Eagle River associa#ed with the Eagle Mine has improved due to actions by the Colorado Department of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, and Paramount, Inc. the current owner of the Eagle Mine site). Biological monitoring by the Division of Wildlife in 1994 found a very limited fish population below the mine, where no fish previously existed. A 1976 investigation of the Ea®le River and its tributaries upstream from the Eagle Mine area, indicated that it contained water suitable for all uses, based on results of the chemical and biological analyses. The Eagle River downstream of the mining area had pH and concentrations of dissolved solids, dissolved copper, dissolved cyanide, dissolved and total iron, and dissolved lead which exceeded water quality standards. Table 12 shows some of the dissolved metal concentrations documented by that 1975 study (Water Quality Survey of the Eagle River Basin - 1975, Colorado Water Quality Control Division, 1976]. Table 12. 1975 Eagle Mine Investigation -selected data Location Parameter gstrm of tailing pond Iron (Fe) Manganese {Mn) Zinc {Zn) wnstrm of taiiin(~ pond Fe Mn Zn toss Ck (upstrm of mouth)Mn toss Creek conf. wl Eagle R.Fe Mn Zn Cadmium Value -dissolved uglL estate stdl 500 13001 coo r5ot 360 (1201 2300 r3001 1800 r501 880 X1201 17000 [501 460 (3001 12000 r501 4500 X1201 1511.31 E-8 Cross Creek upstream from the mining activities had a benthic diversity of 2.47, indicating water of a suitable quality for all uses. Cross Creek downstream from the discharge of the tailings ponds had a reduced benthic population and increases in specific conductance and in concentrations of hardness and dissolved solids. Two other tributaries in the Mintum area, Two Elk and Grouse Creek, had diverse benthic communities and water ofi suitable quality for all uses. Based on benthic populations, it was determined that there has been a substantial improvement in the water quality of the Eagle River in the Mintum area during the last several years, even though the toxicity problem caused by ground water seepage of dissolved metals from the tailings pond to the Eagle River still existed. Prior to the 197fi study cited above, an investigation in 1966 {US Department of the Interior, 1968) documented the complete elimination of bottom dwelling organisms in the Eagle River downstream from the tailings ponds of the New Jersey Zinc Corporation Eagle Mine, now owned by Viacom, Inc.}. A remedial investigation of the Eagle Mine in 1985 indicated that elevated concentrations of zinc exist in the Eagle River below the confluence with Gore Creek to the Town of Eagle. Elevated levels of lead, cadmium, and copper were pervasive in the surface water, sediment, and macroinvertebrates from the mine to Gore Creek. Concentrations of cadmium, copper, and lead in surface water regularly exceeded EPA acute and chronic criteria from the roaster piles down to Eagle. Zinc concentrations exceeded EPA criteria from the roaster piles down to Eagle. The study concluded that surface water contamination and associated effects to aquatic life may have decreased over the last 35 years. Colorado Water Control Division monitoring data shows 44% of zinc samples and 18% of copper samples exceed EPA aquatic life criteria over the period 1977-1987 at the mouth of Cross Creek. The concentrations are highest in the fast three years of this period. Total manganese concentra#ions exceed state standards consistently with a ten year average concentration of 3.3 mg/L. The 1987 Colorado Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment reports that from Red Cliff to Edwards cadmium, copper, lead, dissolved manganese, and zinc are acutely and chronically toxic to aquatic life seasonally and exceed agriculture and waster supply standards for the same parameters. The Eagle Mine is identified as a major source of these problems. Cross Creek is alsa identified as contributing elevated concentrations of metals. Negative impacts to both fish populations and drinking water resulting from metal concentrations are observed downstream to Edwards. Data collected by Dames and Moore in 1994 indicates that at station E-14 {Eagle River below Cross Creek), iron and manganese continue to exceed state drinking water standards and chronic standards for aquatic life. Zinc continues to exceed the chronic aquatic life~standard of approximately 0.045 mglL {based on hardness). E-9 a • The Division of Wildlife has performed biological assessments on the Eagle River Superfund site from 1990 through 1994. Results of the 1894 sampling program documented improvement in portions of the Eagle River aquatic community including somewhat higher numbers of aquatic invertebrates at some sites and brown trout at all sites. This sampling program will continue in future years. According to DOW data, manganese continues to exceed the temporary modification to the water quality stream standards (the temporary stream standard is 150 ugll ..Zinc also continues to exceed the water quality standard. Active remedial clean-up of the Eagle Mine site under a 1988 court ordered consent decree began in 1988. A second consent decree, the three party consent decree between Viacom International, Inc. {Paramount, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Enviroenment, and the EPA is expected to be signed in 1995. Remedial work and monitoring continues under the CDPHE Unilateral Administrative Order which is in full effect. This includes evaluation of runoff from roaster piles on the steep slopes. Currently no biological compliance is required, only biological monitoring. Water quality is monitored below Minturn by Battle Mountain High School as part of the Division of Wildlife's River Watch Program. Data indicates the presence of cadmium, copper, iron, manganese and zinc, with zinc regularly exceeding the acute aquatic life standard. Dissolved oxygen and pH appear fine. 2.2 Gore Creek iEaaie River Segments 1 and iB~ A 1976 study by the Water Quality Control Division concluded that the major tributaries to Gore Creek had water of suitable quality for afl uses, with the exception of Black Gore Creek, where substantial quantities of sediment resulting from extensive road construction (Interstate 70) were measured. Daily suspended sediment data collected by the USGS indicated a mean concentration of 1,720 mglL and a suspended sediment load of 1,290 tons in Black Gore Creek Reconnaissance Evaluation of Surtace Water Quality in Eagle, Grand, Jackson, Pitkin, Routt, and Summit Counties, Colorado, USGS, Open file 79-420, 1979j. A 1980 study of upper Eagle Valley by Engineering Science, Inc. found the tributaries of Gore Creek to have high water quality, with the exception of Black Gore Creek which was impacted by sediments, due to the construction of Interstate 70. Exceedances of stream standards for cadmium, lead, and manganese were found to occur in Gare Creek, during spring runoff, but were attributed to soils and geology of the basin. A 1990 report by Advanced Sciences, Inc. characterized water quality in Black Gore Creek, Gore Creek, and the Eagle River above and below the confluence of Gore Creek far the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District far a proposed enlargement of the Black Lake Reservoirs. That report found that the primary concern in the Gore Creek watershed is a recurring water quality E-1 A i ~ ~ standards exceedance of manganese, a condition which appears to be cause by the composition of rock minerals in Black Gore Creek. Secondary concerns are infrequent standards exceedances of copper, total iron, and silver infrequently, or occasionally exceeding stream standards at a few locations in the Gore Creek system. 2.2.1 Gore Creek above Black Gore Creek {portion of Eagle River Seg. '[ ) A study done in 1993, by Resource Consultants and Engineers, Inc. for the Summit Water Quality Committee, used the headwaters of Gore Creek at an elevation of about 9,600 feet as an undisturbed site for comparison with Straight Creek in Summit County. The study examine sediment, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish populations. Benthic macroinvertebrate at the twv Gore Creek sites were 3.61 and 3.7, with 17 taxa and densities on the order of 750 -1,OOD organisms per square meter. Cutthroat trout were the only fish species collected, with an estimated density of 274 - 447 fish per hectare, and a biomass of 20.4 - 34.3 pounds per acre 2.2.2 Gore Creek below Black Gore Creek (Eagle River Segment 8? A 1987 Environmental Assessment, done as part of the 1041 permit application to Eagle County for the enlargement of Black Lake Reservoir Number 1 indicated good water quality in Black Gore Creek. The mean suspended sediment concentration in Gore Creek at Vail was 88 mglL and the suspended sediment load was 2D4 tons. The sediment increase in Black Gore Creek affected the sediment discharge in Gore Creek at Vail. A 1975 assessment of waste loads for the Eagle River and Gore Creek found that water supply stream standards were not exceeded for dissolved oxygen, temperature, dissolved solids, pH, ar fecal coliform bacteria. The s#udy found dissolved oxygen concentrations of less than 6.0 mglL in Gore Creek at the Big Horn subdivision and at the confluence with the Eagle River. Minimum summer values were 3.9 mglL at the subdivision and 3.fi mglL at the confluence. The average concentrations were about 8.5 mglL ,but the minimum values are critical for support. of aquatic life. According to the EPA, a dissolved oxygen concentration of 3 mglL occurring in a stream for even part of a day causes diminished feeding and growth of the fish population. However, from eight years of record at these sites on Gore Creek, the Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) found no deficiencies in dissolved oxygen concentrations. The total ammonia concentration did not exceed the assimilative capacity of the Eagle River, but exceeded the assimilative capacity of Gore Creek downstream of the sewage treatment plant. Unionized ammonia concentrations down stream from the Vail wastewater treatment plant on Gore Creek exceeded D.02 mglL. It was concluded that the water quality, E-11 a a • in terms of the unionized ammonia, was degraded at the mouth of Gora Creek and the Eagle River at Gypsum and Avon. Further investigations were prompted by these findings and more detailed studies were conducted by the WQCD, in 1976, at sites located in the upper Eagle River, Gore Creek, and the lower Eagle River, based on chemical and biological results, it was determined that Gore Creek upstream from Vail had water of suitable quality for all uses and a benthic community diversity ofi 3.21. However, in 1975, Gore Creek downstream from the Vail wastewater treatment plant to its confluence with the Eagle River, contained unionized concentrations as high as.0.077 mglL. ~In conjunction with the unionized ammonia concentrations, the study determined that the benthic community was adversely affected, with diversities less than 3.0 downstream, as compared to 3.4 upstream of the treatment plant. Furthermore, an investigation of the fish population found that twice the number of trout were collected in half the time upstream of the treatment plant, as compared with downstream of the plant. According to the Water Quality Control Division (1976}, Gore Creek, from Vail to its mouth, was not capable of supporting fish and was unsuitable for swimming because of municipal discharges and nanpoint sources of pollution. Fertilizer from golf courses has contributed to elevated nutrient levels. The WQCD water quality monitoring data indicates consistently high phosphorus concentrations firom 1977 to 1987. Bacterial infections of trout in this reach of the river were also reported. The effects of bacteria are most prominent under conditions of low flow, high temperature, ar~d catch and release fishing.. A portion of #hls segment (below Red Sandstone Creek) is now designated as a Gold Medal fishery (1988). This designation was further confirmed by the Division of Wildlife (DOW) with fish shocking surveys completed in September 1982 and October 1992 below Red Sandstone Creek. The 1982 survey found brook, brown and rainbow trout, with a biomass of 58 pounds per acre, the 1992 survey found brown and rainbow #rout, with a biomass of about 80 pound per acre (the Gold Medal designation requires a minimum biomass of 40 pounds per acre}. DOW surveys were also done in the vicinity of the golf course in 1984 and 1990, again showing an increase in biomass over time, A joint project by the NWCCOG Water Quality Program and the Town of Vail between 1992 and 1994 was conducted to; posture the Town of Vaii for likely stcrmwater discharge permit requirements; determine if there are existing negative water quality impacts in Gore Creek which could be attributed to nanpoint sources of pollutants; and to evaluate potential sources of pollutants in order to gain information for developing effective pollution control strategies. The study found that suspended and dissolved solids, salts, phosphorus, ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite concentrations increase in Gore Creek as it runs through town. Dissolved solids and salts (both above and below Vail), phosphorus, nitrate, and nitrite E-12 i concentrations {below Vail) have increased between 1979-and 1999 because of growth and increased traffic along 1-70. Dissolved oxygen, fecal co~iform, cadmium, copper, manganese, and zinc concentrations have improved during the same period of time. Increases in silver concentrations appear to correspond to the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District {UEVCSD}Vail wastewater treatment plant discharge. The project included water quality monitoring in Gore Creek following application of a fungicide to the Vail Golf Course. No pesticide was detected. Sediment sampling in the water hazards on the golf course found fairly high levels ofi mercury, and traces of DDE {a breakdown product of DDT} and 2,4 D (a component of the broadleaf herbicide'"frimec", which is applied to the golf course and is also available to the public). The stormwater project estimated stormwater pollutant loading to Gore Creek. It was estimated that 196,000 kg of sediment, 210,300 kg of dissolved solids, 22,000 kg of Biolagicaf Qxygen Demand, 7,200 kg of oil and grease, 400 kg of ammonia, 1,000 kg of phosphorus, and 750 kg of zinc flow into Gore Creek each year with stormwater runoff. These Toads are significantly lower than load estimates made in 198D by Engineering Science, Inc. in their report'" Upper Eagle Valley Nonpoint Source Assessment and Control Plan", but are nevertheless significant. A report on the project entitled "Vail Nonpoint Source Management Plan" includes results of the study, and policy and engineering recommendations for further improving the quality of stormwater runoff. 2.3 Lower Eagle River Watershed lEaale River Segments 9. 1d. 11, and '[2~ The Eagle River downstream, from Gore Creek to its confluence with the Colorado River at Dotsero, is affected by wastewater discharges, irrigation return flows, mineralized groundwater seepage, and runoff firom highly erodible soils. There is a major natural source of chloride from rocks in the area of Lake Creek, immediately downstream from Edwards. Farther downstream, specific conductance, and concentrations of dissolved solids and hardness increase. 2.3.'! Mainstem Eagle River from Gore Creek to Dotsero (Eagle River Segment 9) Impacts associated with stormwater and urban runoff in the VaillAvon corridor were identified in the 1987 NPS Assessment and the Black Lake Rerservoirs 1041 Application. The pollutant of concern was sediment, although cadmium, lead, salinity, nutrients, and oxygen demand were also documented. E-13 As part of the Eagle Mine monitoring efforts, the Division of Wildlife has a monitoring site on the Eagle River at Arrowhead. Fish populations at this site have increased substantially since 9991 when two passes captured 70 trout, to 1994 when two passes captured 290 trout (biomass estimates were 74, 188, and 228 pounds of brown trout per acre in 1992, 1993, and 1994 respectively). Macroinvertebrate species diversity at this site in 1993 and 1994 ware 2.98 and 3.66 respectively. At this site water quality standards for cadmium, manganese, and zinc cantinas to be exceeded, according to DOW data. Water quality is monitored in the Eagle River at Avon by Bettie Mountain High School as part of the River Watch Program. Dissolved cadmium, copper, iron, lead manganese, and zinc are regularly detected, with manganese well above water supply standards, and zinc regularly exceeding the acute standard set to protect aquatic life. Fish kills have been observed in the lower Eagle River on an occasional basis from Edwards to Gypsum. Furunculosis (a bacteria! infection} has been the primary agent responsible, but the decrease in resistance to bacterial infections has been ascribed to the increase in general stress experienced by the fish. The stress is a result of higher water temperatures, low dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat. Average zinc concentrations at Edwards far the period 1988 through 1992 (167 mglL) exceed the state's water quality standard using the average hardness at this site #or that period (164 mglh as Ca C03). A review of Water Quality Control Division monitoring data from 1977 to 1994 indicates total phosphorus concentrations on the Eagle River exceed Environmental Protection Agency recommended levels (0.08 mgll.) and increase from the confluence with Gore Creek downstream to Gypsum. Concentrations are highest over the three years from 1984 to 1987, with an average concentration of 0.298 mglL. Average concentration for the period 1977 to 1994 at Gypsum is 0.102 mglL. Water quality data is collected by Eagle Va11ey High School in Eagle, Gypsum and below Gypsum, as part of the Division of Wildlife's River Watch Program. In Eagle, pH and dissolved oxygen appear good (although samples have not been collected during the summer law flow period). Cadmium and copper are detected infrequently, and zinc does not exceed the acute aquatic life standard, although it is regularly detected. In Gyps~am, dissolved oxygen is low during the winter low flow period (summer samples are not collected) and metals concentrations generally meet water quality standards. Below Gypsum, water quality appears goad, although dissolved copper concentrations are higher than in town. A review of Water Quality Control Division data collected at Dotsero from 1977 to 1994, indicate that all water quality standards are met at this site, with the exception E-14 i ~ ~ of an occasional exceedance of manganese and fecal conform standards. Tota! phosphorus concentrations at this site for the period of record average 0.082 mglL. 2.3.2 Beaver Creek (portion of Eagle River Segments ~ 8~ B) Beaver Creek has been studied extensively by the Water Quality Control Division because of ski resort development in this area. The results indicate that the stream has seasonal changes in water quality, with increased concentrations of alkalinity, hardness, and dissolved solids occurring at lower flaws. 2.3.3 Milk and Alkali Creeks (Eagle River Segtt~ent 19 ) Milk and Alkali Creeks join the Eagle River from the north in the vicinity of Wolcott, and have been identified as contributing a very substantial amount of nonpoint source sediment and salt. Milk and Alkali Creeks have a combined land area of 63 square miles {40,320 acres). Public lands in these areas account for 5fi% of the total land area. The geology of the area is dominated by Pierre shale, Niobrara formation (calcareous shales and marly limestone), and Benton shale. Permeability is slow, surtace runoff is rapid, and the hazard of erosion is high. Water quality samples collected by the Denver Water Department in '1976 in Alkali Creek had a specific conductance exceeding 600 umho/cm for at least one sampling period, and Muddy Creek, a tributary to Alkali Creek, had a dissolved solids concentration of 1,'178 mg1L and a specific conductance of 1,'180 umholcm. Milk, Alkali, and Muddy Creeks are reported in the 1987 NPS Assessment to be significant sediment sources to the Eagle River. 59°to of salinity samples taken in the lower Eagle River were above 5D0 mglL. Saline soils as well as urban and highway salt runoff are identified as the source of the elevated salinity concentrations. The Bureau of Land Management {BLM) has monitored water quality in Milk and Alkali Creeks, and have found total dissolved solids concentrations during low flow periods to average about 1,000 mg/L. Total salt load from the public lands in the two watersheds was estimated to be 2,6D0 tans per year. Sediment concentrations as high as 12,000 mg1L have been recorded by the BLM during spring runoff. Impacts to the fisheries in the Eagle River have been documented by the DOW (1971, 1982, and 1989}. The BLM has completed a management plan for that portion of the land which they hold, and have begun implementation of that plan. Additionally, the Eagle River Council obtained a EPA 319 grant in 1989 to construct check dams and drop structures on private lands in critical areas of these watersheds. Macro invertibrate studies were done as part of the project in 1988 and 1992. Stations above and below Milk and Alkali Creeks on the Eagle River al! had a mix of tolerant and intolerant species, with no ma}or differences between sites. Overall, E-15 water quality and instream habitat~conditions appeared better at all stations in 1992 than in 1988. 2.3.4 Brush Creek (Eagle River Segment 12) Brush Creek is mainly affected by nonpoint sources of pollution, Downstream from Eagle, Brush Creek had a specific conductance of 427 mglL and a dissolved solids concentration of 630 rnglL in August 1975. Benthic diversity decreased downstream, from 3.33 to 2.38, indicating water quality degradation in the downstream reaches of Brush Creek, primarily from irrigation retum flow. The US Forest Service sampled Brush Creek at several sites upstream from Eagle since 1973, and concluded that the water upstream from Eagle is acceptable for all uses. 2.3.5 Gypsum Creek {portion of Eagle River Segment 10) Gypsum Creek has water of suitable quality for all uses in its upstream reaches. Increased specific conductance and increased concentrations of alkalini#y, hardness, sulfate, and dissolved solids were measured downstream. The increases are possibly the result of irrigation return flow and mineralized ground water seepage. Ground water from the Eagle River Evaporite, west of Edwards, and the Pierre shale, north of Wolcott, is the mast mineralized water in the lower Eagle River watershed. 2.4 Colorado Water Conservation Board Watershed lnstreaMn Flows Table 12 lists the Colorado Water Conservation Board's (CWCB) instream flow filings in the Eagle River watershed. These filings are located on most of the tributaries and mainstem of the Eagle River. Colorado statute (CRS 37-92-102(3)) recognizes that preserving the natural environment to a reasonable degree, through the protection of instream flows and natural fake levels in natural fakes, is a beneficial use of water. Under the same statute,-the CWCB is declared the exclusive agent authorized to appropriate water rights for the purpose of preserving the natural environment. It is also stated that the acquisition of the water rights to protect instream flows has to be made within the context of existing water rights appropriation reg~.~lations. Instream flows are therefore subject to appropriation da#es, and the CWCB can call out water rights junior to their own for maintenance of those flows. Thus, the fact that the CWCB has filings for these instream flows does not ensure that streamflows will always exceed these minimums, as the water rights associated with these flows have appropriation dates which are not that old. Most of the appropriation dates for instream flow filings in the Eagle River watershed are between 1977 and 1980. E-16 0 i~ SO p G Q d E m a m OL o~ m~I C Q to v r t4 17 o N Q o N o e 0 0 r r c Z oc ac g~ o o Q~ 0 ~G D ft i r ~r a yr r o r ` , r C QT {~t l i 7 0 N N Os Mr z Y Uy W U e~is V co s m v w w C C G C G Z Y Y L m U i0 p GS p C7 J t C G U U U ac 41 W O Y 1 uc uj w w to 6~..1, Ill O ~ a ~a~ o % ~ r' ~ r m V o. t9 m c j Z m c c to ISU' SL U c~ m ou Y V l~V c "~' rao O a o O a Q r m f N N 1~V p 0 0 0 0 0 r 4 r N U'!b Ca T Iti I~ a~ o, W d 0 Ctl G9 e v Y U U 0 C7 m a~i C U ~ m L4 °' i~~~I~E~IMI~I O ca W Y U i7 S' c~ W c U vs W ea N LL U h Y U a i4 U m H Cry N W se V a a i y,, t7 uj a~w m S v f pcp oco C1 O Ci r L r C G U Y U V U U ~'U ~'E a V c U o ~a~a, U ::C9 ::C7 C7 C'1 t9 E-18 0 Q' a a a F- N v Q F- N E J N Z 111 W O J Z W a N r fi r~n. m t~r r~oc e•s~r-t~r+r-as r r+ti 1 N w 1 I~ I N 1 N r 1 N 1 I+ 1 1+ 1 f~ 1 N 4 N 1 N t N 1 N 1 N 1 f+ 1 N f N 1 N 1 N 1 1+ 1 N 1 N 1 f+ 1 N 1 N r~ u~ rr 1 eh e- s~, r t' u4 N 1 t+ N 1 r- N 1 w i n r h e r ui r in t- 1 ro 1 en w u5 r• 1 w 1 an 1 n N 1 r- w r~ 1 in r~ rq w t an w In 0 0 o a c a o 0 0 o a o c o a ca o a o o a o a o 0 Q ~_b m ~ r w r r w N a1 O N e+1 r 4 ti vh N tiD e1'tL1 r r C r teNwNr N CD CD of N tlf tff nfl N 1A M t0 M 01 t[f tq f'1 1 CD 4? N V hl r,y~j C11 iD h tf D N y~Y x3 U U U W U b Cf iC U U U U m E d'Q'y U W U S tl a W L m C co lL to au o a W m bt ao cR N lL e p 4f o to UI o a W U N tL 7 U W W W W L1J H W U N F- W c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c v g g e Z v o v vccccccrcic c c U c y1/~ L: tN~ G C tyo 1y~ G 1N/~ 4 N G: y e!y Y i v1 Q1 Q7 GT d 41 N r+ t6 01 r GJ Q7 41 41 r Q1 r Q1 N N Q1 r d r OJ r 41 w d 3 3 3 3 3 a 3 a 3 3 Q 3 o 3 3 3 3 ar 3 3 3 3 3 a o a c a ro a:n o v v c ea c~o o a c ea pc ca w ev ea ee m c e ca c~ L cu e~cc ea C S L L U Z C1 L L c L U t U?L t Y X U U U o U U Y U x c U X V O C C Y 1G aC U U d V U Y U U m o Y U yr U U U U E vNi U N c c to to c ro W W o o 5 0 cai V o c4 X a a: Cy tq a~ N a~3 Q lL Z O 3 w m U J z z m a a 0 cn cn cn cn o a E-19 a ~ • O '`N a .~ c O ~ "" S W Q W E ~ r W Z H ~a~ Q ~ J S N Z_ W L H v W D a ~ v a~ E-20 The €lows established are generally the minimum necessary #o preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree, and are usually fairly junior in priority. Prolonged periods of time at these minimum flows would have an impact on the natural environment and on the designated uses of that stream segment's water. There have been some discussions on the appropriateness of some of the instream flow filings, and it is recommended that the Division of Wildlife, the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, and the CWCB examine the development of the instream flow filing recommendations, and potentially revise those recommendations where appropriate. 3.0 WATER QUALITY ISSUES 3.1 Point Source Issues Most of the paint source issues have to da with the assimilative capacity of the stream to absorb wastewater flows. Additionally, water quality impacts from mining activities continue to be an issue. 3.1.1 Municipal Discharges Point source problems were extensively evaluated by the Water Quality Cantroi Division in '1974 as part of the Colorado River Basin 3D3(e} Plan. Point source treatment needs, consolidation of wastewater treatment facilities, waste load allocations, treatment alternatives, and other related matters were addressed in the basin plan. The principal problems addressed included the need for ammonia removal capability at domestic facilities to protect Gore Creek and the upper Eagle River from ammonia toxicity and the dissolved oxygen content of the streams. Since the adoption of the basin plan in 1974 and the 1978 version of the 248 plan which incorporated its recommendations), the development of wastewater reatment facilities has generally proceeded in accordance with its recommendations. Facility plans under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act have defined the precise treatment mechanisms and locations for waste water treatment and have implemented the recommendations of both the 208 and basin plans. A facility plan for the expansion of the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District plant was the subject of an Environmental impact Statement which also focused on the relationship between growth and development activities in the area and the need for control of nanpoint sources from urban runoff and construction activities. The major point source discharges in the Eagle River watershed are municipal wastewater treatment plants, listed in Table 14, along with their Colorado Discharge Permit System number and their hydraulic capacity. E-21 Table 14. Eagle River Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities CDPS #Facility Name Resp. Party Hydraulic Cap, MGD CO-0021059 Eagle WWTF Town of Eagle 0.27 COG-58x001 Gypsum WWTF Town of Gypsum 0.35 CO-0021385 Red Cliff WWTF Town of Red Cliff 0.07 CO-0021369 Vai! WWTF UEVCSD 2.7 CO-0024431 Avon WWTF UEVCSD 3.2 CO-0037311 Squaw Creels WUVTF UEVCSD 1.2 Datsaro MHP VWVTF Dotsero MHP 0.02 Red Cliff Wastewater Treatment Plant The Red Cliff wastewater treatment facility is a 70,000 gallon per day maximum hydraulic capacity activated sludge plant providing secondary treatment, constructed in 1972. It has average flaws of 225,000 gallons per day and peak flows frequently exceed 500,000 gallons per day. It is well over its capacity due to infiltrationlinflow problems and extremely high water usage by the inhabitan#s who keep tap water running during cold weather to prevent waterline breaks (bleeding). Estimates of winter bleeding are on the order of 100,000 gallons per day. The 1994 draft 209 plan estimated the cost of upgrading wastewater facilities for Red Cliff to be 3.9 million dollars. The July 1993 population estimate of Red Cliff was 302. According to a May 1994 draft 201 plan for the plant, the population is 440. Additional work is being done by the town to examine alternatives and decrease costs for providing wastewater treatment to the community. Anew 201 Plan was released in May of 1995. The recommended altematives in this 201 Pian included: repair collection system and treat flows using Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District facilities ($6,400,000); repair collection system and treat flows using a submerged rotating biological contractor ($4,530,000 ); and no improvements to the collection system and treat flows of 100,000 to 900,000 gpd using a dual system of screening, filtration, and disinfection for high flows and a physicallchemical treatment process for low flows ($2,080,000). The Department of Local Affairs Energy impact Assistance Grant advisory committee recommended partial funding to address collection systme improvements in 1996. Vail Wastewater Treatment Facility The-Vail wastewater treatment facility is a 2.7 million gallon per day (MGD} tertiary treatment facility with 1995 projected average flows of 1.B MGD and peak flows of 2.4 MGD. The plant treats for ammonia and has an ammonia discharge limit based on 1 E3 (9 day in 3 year low flaw event) for acute toxicity limits and 30E3 (30 day in 3 year low flow event) for chronic toxicity limits. There are na current plans to expand this facility. The plant serves an average of approximately 15,500 people. Peak ski area capacity is 19,900 [Vail Category Ill Ski Area Development draft E-22 Environmental Impact Statement, 1995j. The draft EIS also states that the Vail area's bed base is greater than 19,900 persons. The plant can currently meet peak flows for approximately 20,D00 persons. There is a system interconnect with the Avon Plant, which will allow peak flows in excess of the plant's capacity to be treated down valley. Current capital expenditures are `Focused an reducing ~i inflowlinfiltation to the collection system. Sludge is mo ed to the_ Avon wastewater ~~' treatment facility via a gravity flow through a trunk Iine.~Vail's discharge permit expires in 1998. _ - - -:: ~ ~ ~`~"~ Avon Wastewater Treatment Plant The Avon wastewater treatment plant is a 3.2 MGD tertiary treatment facility. Average flows are 2.1 MGD and peak flows are 2.6 MGD. A major expansion is planned for 1995 to increase plant capacity to 4.3 MGD at a cost of $fi million. Sludge is currently dewatered with a belt press and composted adjacent to the Eagle County Landfill near Wolcott. The plant treats for ammonia and has ammonia discharge concentration limits. This plant serves an estimated population of 14,815. Its permit expired in 1994, but is being extended until the plant expansion planning or anti! the expansion is completed. The plant is being expanded by the addition of primary clarifiers and autothemal digesters for the treatment of the biosolids. The digester solids will be land applied as class A sludge. This expansion is expected to meet the needs of the Avon area (which includes the areas of Dowd Junction and Minturn, and sludge from the Vail plant) for twenty years (2015). Squaw Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Squaw Creek wastewater treatment plant is a 1.2 MGD secondary plant which currently receives average flows of O.fi MGD and peak flows of 0.77 MGD. The plant serves an estimated population of 4,075 (over 2,000 EQRs). The plant treats for ammonia and has ammonia discharge concentration limits. Sludge dispose! is similar to the Avon plant and the 1995 expansion includes increasing the sludge belt pressing capacity. The Squaw Creek plant permit expires in November 1997. Eagle Wastewater Treatment Plant The Eagle wastewater treatment plant is a 0.273 MGD extended aeration activated sludge plant, constructed in 1974. The plant is not required to meet ammonia effluent concentration limits, but the plant is required to monitor ammonia discharge concentrations. Sludge disposal is accomplished via drying beds and hauled to the Eagle County landfill. The Eagle plant serves the Town of Eagle and the surrounding area. It is currently receiving flows in excess of 80°l0 of its rated capacity, and is currently developing a 2D1 facilities plan.The anticipated dischage capacity of the expandiod facility is 0.546 MGD. Eagle Sanitation District's permit expired in June of 1995 and is currently extended through the plant's expansion. E-23 Gypsum Wastewater Treatment Plant The Gypsum wastewater treatment plant is a secondary treatment 0.35 MGD aerated lagoon system with chlorination and dechlorination of effluent which discharges to the Eagle River in Gypsum. It receives average flows of 0.177 MGD and peal[ flaws of 0.28fi MGD. The plant does not have ammonia discharge limits, but is required to monitor ammonia discharge concentrations. Sludge disposal occurs on a five to ten year basis due to the lagoon treatment. The plant serves the town of Gypsum and will be serving the Eagle County Airport which is currently on an 1SDS system. The Gypsum permit expires in 1999. Dotsero Mobile Home Park Wastewater Treatment Plant The Dotsero Mobile Home Park wastewater treatment plant is a Rotating Biological Contactor plant (RBC) will be covered under the state's general permit for discharges to groundwater. 3.1.2 Population Projections Population projections for the county and the municipalities in the Eagle River watershed are listed in Table 15. As previously stated, the county's annual average population growth over the last 3 years has been 4.9°~, and since 1980 the growth rate has been 92% {7.1 % per year). Table 15. Eagle County Population Statistics And Projections Permanent Population' ENTITY ...1980 199D ~ ~1993 1995" ~~2000*2005"2010"2015" Eagle Cnunty 12,791 20,932 23,839 25,355 29,091 31,952 34,968 37,924 excl. Basali) Avnn 840 1,798 2,385 2,538 2,893 3,211 3,532 3,815 Eagls 950 1,580 1,847 1,767 2,014 2,238 2,480 2,857 Gypsum 743 1,75D 1,945 2,087 2,379 2,841 2,905 3,137 Mintum 1,060 1,088 1,134 1,217 1,387 1,540 1,894 1,830 Red Cliff 409 297 302 324 356 395 435 470 Vall 3 555 3 718 3 888 4150 4 731 5 251 5 778 6 23 Infam7ation from the Division nf~Local~Affairs~ Estimated papulatinns Peak Populations ENTITY 1995'"2DD0"2005"2010"2015" Eagle County 45,OOD 51,000 57,800 85,5DD 80,000 Avon 17,875 23,508 29,341 35,174 48,582 sGyp um 2,500 2,850 3,249 3,703 4,220 E-24 II ~Mintum ~ 1,800 l 1,760l~~Red Cliff ~ 400 ! 438 1,936 2,130 2,343 470 500 638 19,900 ~ 19,900 ~ 19,900 ~ 19,900 ~ 19,900 Peak population notes: Red Cliff numbers from May 1995 201 Facilities Plan Avon numbers from UERWA 1041 Water Treatment Plant Expansion Permit Application, March 17, 1995 and includes Avon, Arrowhead, Beaver Creels, Berry Creek, Eag#e-Vail, Edwards, and out-cf-district, SFE X 2.5 Vail numbers from Vail Category Il# Expansion draft EIS, 1995 As growth continues in the State of Colorado,. both in-basin and transbasin water diversions will increase, leading to lower instream flows and increased water consumption. As future plant expansions are considered, it is critical that the water and sanitation districts consider the effects of increased diversion an instream flows. Reuse of wastewater should be examined as one method of reducing instream flaw diversions. 3.1.3 Industrial Discharges Industrial discharges to the Eagle River and its tributaries include the Eagle Mine, the Eagle County airport, construction dewatering projects throughout the watershed, stormwater permit for construction activities throughout the watershed, and sand and grave! mining in the lower reaches of the Eagle River. These discharges areal! permitted through the Colorado Discharge Permit System, administered by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division. These activities have, for the most part, small quantities of discharge. Qccasionally these discharges affect water quality, but usually these effects are temporary in nature. The greatest concern with the discharges (outside of the -Eagle Mine} is the cumulative impact (especially with respect to sediment) that these discharges have on the Eagle River. 3.1.4 Pant Source Issues -Summary In summary, the current point source water quality problems of streams in the Eagle river watershed are: Continuing to provide for an adequate level of ammonia removal to avoid ammonia toxicity problems in Gore Creek and the upper Eagle River. Current levels of waste water treatment are adequate to meet existing water quality standards but decreased levels of streamflow due to upstream water development projects may require higher levels of treatment to maintain existing water quality levels in the upper Eagle River. E-25 The wastewater treatment system at Red Cliff needs to be improved The control of sediment from small industrial discharges as it relates to the cumulative impact of sediment on the Eagle River. 3.2 Point Source Recommendations The district consolidation accomplished by the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District is strongly supported by the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, and should be used as a model for the development of regional sanitation districts whenever feasible. The economic, political, and environmental benefits of regional wastewater management cannot be overstated. Red Cliff wastewater treatment facilities must be improved to meet wastewater treatment standards. Both inflow and ini'Iltration problems should be addressed and corrected. Ammonia wasteload allocations need to be carefully monitored with respect to potentially decreasing low stream flows (1 E3 and 3E30 conditions}. As future water and wastewater treatment plant expansions are considered, it is critical that the districts consider the effects of increased diversion on instream flows. Reuse of wastewater should be examined as one method of reducing instream flow diversions. Another consideration should be the location of diversion and return flow structures, which should be located in close proximity to each other. 3.3 Nonnoint Source Issues The mayor nonpoint source water quality issues, listed in priority order, in the Eagle River watershed include: mining activities (primarily historic}; urban and construction activities; hydrologic modifications, recreation, and agricultural activities. 3.3.1 Mining Impacts Excessive trace element concentrations exist in Cross Creek and the upper Eagle River as a result of drainage from historical mining areas including the Eagle Mine. This site has been designated a Superfund site under CERCLA and an analysis of the sources contributing to these surface and groundwater problems has been completed. A great deal of progress has been made in improvements in water quality and biological restoration as a result of remedial activities at the Eagle Mine Supertund site. E-2fi The potential exists for future mining in the Eagle River watershed. If the activity is not strictly regulated, water quality could be negatively effected. 3.3.2 Urban and Construction Activities Urban and construction activities have been shown to impact water quality [Vail Nonpoint Source Water Quality Management Plan, 1995]. These impacts include sediment, nutrients, metals, fecal, and organic pollutants. Loss of riparian area vegetation through stream side development and other activities also impact water quality and the aquatic community. An increase in nutrient loading is caused by the increased use of septic systems Dilion Reservoir Clean Lakes Study, 1982). Septic system management is addressed under Policy 4, which addresses domestic and, municipal wastes. Documented water quality problems from septic systems include high levels of bacteria in private and public water supplies and elevated levels of nutrients. Regulation of septic systems is pertormed by the County, using state and local criteria (the local criteria have to meet minimum state criteria). The state requirements for installation of septic systems have recently been upgraded (1994) to address water quality problems. A number of studies in the Blue River watershed have documented the nonpoint source increase in nutrients from septic systems, although the studies did not determine if the elevated levels were due to a few failing systems or due to the general pertormance of septic systems. Aseptic system inspection and maintenance program should be initiated in the basin to identify and correct failing septic systems. Increased consumption of water through increased development could potentially lead to decreased instream flows and increased concentrations of pollutants, due to loss in dilution flows. As growth continues to occur throughout the watershed, it becomes more imperative that these activities minimize andlor mitigate their impacts upon water quality, in order to protect existing quality. 3.3.3 Hydrologic Modifications 3.3.3.1 Transbasin Diversions. Current transbasin diversions account for approximately 6% of the total streamflow in the watershed (Eagle River Assembly, Phase I Report, 1994}. In 1993, 3fi,121 acre feet of water in the Eagle River watershed were diverted out of the basin {State Engineer's Office, Division V diversion records). Out of basin diversions are 100% E-27 consumptive, i.e. none of that water is returned to replenish the stream. These diversions include: the Homestead Tunnel (22,961 acre feat per year, ten year diversion average); the Wurtz Ditch {2,fi59 acr® feet per year, ten year diversion average); Columbine Ditch (1,839 acre feet per year, ten year diversion average); and Ewing Ditch (1,239 acre feet per year, ten year diversion average}. Additionally, there are several substantial conditional transbasin diversion rights totaling an additional 100,000 acre feet (Homestake II has approximately 22,D00 acre feet of conditional rights). It should be noted that these transbasin diversions occur primarily during the spring runoff, and therefore do not affect instream flows during the times of critical low flaw, due to senior downstream appropriations (Eagle River Assembly, Phase I Report, September 1994). These transbasin diversions occur high in the watershed, and remove high quality water from the streams, resulting in loss of high quality dilution flows within the watershed. There are increased water development activities associated with transbasin diversions to the eastern slope of Colorado including the Denver Water Department's Eagle-Piney and Eagle-Colorado projects, and the expansion of the Homestake project on the upper Eagle River. These pro}acts have the potential to increase the concentration of pollutants {through a reduction in the amount of dilution flows in the Eagle River), including ammonia and chlorine at existing point source discharges, and significantly modify the hydrology of the Eagle River. According to the Eagle Mine Remedial Investigation performed #or the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, concentration of metals in the upper Eagle River would be increased as a result of diversions from the Homestake II project. This could affect public drinking water supplies downstream and eliminate some of the potential benefits to aquatic life which are resulting as a consequence of the remedial actions at the Eagle Mine site. Details of these wa#er development projects would be evaluated at the time of review of development applications under local land use regulations. In the 1993, water year those diversions accounted for 3fi,121 acre feet of water. As a comparison, the State's Water Resources Division has estimated that in-basin diversions far that same period were fi,60D acre feet. However, it should be noted that the. transbasin diversions generally occur during the spring runoff, when low instream flows are not a concern, while in-basin diversions occur throughout the entire year and do exacerbate law stream flows at critical times. 3.3.3.2 In-Basin Diversions Throughout the Eagle River shortages in streamflow occur. A shortage is defined as an event when stream flow is lower than the CWCB instream flow amount for several consecutive days (Eagle River Assembly, 1994). Depending an the stream E-28 reach and the time of year {date summer or early winter) these shortages occur with a frequency of 1 in 2 years to 1 in 10 years (with the exception of the Eagle River between Brush Creek and the Colorado River confluence, when instream flow shortages appear to occur only during the late irrigation season in dry years). In-basin water users divert water for domestic, irrigation, snowmaking, and industrial uses. Although the total amount of water diverted by in-basin users is less than transbasin water users, these uses occur during periods when stream flows are low Eagle River Assembly , 1994}. It should also be noted that not all of the water diverted is consumed, with consumption ranging from 5-10% for domestic purposes to 5D-70% consumption {or greater for golf courses} for irrigation. Water withdrawals impact water quality due #o lower stream flows which, as previously mentioned, lower the difution flow and assimilative capacity of the stream. 3.3.4 Recreation Recreational activities can have an impact on water quality. These impacts range from disturbance, soil compaction, and erosion in riparian areas, to snow making and golf course water withdrawals, to littering and associated water pollutants. 3.3.5 Agricul#ura! Activities Agricultural activities {from livestock grazing, hay production, and logging} have been documented to impact water quality, especially when those activities take place in riparian areas, but also when good management practices are not implemented in upland areas. Locally appropriate Best Management Practices BMPs} are recommended for agricultural activities {see Policy 3 -Land Use and Disturbance). 3.3.6 Milk and Alkali Creeks These creeks contribute a significant amount of sediment and salt to the Eagle River, due o the naturally high erosive sails in these drainages and poor vegetative cover. Future efforts to reduce erosion, or possibly trapping the sediment prior to flowing into the Eagle River should be a high priority in this watershed. 3.4 Nonaoin# source Recommendations Policy 1: Water Quality; Policy 2: Water Use and Development; Policy 3: Land Use and Development; Policy 4: Domestic Municipal, and Industrial Wastes; Policy 5: Chemical Management; in Volume I should be implemented by the appropriate E-29 management agencies in the Eagle River watershed to address nonpoint source issues discussed in section 3.3. Urban runoff and construction activities in Gore Creek and the upper Eagle Valley will continue the need for control of these sources of water degradation as identified in Policy 3 -Land Use and Disturbance -Implementation Recammendions. Municipal, county, and other agency nonpoint source water quality improvement projects should continue to be supported by local, state, and federal funding. 4.0 WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS The following projects in the Eagle River watershed have been undertaken to improve water quality in the basin. 4.1 Existin4 Projects 4.7.'1 Eagle Mine Site Remedial Action Plan and Record of Decision A number of actions have taken place at the Eagle Mine as a result of the Remedial Action Plan and Record of Decision. included in these activities were: consolidation of the mine tailings (Consolidated Tailings Pile, CTP); a wastewater treatment system which cleans water from the CTP and the mine itself; a sludge dewatering system at the wastewater treatment plant; capping of the CTP; reclamation of a wetland impacted by tailings (approximately 13 acres); and monitoring activities. Water quality and the fishery appears to be improving~as these activities have taken place. For mare information on the Eagle Mine clean up, contact the Viacom Project Manager at Eagle Engineering Services, the Cakorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Hazardous Materials Division Project Manager, or the EPA Project Manager. 4.1.2 Vail Nonpoint Source Management Plan Beginning in 1992, the T wn of Vail and the Nor~tk~Gvest Colorado Council of Governments cooperated~in developing a model Nonpoint Source Management Plan for the Town of Vai,V, based on the stormwater N~~ m~equir municipalities (greats han 100,000 population). Land use based estimates of pollutant loads w done using stormwater samples collected from various land uses,.~iiatnrieal`water quality data was statistically analyzed to determine trends, a E-30 wetland survey was performed, and various management practices were recommended. The plan was completed and approved by the Town of Vail in 199b. For more information contact the Town of Vail Community Developmen# Department Senior Environmental Planner or the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments' Water Quality Program. 4.7.3 Milk and Alkali Creek Drainage Project In 1989, the Colorado Water Quality Control Division provided nonpoint source pollution control funding (Section 319 funding} to the Eagle River Council for initiation of the Milk and Alkali Creek Project Implementation Plan. The 1989 plan included the placement of large and small rock structures, as well as straw bales structures in key locations engineered to trap sediment carried through these drainages. In 1992 the project was revised to demonstrate effectiveness of different technologies. An existing structure was repaired and additional types of structures were constructed (log deflectors, rock retaining wail, and a third rock structure) in an ephemeral drainage where two structures already existed. This was done to see if a cummula#ive effect on sediment trapping is demonstrated. The long term impact to water quality as a result of this project is not known. Macro mvertibrate sampling was also done on the Eagle river as part of this project. For more information, contact Eagle County Environmental Health Division, or the Water Quality Control Division Nonpoint Source Program Coordinator. 4.1.4 Black Lakes Enlargement Project The Black Lakes Enlargement Project was designed to provide additional drinking water for the Town of Vail. As part of the development of the project, some of the water was set aside to augment instream flaws during low flow periods in the lower Gore Creek. 300 acre #eet of water from the Black Lakes is now available to augment winter low flows in Gore Creek. 4.7.5 Eagle River Watershed Plan The Eagle River Watershed Plan Project was initiated by the Minturn Town Manager in 1994, through an application for National Park Service Trails and Corridors Grant assistance. Eagle Coun#y acted as the grant applicant. The effort has resulted in the Eagle River Watershed Plan, which has been approved by the town and the County in the Eagle River watershed. The Plan includes chapters on water quantity, water quality, wildlife, recreation, and land use, as well as implementation recommendations. E-31 4.1.fi Gore Creek Partnership A number of entities in the Gore Creek Valley have joined together to develop a monitoring program, database, and a water quality management program. These entities include: the Town of Vail; Vail Associates; Vail Valley Consolidated Water District; and the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Santiation District. They combined funding efforts to establish a USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program site at the mouth of Gore Creek and have applied for Great Outdoors Colorado funding to assist in the creation of the database and management program. 4.2 Future Proiects A recommended watershed project is the establishment of a watershed water quality group, as discussed in the Eagle River Watershed P_Jan. Other potential projects include further work on Milk and Alkali Creeks, and public education on nonpoint source water quality impacts and mimimization practices. 5.0 LAND USE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT This section is intended to summarize existing local land use regulations applicable to water quality protection and improvement. As of January 199fi, the streamside setbacks in polace in Eagle County vary by locality. Eagle County and the Town of Eagle require a 50 foot setback from the high water mark of any live stream (which generally refers to area creeks and the Eagle River). Vail requires a 50 foot setback from the centerline of the stream. Minturn and Avon require a 30 feat setback from the high water mark. Gypsum and Red Cliff do not have stream setback regulations in place. Eagle County is the only jurisdiction that currenlty excercises state enabled "1049" powers. • Under the County's 1041 authority, permits are required for extensions of water and sewage treatment systems and industrial and municipal water projects. Stormwater and erosion contra! ordinances are in place in Eagle County (which relies primarily on state standards}, Vail, and Avon. Floodplain control ordinances are in place in Eagls County, Vail and Avon. All jurisdictions rely on federal wetlands regulations for wetlands protection and none have additional, specific provisions related to wetlands in place currently. E-32 6.0 WAS'~ELOAD ALLOCATIONS 6.1 Ammonia Wasteioad Allocations Most streams in the watershed are classified to protect cold water aquatic fife, thus they have stringent unionized ammonia standards (4.02 mglL). The unionized fraction of ammonia in the water depends on stream pH and temperature. Streams in the watershed tend to have higher pH values, and this has resulted in wastewater facility requirements for advanced wastewater treatment to reduce ammonia concentrations. In the Eagle River watershed, the Vail, Avon, and Squaw Creek wastewater treatment plants have installed advanced (tertiary) treatment to decrease ammonia concentrations. 7.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING NEEDS 7.1 Existing Monitoring Efforts Entities monitoring water quality in the Eagle River watershed include: Viacom Eagle Mine); the Water Quality Control Division, the Division of Wildlife; Vail Associates; Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District; the USGS; the Town of Vail; the cities of Aurora and Colorado Springs; the Colorado Division of Wildlife's River Watch Program; the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management; and public water providers. Additional information on specific monitoring efforts can be found in Appendix 5 (Select Water quality Data From Region Xll, with References Far Expanded Water Quality Data). Individual agencies have tended to monitor water quality without regard to long term goats, coordination between agencies, and other monitoring efforts. [n addition, an extremely valuable long term Water Quality Control Division data collection effort at nine stations in the Eagle River watershed is being reduced to one station. 7.2 Water Quality Monitoring Needs Accordingly, the Eagle River Watershed Plan, and this plan are recommending that a committee be established to examine existing monitoring programs, compile and analyze existing data, provide for monitoring program development and execution, and public information dissemination. E-33 Specific areas of the Eagle River watershed that warrant continued moni#oring include: Gore Creek, where entities in the drainage have expressed interest in establishing a database and acquiring additional information on the state of the creek; the lower Eagle River where fish Kills have historically occurred; the Eagle Mine site; potential water quality changes due to increased density of homes on septic systems; and the Milk, Alkali, and Ute Creeks for additional nonpoint source sediment control projects. The loss of the Water Quality Control Division's long term monitoring stations in the Eagle River watershed will significantly impac# the ability of planning and management agencies in assessing the watershed's existing water quality trends, and impacts as a result of watershed projects, planning, and management. 8.0 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Existing Classifications and Standards The current water quality classifications, designated uses, and standards for the various stream segments in the Eagle River watershed are listed in Table 15. The Eagle River watershed had 12 segments identified by the Water Quality Control Commission. Two of the segments have been designated "Use Protected", while the remaining ten ara reviewable under the State's anitdegradation regulation. Most of the segments in the watershed are classified for these uses; Aquatic Life, Cold ~ ; Recreation 2; Water Supply; and Agriculture. Two stream segments in the Eagle River watershed are designated Use Protected. One is the mainstem of the Eag}e River from Belden #o the confluence with Gore Creek. The other segment is Milk and Alkali Creeks from their source to the confluence with the Eagle River. All other stream segments in the watershed are reviewable under the State's antidegradatian regulation. Three stream segments. are under temporary modifications to the water quality standards. These segments are al! under the influence of the Eagle Mine site. 8.7.1 Designated Use Impairment Segments The 1994 "Status of Water Quality in Colorado "Report, or 305(b} Report, lists seven Designated Use impairment stream segments in the Eagle River watershed. This list indicates stream segments which exceed or come close to exceeding water quality standards. The State's list is included in Table 16. Six stream segments are listed, due to metal concentrations, two are listed due to sediment loads, and two are listed due to ammonia concentrations. E-34 1 O a rr~~ VI J V W H Q L N Z O a LL. V Q,` W FR V/ W A H J r V f w 7 0 ~ w 1 r.7 •i~w Y •1 ~i • r tYi ww ~~i'w~u wN r e.•~~o`i~-~ Y ~ i i • i sw•.w.~o i~~ 1•Yn~w••. •.Cw 1 i~'r~MMM•• lJfjwnKrOLt70C ifj 7.E N~ N N 1 M N i M L N• N • .r i L } } 4 ! ~ L ! ...1 ? L D w 4 O Mr r 66 I-r ~ ~ ~ .- ~r r N r wa}w I ..pig I wO i.w ly ~..O s•+ I DO pp e..r~ M i•+hi M i.+l+i Nr iwHS N bNwp+ Y t t Y 1 1 Y I [ u * 1 u~~+ ~^ Y 1 1 Y ~[ 1 1 I t l YiYV A YZYY Vi YY i YL':Y 11111 w V i w F • V•^ ` • Y w^ ~~ w V w ` V V Y V V 7 A C ~• fs t r • C M w 7 w C ~ ~~ • p 0 CNKN W iNlM W 'xhs`« WK ZN<HI W SZNKw1 w ~ .~.~ w 4 ..L ii ..~ iL r.L w ~ ..i rN ^r ••N wl+` rN wr P•N wr r wr. iv>rv tlvY..r/ O•rgrV evirv tlV M O/+tl Ow r9Ow •+O.•9Or •+Or9Ow vp tlO p ~.~pp ~ I.+oO po [.+o0 00 I.,.oo 00 .~•o 3S:.~Oa nSP~OO 00•+00 00.•+00 00 eNonwiO .L wl..O nri Nwp n.•i 7lrO n.ra .. 1 1 4! 1 1 I t Y 1 t 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 ! 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ci YiiF if. YF.F4 AF Vcii ii ViiF iL•iiC VVwVVV VYMYYY YYwYYY VVwYYV YYY YY 1.~Ri~S ~w•4i~~ lir IM6S~.Y '~~n ~~S }W~6~~ Y V L rtN • L «/~N • L .••~.N 01>. Lr p1? L.. Ots N~.r Hv I/l••.r rw N..r rul N 1 1 1 .r~N N 1 1 1 ••+N N! i 1 S''" ~»°N NOO p•al ONO N aO Sn4Ga.pp+NpN OAOo4•opn~N Owo.•NN N~SiuN ~ASZ W~ VIO~~YM app Z X00 !00 100 Y e S', r~.1-.o i~:,o O O 0 iup ii u9 V~~O uuu zuu/=i ~cuu~ J E ~ E o E ~ i V ~O ~ ~ppO « ~pp.O w ytl~• ~nO fi~OOO ^;Oac 0 6 t O Ca i O ap ia ~ _ _ _b rMr b wN~ ~D w.n~ OO~i v OOtlu OO=u OO nIL O O ulL L10 ~Ir oe nL •caL eanL u~7Y '~~9aY W~9nM F:Ne +••iNa :•Na J L ~r rt L• r J V~ COL?i KR7~ RO:~t r L L A M c w' N+ ~ • L W N p Z w M ~ t ~ e N I r I ~" a • p •w Si wM~ YtlL w L w i i f O A 7 • W Y i w~ i Y Y 7 l~K4 ~ai Isw9 ^OiLiw~j •iw L Y Y • 0 pOw ~ C1f~w jV SHOO V~ V YiwvV iiwvi f• V r} y •V•~. 7~ wtlvLL7 w4LLR uuuuu tuuuu on°.aa°n oN°oo„°, awaw,+nN ow.o..nN ol!.~: 0 1 ~^~ 14ile~~ulail rlw~~~uJ~ Fn•~i -y.Nww 100 1000 oo~ ~ooow Y~usg Yiucg wi Yp 7Yw VD w+w w1 ««~^[ Iauu ~~uua=i i~a O p1Q C1 iVl r.oD ir.oO O Q•.N 04 l b wN.• W wNw 1v Ir ooTU° ooxl°I•00 •a.. cc sIL h~ aNA oaa uea~ MN•Y• •rNY iLiY =iL'Y L • ~ J L • ~ V M L V Y L OC7K «7K y • A~ L ww O•V • • +1 WY•L tlL LYiw• >M ie •Yt~ u a•a a7•L rri~s ~r• OJCY i.°.urv i•oic sL•~ Of LY•7Y7 YVV>~ yOMO qRC~ wC Ww 10 b w.~Y •E••a+ rs G •YY F L O^i L •• •L tl L•wY 0• =F.ri~ ~L~'iM L 7 ~!• Y N• C O bl • v a A~7.• OYO L ~ QY7 = YYY M V> tl L C• O Y W O V' • 7 i L•~• r• M .w • •'+ Y V u Lr • •Lww •iC w ~ ws ~isoLO« i • L •• MC YVw.YY L .Ir•7 MLLyyO R~• rE Y w !Ir Inw•Yw ..C• MS 't[9Ftliiuw• OwM4 6 C KCiws~~M ~~W SwN j~au h GM• N N N L YH ~ N N L L y YMf ~ 0 tltlr 1 ~N 1 w N oF ••+N 1 w NNrN1 c.. t.t NI-NwOn t.rrc b-.c.+ri Nr V 1 1 V ~~1 1 1 1 Y t 1 Y ~ 1 Y~^= ~^ VJ'.YY F w Yww C J.•ii YYVV Yi VY i Yww FV ViVY 2 wVww •v w i r O O L W L M i p L • p T.NKN WK SN+[NI ZNKN W1 ZNKN WK u u v u u u w~N wr r wr FN wH HN MH V dVy~V vr/}~V I oD°o«oo g D o o gg o D o o n«sa1 ..O nr~e N..O nwrMl..O t~n++O 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1[I V[ 1[I I V 1 1 1 Y V w Y V Y Y V V V U Y V Y w V V V Y V f V V V l~l~a;`~i ~~+is°~11s111~1•LO;>€i ~~1•rn°°Sts uw. w> L ~+~ N LaI ~Is N N ! L 1 aSS~Y••• r Y Y Y ur..•~••Y Vr•. w wtltiLL7 w;uuuuu N p o M OO O No..o«Nnr oolli[ e~g~5~ Y us.+~Y V wvvL~~ w cuuuuu < oN°pO1°n Ioow.~,.,nN to OIL w www NNpa i Ipb 100 i O11D V ~~Y Ol1O91 L D ii iV0iiuil 7 4 O 1 u wwl u wwl zuuuriuuu r r p. F o R R D ~0 ~O ++ pplI~OO Er+ao pplhOO D'+OIN O~01N O•-.OIN b :.nom b iM/~O Mtl~. i uDO L IOOi i uOO oa aIL oo?,.oa naL vlY^v1Y s,ti^_ O C 6L O C 0.L O L 0•L U~7Y V~3M u•.O•SM N7 wNa waN7 J L~~J L~~1 L~ r E XKa~~l LZK jK FwML E iw M Y • C w L3L C w' b C w~ii 9 ~ • YO Ly x• rr ~i 7>R7 ~YJ C •O~ x~iS it Yp k Lsu •~ 7 ae~~ L~ V~ C' l7 Y i L L L V• 7~~M•6'• w•~ LIY •~ V C• O+• L L r w 7 0~ >tt ~ S L 7• p • • tlL•RC •s. y0+a l7YOr w•OFOY .mow ~Y•i M•yi V> L x ~ O O 7 W O 9 Ji W L 00.7 c! y iwl • iwMi•YY EL•w !w•• ww rL~ 7a10M ••Li C I.iF7 .l •YL R r OfJM O E~~.Y iw ~wuL~ L•L.+ L ••f 0• • wF~0 • it pCwYOb~wl+ ~VjFN SY19X b O e u 4 C i1'J • r• • YC b v Q U TAI a A H .. y Q a Z F~- y f d C~ W a V a YI r~ V H N N W~ I u a~ t L M s a a 1 M7 N Z LN M fit ~ ~ iN Wi Yaai iYYVtiii~~ 49~~~bi x~~i~ ~. YNKM W~ Y~YYY fff s~~ a~~`~~ Fw.+w~ tOG PQO 449 i~u iuiu. uu u ~i t r.og 0~Rw4~p wo N iM 6 ~O l 00 u M q4 u i, OC u OD OD OD N w a~eN ON ~+ da uou s a au wiNa pis wiNs L Lr L~~J 1 J S e ~ w i e ~~wfx W•d •F ~Y Y7 ee i i yus«•~~w r rw e oefSVLMyV~0 a f w 6 i L Y e^ r«w •~ su NYI a ~« M J~+if 0~ •w Iti~f R f L rrr0 ~aO W 1 ~ 11~« i N~ O~ j' O i O r Os~ei w N'i 0 i W O~O W 00 ayIF0«~~OY.1~ E}~~Lw• ion 0 9 ss i ~40Css L •• •frOyy rL L'r~YL~iO 0Y «~lO r y «4My} y*^ -ss eYrryS rf a ss ff Y• t~ s~yyxf«i~CRO Oani ~~i0MttrrYMVMrl~i ~ ~«j~'IL n w w i ~ ~ ~- N H h~V1 f~l N E a N E aEa~i~nai E o N N U Q O C N C a dZ ZZ Zd d~d~Z E v m m ao yr oo c c a vs p O as JJ JJ ga a a NN dd z ~~ W dd Nd cd z W E z z aa E w ec a W~ d C O Q i:.' c v a 4~ a~ U Y~as scm L U>e a~ p y~ y a U m a~ aD UW afY d~ a m. UV yy Y E L W~W~U~ a a 9~ O V Y vi m om D? W b 41 aa~UW D °° 2 W a W~ a W W~ a c~a a°arrr O 0 O O O Q U U U U U U r d A tQ H c ~ d ~ E '' a~ m d C ~l~p4dU v,a -° o ~ ~ ~~°- ago O ~ V o~~~~o o~ ° ~ ~ o~o.c V H N ~ N t~ . r .a `~ a o C ~ Z ,,,, m~Z{'J E-37 r ~ B.1.2 303(d) Lfst Segments The Clean Water Act requires that the State compile a fist of those waters for which the basic effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards, and thus require Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL} allocations. The State`s 1994-1996 303(d} list for the Eagle River watershed lists four segments (see Table 17). All four segments are listed due to metals concentrations. Three of the segments are in the upper reaches of the Eagle River (and include Cross Creek}, and are listed as a law priority. The fourth segment listed is Gore Creek, which is listed as a medium priority. 8,2 Water Quality Standards Recommendations The recommendations for water quality standards and regulations in the Eagle River watershed follow. 8.2.1 Support of Existing Standards and Temporary Modifications It is recommended that the existing standards and temporary modifications in the Eagle River watershed be continued. Work to improve water quality in all three stream segments with temporary modifications is continuing. A 1993 Record of Decision for the Eagle Mine site will ensure that continued progress will be made in improvements to Eagle River water quality. The Water Quality Control Division, the Environmental Protection Agency, and Viacom, Inc, have agreed to examine the development of aquatic biological goals for the site and the impacted aquatic environment. rtrlamiproktocs120811eg196rev E-38 E a I ifl N H Yl i N r N r N N r.+ 4 U c U d J s c a. c c m y. c z~z N a a a cn N cn cn c W W c W~ a ac m m d D o v a~o [x WE N W~V o V Wm~N m W7 W Q (a c G O O O a a a U V V U ao r m N E a~ ~ of ~ Q 0 3 m ~ o a oc:cq1O o E ~ owu`~Ec o a o ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ t) c'cs ~. C "N" O cZ^H m-7ZC'1H E-39 99s R~iisCalON XII 11VATER QUALITY IVIANAGEMENT PLAN 0212919fi DRAFT VOLUME I -POLICY PLAN Page Table of Contents VI - 1 List of Tables and Figures VI - 6 Introduction VI - 9 How To Use This Plan VI -11 Background VI -12 Policy Summary VI -15 POLICY 'I. WATER QUALITY VI -18 1.1 Policy Statement VI -18 1.2 Policy Objectives VI -18 1.3 Policy Justification VI -18 1.4 Implementation Recommendations VI -19 1.4.1 Meet Existing Water Quality Standards VI -19 1.4.2 Recommend Revisions to Water Quality Standards,Vl -19 Classifications, and Designations 1.4.2.1 Special Water Quality Standards VI -19 1.4.2.2 New Outstanding Waters Designations VI -19 1.4.2.3 Changes to Use-Protected Designations VI -20 1.4.2.4 Changes to Temporary Modifications VI -20 1.4.2.5 Designated Uses Recommendation VI -21 1.4.2.6 Designated Use Impairment Recommendations Vl -21 1.4.2.6.1 Water Quality Limited -Allocated Segments Vi -21 1.4.2.6.2 Water Quality Limited -Potentially Threatened VI -22 1.4.2.6.3 Water Quality Limited -Partially Supported VI -23 1.4.2.6.4 Water Quality Limited -Not Supporting VI -24 1.4.3 Implement Local Governmental Land Use Controls VI -24 1.4.4 Implement Water Quality Improvement Projects VI -24 1.4.4.1 Inactive Mine VN.Q. improvement Projects VI -25 POLICY 2. WATER USE AND DEVELOPMENT VI -26 2.1 Policy Statement VI -26 2.2 Policy Objectives VI -26 2.3 Policy Justification VI -26 2.4 Implementation Recommendations VI -27 V I-1 POLICY 3. LAND USE AND DISTURBANCE Vl- 29 3.1 Policy Statement VI- 29 3.2 Policy Objectives V{- 29 3.3 Policy Justification VI- 30 3.4 Implementation Recommendations ~VI- 31 P4LiCY 4, DQMESTlC~ MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTES VI- 35 4.1 Policy Statement VI- 35 4.2 Policy ~bjeetives VI- 35 4.3 Policy Justification VI- 36 4.4 implementation Recommendations VI- 36 POLICY 5. CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT VI- 38 5.1 Policy Statement VI- 38 5.2 Policy Objectives VI- 38 5.3 Policy Justification VI- 38 5.4 implementation Recommendations VI- 38 POLICY B. MANAGEMENT 5YSTEM VI- 41 6.1 Policy Statement VI- 41 6.2 Policy Objectives VI- 41 6.3 Policy Justification VI- 41 6.3.1 Background VI- 41 6.3,2 The Designation Process VI- 41 6.4 Implementation Recommendations VI- 42 V I-2 w sss REGION XII WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 02!29/96 DRAFT VOLUME Il -WATER QUALITY PROGRAM DEVELaPMENT Executive Summary I.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Colorado River Basin 1.2 The Yampa River Basin 1.3 The North Platte River Basin 2.0 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 3.0 CLASSIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS 3.1 Overview Of Colorado's Classifications And Standards System 3.2 Existing Water Quality Standards 3.2.1 Table Value Water Quality Standards 3.2.2 Outstanding Waters in the Region 3.2.3 Use-Protected Waters in the Region 4.0 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY ISSUES 4.1 Point Source Impacts 4.1.1 Municipal Dischargers 4.1.2 Industrial Dischargers 4.1.3 Construction Activities 4.2 Nonpoint Source Impacts . 4.2.1 Land Use and Disturbance 4.2,1.9 Inactive Mines 4.2.1.2 Development 4.2.1.2.1 Stormwater 4.2.1.2.2 Septic Systems 4.2.1.2.3 Wetland and Riparian Losses 4.2.1.3 Agriculture & Silviculture 4.2.1.4 Recreation Impacts 4.2.2 Water Use and Development 4.2.2.'! Hydrologic Modifica#ions 4.2.2.1.1 Transbasin Diversion 4.2.2.'!.2 In-Basin Diversions 4.2,2.2 In-Basin Changes in Water Usage V I-3 4.2.2.2.1 Municipal 4.2.2.2.2 Industrial 4.3 Colorado River Basin Salinity 4.4 Groundwater Issues 15.0 MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 5.1 Clean Water Act 5.2 Colorado Water Quality Control Commission 5,3 Point Sources 5.3.1 Industrial Dischargers 5.3.2 Wasteload Allocations 5.4 Nonpoint Sources 5.5 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 5.6 Colorado River Headwaters Forum 5.7 Regional Management Agencies 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THIS PLAN 6.1 Environmentallmpacts 6.1.1 Overview 6.1.2 Previously Implemented Plan Recommendations 6.1.3 Future Plan Recommendations 6.2 Socia! and Economic kmpacts fi.2.1 Overview 6.2.2 Previously Implemented Plan Recommendations 6.2.3 Future Pian Recommendations 7.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 8.0 WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS Blue River Water Quality Management Plan Eagle River Water Quality Management Plan North Platte River Water Quality Management Plan Roaring Fork Water Quality Management Plan Upper Colorado River Water Quality Management Plan Upper Yampa River Water Q;iality Management Plan V I-4 1996 REGION XII WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES Appendix 1. Glossary Appendix 2. Towns and Counties within Region XII, and Population Projections . Appendix 3. Wastewater Treatment Plants within Region Xll, including: capacity, type of treatment, sludge disposal method; rates; age; condition Appendix 4. Water providers within Region XII, including: gallons per year; population served; rates, etc. Appendix 5. Select water quality data from Region XII, with references for expanded water quality data. Appendix 6. Stream standards and classifications for water within Region X11. Appendix 7. Impaired Uses Stream Segments within Region XII (304(1} list). Appendix 8. CDPS permit holder list for Region Xll (including stormwater permits) Appendix 9. Designated Management Agencies Agreements Appendix 10. Sample focal Government Water Quality Regulations Appendix 11. Example Best Management Practices Appendix 12. MAPS, MAPS, MAPS Index V f-5 L15T QF FIGURES AND TABLES VOLUME I Page Figure 1 Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Regional VI -10 and Watershed Boundaries Figure 2 NWGCOG Regional Water Quality Management Plan VI -11 Table 1 Water Quality Planning Elements VI -14 Table 2 Recommended Management Agency Structure VI - 16 Table 3 Recommended Management Agency Structure VI - 42 VOLUME 11 Figure 3 Upper Colorado River Basin Map VII - 8 Figure 4 Yampa River Basin Map VII -10 Figure 5 Upper North Platte Watershed Map VII -11 Table 4 Water Quality Planning Elements VII - S BLUE RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Figure fi Blue River Watershed Map g -4 Table 5 Blue River Watershed Instream Flows B -20 Table 6 Blue River Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facilities B -23 Table 7 Summit County Population Statistics B -26 Table 8 Blue River Watershed Transbasin Diversions B -31 Table 9 Bluer River Water Quality Standards and Classifications B -43 Table 10 Blue River Watershed Designated Use Impairment B -47 Table 11 Blue River 303(d) List B -48 V I-fi LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES continued} Page EAGLE RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Figure 7 Eagle River Watershed Map E - 4 Table 12 Eagle Mine Investigation ~E _ g Table 13 Eagle River Watershed Instream Flows E -17 Table 14 Eagle River Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facilities E - 22 Table 15 Eagle County Population Statistics E - 24 Table 16 Eagle River Water Quality Classifications E - 35 Table 17 Eagle River Watershed Designated Use Impairment E - 37 Table 18 Eagle River Watershed 303(d) List E - 39 NORTH PLATTE RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Figure 8 North Platte River Watershed Map NP- 4 Table 19 North Platte River Watershed Instream Flows NP-10 Table 20 Jackson County Population Statistics NP-12 Table 21 North Platte River Stream Classifications NP-1$ ROARING FORK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN Figure 9 Roaring Fork River Watershed Map RF- 4 Table 22 Selected Water Quality Parameters, Mainstem Brush RF-10 Creek Watershed Table 23 Roaring Fork River Watershed Instream Flows RF-16 Table 24 Roaring Fork Municipal & Domestic Wastewater RF-20 Treatment Plants Table~25.Roaring Fork River Watershed Permanent Population RF-26 Table 26 Roaring Fork River Watershed Transbasin Diversions RF-30 1993 Table 27 Roaring Fork River Stream Classifications RF-39 Table 2B Roaring Fork River Designated Use Impairment RF-42 Table 29 Roaring Fork River 303(d) List RF-43 V I-7 a • LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES continued) UPPER COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Page Figure 10 Upper Colorado River Watershed Map C - 4 Table 30 Upper Colorado Drainages & Average Annual Runoff C - 5 Table 31 Three Lakes Annual Average Trophic State Indicators C - 7 Table 32 Colorado River Watershed Instream Flows C -17 Table 33 Municipal & Domestic Wastewater Permits over O,Q2 MGD C - 27 Table 34 Grand County Population Statistics C - 30 Table 35 Colorado River Stream Classifications C - 41 Table 36 Colorado River Designated Use Impairment C - 44 Table 37 Colorado River 303(d) List C - 46 YAMPA RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Figure 11 Yampa River Watershed Map Y - 4 Table 3B Yampa River Watershed Instream Flows Y - 16 Table 39 Yampa River Watershed Domestic Wastewater Y - 21 Treatment Facilities Table 40 Routt County Population Projections Y - 24 Table 41 Yampa River Stream Classifications Y ~ 33 Table 42 Yampa River Designated Use Impairment Y - 36 Table 43 Yampa River 303(d) List Y - 38 V 1-8 02129!96 DRAFT The purpose of Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act is to require plans for coordinated regional approaches to water quality management. This Regional Water Quality Management Plan, or 208 Plan, is a comprehensive revision of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments' (NWCCOG) 208 Plan which was last approved in 1989 by Governor Romer. This 208 Plan consists of two volumes and appendices {including a glossary). Volume I consists of the Regional Policies and describes recommendations to protect and enhance the water quality within the NWCCOG region, consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Volume II consists of the Regional Water Quality Assessment which describes existing water quality, identifies the mayor regional water quality issues, and presents the individual Water Quality Management Plans for each of the six watersheds within the NWCCOG region (Figure 1). INTRODUCTION V I-9 rte ""r( J ~' A J r ~~ i nu.~r I ~~ ~~ S i ~~ l ~ I rl t .~~ . ` ~ w •r: ey~`:~ r naa L y ~~! plTKli~ ~ 1 1 / r ` 1 t :~ 1T`'. v 1 ur~Nlson ~ ~ _~ rn~~~ 1 ~ .~ Vr~t~rti ~ ~, it I i. 1 , ~ w fe w1~ KKI din ~_ iii . .. . Dios. ... nor. v l-~ a Figure 1. Northwest Colorado Council of Go~emments' Regional and Watershed Boundaries HOW TO USE THIS PLAN Volume I, Policy Plan, consists of six policies. Policy '1 outlines changes NWCCOG is recommending to the State Water Quality Control Commission regarding water quality regulations. The next four policies recommend actions to minimize water quality impacts for entities which have the authority to regulate land use and other activities. These entities include federal, state, and local governments. The last policy identifies which entities or "Management Agencies" are responsible for implemen#ing the recommended actions. Volume U, Water Quality Program Development, describes the water quality assessments #hat were used to develop the policies in Volume I. The Regional Water Quality Assessment is a summary of the major wa#er quality issues identified in the region. This section is also provided to inform readers of water quality impacts from various activities and gives an overview of the existing systems which protect water quality. The six individual wa#ershed plans in Volume II form the foundation of this 208 Plan. Each watershed plan has the #ollowing sections: A summary of the watershed characteristics and how the plan was developed; An evaluation of existing water quality data; ldent~cation of Point and Nonpoint Source issues and recommendations for specific water quality issues in the basin; A description of existing and potential water quality improvement projects including education); A summary of local water quality related land use regulations; A summary of water quasi#y monitoring efforts and needs; A discussion of watershed stream segment water quality designations, classifications,, standards and recommended changes. The flow chart below (Figure 2) illustrates the structure of this 208 Plan. Figure 2. NWCCOG Regional Water Quality Management Plan Structure Regional~WaterQuality Volume I Policies Regionat Water Quality Vo1{~Cpe llAssessment Roaring Upper NorthBlueRiverEagleForkRiverColoradoPlanRiverPlan Yam aPlattep plan River Plan River Plan River Plan V I-11 t ~ BACKGROUND In 1972, Congress overrode a presidential veto to pass the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 {PL92-500), also known as the Clean Water Act. This Act has been further amended with significant changes in 1977 {PL95-217) and 1987 (PL100-4). The Clean Water Act states that the ultimate objective of the Act is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integri#y of the Nation's waters". In beginning the process to improve water quality,. the Clean Water Act identified a. number of planning programs to be initiated at various levels of government outlined in Section 20B. To maximize efficient use of resources and provide regional coordination, Section 208 of the Act established an areawide approach to planning for the abatement of pollution. Section 208 (titled "Areawide Waste Treatment Plans"} provides criteria to design local plans, based on an integrated and comprehensive planning process. The Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) was designated the areawide waste treatment management planning authority, under Section 208, in February 197fi by the governor of Colorado. NWCCOG develops and maintains the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (20B Plan) for the NWCCOG. The NWCCOG planning region {Region X!I) includes the area within Eagle, Grand, Jackson, Piticin, Routt and Summit Counties and includes three river basins: the Colorado River Basin; the North Platte River Basin; and the Yampa River Basin. In Colorado, the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission and Division are responsible for regulating water quality through the establishment of water quality classifications, designations, standards, and control regulations to protect the beneficial uses of the s#reams and lakes; issuance of discharge permits; water quality certifications; and enforcement, The Continuing Planning Process for Water Quality Management in Colorado, adopted by the Water Quality Cantroi Commission in 1983, require annual updates of the Areawide Water Quality Management Plans prepared under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act. The #wo purposes of this 208 Plan are to: 1) update the plan to reflect the progress that has been made in plan implementation, and 2} address the region's shift in focus to a watershed perspective. The Plan is structured to satisfy the applicable state guidelines and to satisfy local planning considerations that dictate a flexible and innovative approach to water quality planning to avoid future water quality problems. This Plan is composed of two volumes and a set of technical appendices. A two volume format was chosen to increase the utility of the 208 Plan, as the policies are unlikely to change over a four to six year time frame, while the water quality assessments, and individual watershed water quality management plans may V I-12 require change on a shorter time frame to reflect changes in management priorities and projects. Volume !, Policy Plan, is presented in a policy plan format and describes the recommendations to protect and enhance the level of water quality consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Volume 1 provides a framework for water quality decisions relating to activities which have the potential to generate both point and nonpoint sources of water quality degradation in the Region. This volume of the plan is organized around six policies which will lead to maintaining.and improving water quality in the region. Under each policy, administrative guidelines are presented for use by water quality management agencies who have and will continue to implement the plan. These management agencies are identified in Policy fi of Volume I, and the rationale for their selection is discussed in Chapter 5 of Volume II -Management Systems. Volume ll, Water Quality Program Development, describes the water quality management program in a format similar to the elements contained in Colorado's Continuing Planning Process guidelines. Volume II draws on material contained in previous 208 Plan submittals and from new data collected since the last 208 Plan was revised. Volume II provides supporting information for the water quality policies contained in Volume I. The appendices provide supporting technical information regarding specific water quality issues addressed in the plan. A significant change from our previous 208 Plans is that the water quality management plans presented in Volume II are organized on a watershed basis, whereas prior 208 Pian water quality assessments were done on a county basis. The content of Volume I (previously Volume II in the 1989 Plan} has not been substantially changed, although the form has been changed. The number of policies has been reduced from eleven to six and six previous policies concerned with water quality impacts from various aspects of land use and development have been consolidated into one policy (Policy 3 -Land Use and Disturbance). Policy 1 Water Quality}, has been shortened, as most of the 1988 recommendations have been implemented, In addition, a policy justification has been added to cacti of the policies. Table 1 provides a summary of the elements of water quality planning recommended under the State Guidelines compared to the elements contained in this Plan. The Policy Plan (Volume I} together with the technical appendices contain ail of the State elements. V I-13 Table ~. Water Quality Planning Elements Plan Element Facility location Facility needs Facility capacity Facility timing Population projections Service area Treatment level Permit conditions Wasteload allocations NPS information Management agency WQ standards recomm Plan Policy (V,I) V I-14 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT POLICY SUMMARY FOR THE NORTHWEST COLORADO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS POLICY 1. WATER QUALITY The surface and groundwaters of the region shat! be protected to maintain the current and designated uses of those waters. The physical, chemical, and biological conditions shall be maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of residents and visitors of the region. Waters of the region not currently supporting classified uses shall be restored as soon as is financially and technically feasible. POLICY 2. WATER USE AND DEVELOPMENT The use and development of the waters of the region shall maintain the quality necessary to protect current and classified uses, including water quality levels necessary to comply with the State's antidegradation regulation. POLICY 3. LAND USE AND DI5TURBANCE The surtace and groundwaters of the region shall be protected from land uses and management practices which could cause "significant degradation"' of water quality or impair the natural protection andlor treatment processes provided by wetlands, floadpiains, shorelines, and riparian areas. POLICY 4. DOMESTIC, MUNICIPAL,~AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT Decisions #o locate water supplies, wastewater treatment systems, and other facilities shall be made in a manner which protects water quality. Decisions regarding facility location shall also recognize the protection of fioodplains, geologic hazard areas, wildlife habitats, wetlands, shorelines, and agricultural land. Plans for facilities which divert water or discharge wastes will be coordinated with existing facilities to protect water quality. The definition of "significant degradation" is that used in the "Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Waters" regulation of the Water Quality Control Commission (5 CRR 1002-8, 3.1.8 {3}(c}) {see glossary and Appendix fi). V I-15 i POLICY 5. CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT The surface and groundwaters of the region shall be protected from the uses of pesticides, fertilizers, algaecides, road.deicing and friction materials, and other chemicals which would temporarily or permanently cause a significant degradation of water quality or impair the current or classified uses of these waters. POLICY 6. MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The surface and groundwaters of the region shall be protected by a management agency s#ructure which recognizes the existing governmental and regulatory ramework and allows decisions and management to be made at the most appropriate level of control. Especially with respect to nonpoint source pollution prevention, the recorrrimended level of management is at the watershed level municipality and county driven). Table 2 iden#ifies the r®commended management agency structure. Table 2. Management A~encv Structure. Activity and Policy Water Quality Planning Land Use Planning 1. Water Qualify water quality standards revisions 2. Water Use and Development Issue 1041 Permits Issue Special Use permits 1 Right of Ways Issue 404 Permits Issue 401 Certification Policy 3. Land Use and Disturbance is Facilities Disturbance Disturbance ssue 1041 Permits mpervious Cover 3tormwater Management Agency Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Ccunties and municipalities NWCCOG, counties, municipalities, special districts Counties and Municipalities USFS, BLM, Counties US Army Corps of Engineers Colorado Water Quality Control Division Counties, municipalities, special districts, federal land management agencies Couniies, municipaliiies, special districts, federal land management agencies, Colorado Department of Transportation {CDOT) Counties, municipalities, federal land management a~encieS, Natural ReSGUrce ConServailDn ServlCe Counties, municipalities, federal land management agencies, Natural Resource Conservation Service Counties, municipalities Counties, municipalities Counties, municipplities V I-16 i icy 4. Domestic, Municipal and Industrial rtes ie Cotorado Discharge Permits grove Site Applications view Site Applications ue 104'E permits solids Applications dfill Site Approvals cy 5. Chemical Management I Prevention and Cleanup Colorado Water Qr~ality Control Division Water Quality Control Division NWCCOG, counties, municipalities, special districts Counties, municipalities Water Quality Control Division, Counties Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment, Counties -Hazardous Materials Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, CDOT, municipalities, special districts V I-17 POLICY 1. WATER QUALITY 9.1 Poiicv Statemen# The surface and groundwaters of the region shall be protected to maintain the current and designated us®s of those waters. The physical, chemical, and biological conditions shall be maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of residents and visitors to the region. Waters of the region not Curren#ly supporting classified uses steal! be restored as soon as is financially and technically feasible. 1.2 Polfcv Obfectives To meet the adopted water quality standards for the State of Colorado, including the applicable antidegradation standard. . To assist local governments and federal and state agencies controlling land use activities in the region to implement faders! and state water q~iality goals. To improve public awareness of water quality conditions in the region, the extent to which those conditions can be affected by land use activities, and how individual actions can protect and improve water quality. 7.3 Poiicv ,Jus#ification Pollution of the region's waters may cons#itute a menace to public health and welfare, may create public nuisances, may be harmful to wildlife and aquatic life, and may impair beneficial uses of these waters. Colorado State Statutes have been written "To protect, maintain, and improve where necessary and reasonable, water quality for public water supplies, for protection and propagation of wildlife and aquatic life, for domestic, agricultural, industrial, and recreational uses" (CRS 25-8-~ 02). High quality-waters are valued by the Citizens of the region. We recognize the necessity of protecting the existing uses for the benefit of ourselves, our visitors, and future generations. We recognize that it is in our best interest to prated, maintain, and improve where necessary and reasonable, the waters of this region, V I-~ 8 I.A implementation Recommendations 1.4.1 Meet Existing Water Quality Standards The Water Quality Control Commission has divided the surface waters of this region into stream segments, assigned designations, classifiications and set water quality standards. The six watershed plans in Volume !I identify the.existing designations, classified uses, and water quality standards in each of the watersheds. These designations, classifications and standards are incorporated herein by reference and should be met through all actions of designated management agencies, as identified in Policy fi. NWCCOG, after consultation with designated management agencies, will recommend selected revisions to these standards at triennial reviews scheduled by the Commission. Waters which will be examined prior to that time are Green Mountain Reservoir, Tenmile Creek, Peru Creek, and the Eagle River. 1.4.2 Recommend Revisions to Water Quality Standards, Classifications, and Designations Recommended revisions to water quality standards are an element of 208 Plans under State Guidelines for the Continuing Planning Process. Existing designations, classifications, and standards are documented in Section 8.1 of each of the watershed water quality plans. This section (1.4.2) summarizes Region XII's recommended revisions to the existing water quality standards, designations, and classifies#ians. Further discussion on each of these recommendations can also be found in the appropriate watershed plan's discussion on water quality standards. 1.4.2.1 Special Water Quality Standards No new special water quality standards, such as control regulations, ere recommended. 1.4.2.2 Streams Which Should be investigated for Outstanding Waters Designation in Region Xll The following streams are recommended for investigation as to appropriateness of designation as "Outstanding Waters" (no degradation allowed). Currently these streams are designated as "Reviewable Waters" (antidegradation review applies to these waters). V I-'! 9 Blue River Watershed Streams in the Gore Range/Eagle's Nest Wildemess (Blue River Segment 1 fi) Streams in the Ptarmigan Wildemess Area (a new segment needs to be created for this as no good segmentation for this area currently exists} Colorado River Watershed Streams in the Never Summer and Indian Peaks Wilderness Areas (Upper Colorado River Segment 5) Streams in the Ptarmigan Wilderness Area (no good segmentation currently exists for this area and a new segment would have to be created ) Eagle River Watershed Streams in the Gore RangelEagle's Nest Wilderness (Eagle River Segment 1) Streams in the Haly C~roSS Wilderness (Eagle River Segment 1) Yampa River Watershed The Elk River from its source to Glen Eden (Yampa River Segments 8 and 10) Little Snake River tributaries in the National Forest (Yampa River Segmen# 19} 1.4.2.3 Use-Protected Waters in Region XII Stream segments currently designated "Use Protected" (discharges in these segments are not subject #o antidegradation review) are listed in the appropriate watershed plans. No changes are recommended to those stream segments. 1,4.2.4 Changes to Temporary Modifications in Region XII Existing stream segments with temporary modifications are identified in the appropriate watershed plans in Volume II. The following changes #o temporary modifications of numeric stream standards are recommended. Blue River Watershed Deer Creek in Summit County (tributary to the Snake River (Blue River Segment 9}. This temporary modification is incorrect and should be dropped. The temporary modification should be applied to the Snake River from the headwaters to the confluence wl Deer Creek (part of Blue River Segment 6). See the Blue River Water Quality Assessment for further information on this segment. Colorado River Watershed Mainstem of Rock Creek in Grand, Routt, and Eagle Counties - confluence with Colorado River in Eagle County below McCoy -mercury (Upper Colorado River V I-20 i ~ ~. Segment 7b). This temporary modification is most likely due to flawed data. A review of recent (1987 - '! 994) USGS data indicate that this stream segment meets the Table Value Standards for mercury. This temporary modification should be dropped. 1.4.2.5 Designated Uses Recommendation Designated Uses include: domestic water supply; agriculture; recreation; and aquatic fife. No changes in designated uses are recommended to the stream segments in Region XII. 1.4.2.fi Designated Use Impairment Recommendations Most of.the waterbodies in Region XII are designated "Fully Supporting", meaning that the classified uses of those waterbodies (which can include: aquatic life; water supply; recreation; and agriculture) are not measurably impacted by water quality. Other waterbodies have been designated in various manners to require special consideration and advanced wastewater treatment for particular pollutants. Stream segments in the region with known or potential water quality problems have been identified by the Water Quality Control Division and are identified as either Water Quality Limited, Partially Supporting, or Not Supporting Designated Uses. These are identified in each of the watershed plans in Volume II under the Water Quality Standards section. The existing designated uses of each stream segment are listed in the appropriate watershed water quality plan in Volume 11 under the Water Quality Standards section. The State's "Status Of Water Quality in Colorado" or 305 {b} Report to the EPA lists waters of the state which have been identified as "Water Quality Limited" or designs#ed "Use Impaired". Below are listed recommended changes to that list for stream segments in Region XII. 1.4.2.6,1 Water Quality Limited -Allocated Segments The State's criteria for Water Quality Limited, Allocated Segments is that the designated uses are not measurably impaired, but the assimilative capacity of the segment has been (or should be) allocated. If additional growth occurs in the areas served by the current treatment facilities, or additional wastewater treatment plants V i-21 a a ~ will discharge to the same segment, or stream flows are reduced, mare restrictive limits will be required for some or all dischargers. Na changes are recommended to the Designated Use Impaired List for the Water Quality Limited, Allocated segments. 1.4.2.6.2 Water Quality Limited -Potentially Threatened The State's criteria far these segments is that the designated uses of these waters are not measurably impaired due to water quality, but assessment information or water quality based controls indicates the potential for impairment of the designated uses in the near future. The existing Water Quality Limited segments are listed in the appropriate watershed water quality plan in the Water Quality Standards section. Recommended changes to this list are below. Data supporting the recommended changes can be found in the appropriate watershed Water Quality Management Plans and Appendices. Point sources -Uses of the following segments would be threatened if only secondary treatment were applied: Blue River Watershed Dillon Reservoir (Blue River Segment 3} Nutrients -this segment is incorrectly identified as threatened by point source phosphorus discharges. This segment is threatened by nonpoint source phosphorus loads, not by point source discharges (see the Blue River Watershed Water Quality Plan for details}. Green Mountain Res. {Blue River Segment 17) Nutrients -this segment is incorrectly identified as threatened by point source discharges. This segment is threatened by hydrologic modifications, not point source nutrient discharges (see the Blue River Watershed Water Quality Plan for details.). Colorado River Watershed Colorado River tributaries from Lake Granby to Roaring Fork (Upper Colorado River Segment 4) -Salinity -this segment is incorrectly listed. There are areas identified in the Upper Colorado watershed plan which contribute significant amounts of salinity to the Colorado River, but to identify all of the tributaries as contributing is misleading. The following river segments should be added to the list as identified as being threatened by Nonpaint Sources -Hydrologic Modifications V I-22 Blue River Eagle River Upper Colorado River -Fraser River. Nonpoint Sources -Threatened by Construction and Urban Runoff Colorado River Watershed Colorado River -State Bridge to Roaring Fork {Upper Colorado River Segment 5) -Sediment -this designation is incorrect. There are areas identified in the Upper Colorado watershed plan which contribute significant amounts of sediment to the Colorado River, but to identify the entire segment threatened by urban and construction runoff is incorrect. Nonpoint Sources -Threatened by ? Blue River Watershed Deer Creek (Blue River Segment 9} -Metals -Deer Creek has good water quality -the correct segment which is impacted by metals is the Upper Snake River. Blue River Segment 9 should be identified as the Upper Snake River from the headwaters to the confluence with Deer Creek, which is partially supporting desgnated uses due to mining and natural geology. Colorado River Watershed Muddy Creek (Upper Colorado Segment fia) Metals? Williams Fork River (Upper Colorado River Segment 8} -Metals. Recent water quality data, as discussed in the watershed plan, does not show a metals problem on this segment and this designation should be removed. 1.4.2.6.3 Water Quality Limited -Partially Supporting The partially supporting designation means #hat there is some interference with designated uses, but the use(s) is not precluded. The existing "Partially Supporting" identified segments are listed in the appropriate watershed water quality plan in the Water Quality Standards section. Below are the recommended changes: Nonpoint Sources -Impaired by ? Blue River Watershed Tributaries to Blue River between Dillon Reservoir and Green Mountain Reservoir -there is no data indicating that this segment is not fully supporting all classified uses (listed as impacted by nutrients, sediment in 1994 305b). This designation should be deleted. V i-23 Eagle River Watershed Milk and Alkali Creeks (Eagle River Segment 1D) -this segment is impaired due to highly erosive soils and historic grazing practices. Water quality impacts are related to sediment and salinity loads. 1.4.2.6.4 Water Quality Limited -Not Supporting Water designated "Not Supporting" are waters where designated uses are, measurably impaired because of water pollution. The use may be present, but at a significantly reduced level from full support in all or some portion of the waterbody. The existing "Not Supporting" identified segments are listed in the appropriate watershed water quality plan in the Water Quality Standards section. Below are the recommended changes: Upper Colorado River Watershed Colorado River tributaries (from Lake Granby to Roaring Fork -Segment 4). This segment is identified as Not Supporting -sediment" (1994 305b). There is no data which indicates that the entire segment is not supporting classified uses. There are known areas of sediment impacts to this segment, but this identification needs further refinement 1.4.3 Implement Local Governmen#al Land Use Controls At this time nonpoint source management is primarily the responsibility of local government entities which have been delegated land use authority. Several counties and municipalities have adopted regulations designed to address, in a manner consistent with state law, water quality impacts associated with water development projects. Many entities have also implemented regulations that require Best Management Practices for construction activities and require stream setbacks. These regulations should be more consistently adopted, better articulated, and fully implemented throughout Region XII. 1.4.4 implement Water Quality Improvement Projects Designated management agencies, local, state, and federal interested parties are encouraged to initiate and participate in water quality improvement projects, as identified in Section 4.2 of the watershed water quality management plans in Volume !l, especially for those waters currently not meeting designated uses and with temporary modification standards, V I-24 1.4.4.1 Inactive Mine Water Quality Improvement Projects Historic mining activities in Region~X~l have left mine and mill tailings, spoil piieS and irlaCtive mina WOrkingS which cettse water quality d~~radatiorr througFr acid mine drainage. While these mines were operated according to standards accepted at the time, these inactive mines often contribute to water quality problems. Local governments and NWCCOG are working with the Colorado Water Quality Control Division and the Division of Minerals and Geology to improve water quality where impacts have been identified. Public and private sector cooperative efforts should be undertaken to reclaim these sites and to minimize long term water quality impacts. Specific site projects are listed in the appropriate watershed plan in the Watershed Water Quality improvement Projects section. NWCC4G is participating in the State's Mining Water Quality Task Farce which has been organized to address both historic and current water quality issues related mining activities. A number of outcomes could result from the Task Force's activities, including recommended regulatory or policy changes at the state level. V l-2~ POLICY 2. WATER USE AND DEVELOPMENT 2.1 Policv Statement The use and development of the waters of the region shall maintain the quality necessary to protect current and classified uses, including water quality levels necessary to comply with the State's antidegradation regulation. 2.2 Policv Obiectives To ensure that water development activities do not have a significant adverse effect upon the~regian's wafer resources, such as increasing pollutant concentrations at point source discharges, increasing salinity, or aggravating nonpoint source pollution problems. To protect existing local, state, and federal investments in wastewater treatment facilities by mitigating additional treatment costs caused by hydrologic modification. To ensure, through participation in the planning, design, and operation of reservoirs, that the quality of impounded water will be suitable for its intended use and that discharge downstream will not significantly degrade water quality. To ensure that water is used efficiently for the public benefit and advantage of the people of the state of Colorado. To ensure that water conservation is practiced in order to reduce the need to divert water. 2,3 Policv Justifica#ion The diversion of water and its application to beneficial use can have an impact on water quality. Water diverted and consumed or stored for later use decreases natural stream flows, which in turn reduces the dilution flows for natural pollutants, diminishes the assimilative capacity of the stream, and changes the shape and size of the stream channel. The challenge is balancing all current and future beneficial uses, which include domestic, agricultural, industrial, environmental, recreational and aesthetic considerations. With respect to water and wastewater treatment plants, reductions in stream flow affect treatment in two ways: they increase the concentration of natural pollutants as they enter the plant; and they decrease the assimilative capacity of the stream. The instream flows in the region do not obviate the need to treat wastewater to a high V I-26 level, and most was#ewater treatment plan#s in Region XI I are tertiary treatment plants which treat wastewater to the highest level technically and financially possible. As the population of the State grows, so will the demand for additional water supply. The Front Range's primary source of supply comes from the waters in Region XII. Numerous conditional and absolute water rights are held by Front Range municipalities in Region Xfl, in the Biue, Eagle, Roaring Fork, and Upper Colorado watersheds. The great concern with #his type of diversion (transbasin) is that the water removed is completely lost to that basin (1 QQ°~ consumptive use). In other words, there are no return flows to the stream that the water is diverted from. Accordingly, wastewater treatment costs increase in the basin. Also, transbasin water diversions take place relatively high in the watershed, and #hus divert the highest quality water from the basin. In-basin water use may also raise water quality concerns. Included in these concerns are: conversion of agricultural water to municipal use (loss of groundwater recharge); change in timing of return flows (specifically rely#ed to snow making); and "dewatering" stream segments between water diversion and wastewater return points; and the consumptive use of various beneficial water uses. Additional information concerning water use and development can be found in Chapter 4.2.2 of Volume 11 and in the individual Watershed Water Quality Assessments in Chapter 8. 2.4 fmniementation Recommendations Mitigation of significant negative water quality impacts associated with water use and development should be required by the appropriate local permitting agency, pursuant to its {and use authority. Local governments should ensure their ability to review and permit these activities. Where a federal permit is required for a water development activity, water quality impacts in Region Xil caused by hydrologic modifications should be analyzed and mitigated to the extent required under federal law. The Colorado Water Conservation Board should be encouraged to establish instream flows and acquire the water rights necessary to protect those flows, in cooperation with other water users' efforts {which should be acknowledged) to provide instream flows which protect the environment to a reasonable degree. Proponents of water development projects should be encouraged to cooperate in providing the minimum flow based on methods used in determining effluent limits wherever possible so that project related increases in wastewater treatment costs are avoided. V I-27 t The salinity effects of water development activities in the region should be addressed in accordance with the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum's triennial plan implementation. Impacts to other users not addressed by the Forum, such as the those in the Grand Valiey should be considered as well (discussion an this issue can be found in the Regional Water Quality Assessment Section of Volume II}. Establishment of incentives for improved water efficiency efforts, including but not limited to conjunctive use agreements, water banking, credit for stream flows, etc., should be encouraged. The Colorado Water Conservation Board is the appropriate agency for coordination of these types of activities. Local govemments and special districts should encourage water conserving landscaping through land use regulations and incentives. Incentives should be provided where practical, to encourage retrofitting of existing buildings with water saving devices. Appendix 10 contains a model local water efficiency regulation. Municipal and county land use regulations should update water supply criteria applied to new residential and commercial development to require that water supply plans utilize water resources that are long-#erm and sustainable through the use of renewable supplies, conjunctive use, or augmentation. Local governments should request the assistance of the Colorado Division of Wildlife in the assessment of site specific and cumulative impact of water development associated with land use, activities on aquatic and related habitat. Those assessments should be used to minimize impacts to the aquatic environment and related habitat. Entities which depend on groundwater for domestic water supplies should develop a wellhead protection program in conjunction with the Water Quality Control Division's Wellhead Protection Program. Municipalities should develop a watershed protection program pursuant to CRS 39 -9 5-707(9 }(b). Stream restoration projects which address the impacts of hydrologic modifications. are strongly encouraged (specific recommendations are listed in the individual watershed water quality management plans in the Watershed Improvement Projects Section). V I-28 POLICY 3. LAND USE AND DISTURBANCE 3.1 Policv Statement The surface and groundwaters of the region shat! be protected from land uses and management practices which could cause significant degradation' of wa#er quality or impair the natural protection and/or treatment processes provided by wetlands, floadplains, shorelines, and riparian areas. 3.2 Policv ~biectives To minimize the site disturbance on lands adjacent to.surface waters, wetlands, and riparian environments in order to protect water quality. To ensure that activities such as development, logging, mineral extraction, solid waste disposal, agriculture, and all other land use practices do not cause significant deterioration of water quality or significantly disturb the region's surface and groundwaters. To establish the basis for protection ofi critical water environment zones through land purchase or other available programs. To enhance public knowledge of the importance of maintaining vegetative cover and stream side setbacks to protect water quality. To promote water quality as an important consideration in making decisions on the location and extent of areas to be served by public facilities and services. To ensure that the general public will not be required to bear unnecessary construction and operating costs of extending facilities and services into and through areas where adverse water quality impacts -may occur. To assist local gavemments in guiding future growth and development activities to areas where impacts on~ water quaNty will be minimized andlor controllable. To recognize forest management practices which minimize fire fuel buildup and control wildfire, disease and insect infestations as a viable longterm water quality management strategy. The definition of "significant degradation" is that used in the "Basic Standards and Methodo#ogies for Surtace Waters" regulation of the Water Quality Control Commission 5 CRR 1DD2-8, 3.1.8 (3)(c)) (see glossary and Appendix 6). V I-29 To ensure compatibility of investment policies for public facilities with other environmental protection programs {e.g. f#oodplain protection). To assist local governments in controlling soil disturbance and earth movement where significant water quality impacts may occur. To control the creation of new impervious cover throughout the region to enable continued groundwater contribution to streamflow during low flow conditions and to minimize flooding impacts from increased surface runoff. To recognize and protect irrigated agriculture as an important groundwater recharge mechanism for sustaining stream flows during critical tow flow periods and to encourage the minimization of pollutants returning to the stream. To ensure that the cumulative impacts of development activities in the region will not cause storm drainage and floodwater patterns to exceed the capacity of natural or constructed drainage ways. Ta ensure that future development activities provide for the storage, treatment, and removal of pollutants to control their transport by storm runoff into streams, river and lakes. To encourage the use of non-structure! controls in managing stormwater. 3.3 Policv Justification The purpos® of this policy is to ensure that a balance exists between the protection of water quality and land use and development and to minimize the conflicts between the two. individuals exercising their private property rights should not endanger the public health, welfare, and right to enjoy and use our common natural resources, such as high quality water and aquatic life. It has been fundamentally established through the US Court system that no individual has an absolute right to use their property to the detriment of others. Communities can legitimately insist that development be done in a manner which will not compromise their citizens' quality of life. Land use practices have impacts on water quality. The water pollutants of concern with respect to land use practices include: sediment, nutrients; animal wastes; heavy metals, petroleum products; salts; pesticides; and the loss of natural protection from these pollutants (such as loss of wetlands and riparian vegetation). These pollutants are nonpoint source in origin, i.e. typically enter the waterbady via diffuse runoff. V 1-30 Generally it is more cost effective to prevent water quality impacts than to treat water quality impacts. This is especially true with respect to land use impacts on water quality, The most effective way of addressing land use impacts is through the development, consistent application, and enforcement of local regulations and incentives to minimize water quality problems from runoff. Most of the Implementation Recommendations consist of Best Management Practices BMPs}, both structural and nonstructural. No single BMP can be appi`red to all land disturbance situations, and all BMP options require carefiui site assessment prior tv design. Provisions of this policy should be implemented as deemed locally appropriate hrough adoption and enforcement of development review procedures. Model local water quality protection codes are contained in Appendix 1 Q. Examples of Best Management Practices for land use and disturbance activities (including agriculture} are contained in Appendix 11. 3.4 imnlementativn Recommendations Local gavemments should adopt horizontal building setbacks from all stream channels, flood plains, wetlands, shorelines and other riparian areas. The minimum recommended soil disturbance setback is 25 feet. Greater setbacks are encouraged and should consider the following: Soil permeability and erodability (soil type); Slope; Cover conditions; and Intensity of adjacent land use. No vegetation should be removed, or soil disturbed or covered, within 25 feet of a wetland, stream, lake, or other waterbody. Where such disturbance is unavoidable, offsetting mitigation measures shouid be employed, such as preventing direct runoff into the stream, detention or infiltration of runoff, prompt revegetation with native species, etc. Modification of stream channe! cross sections and encroachment shall be accomplished in a manner that prevents stream channel impacts upstream and downstream after modification. Best Management Practices {BMPs) for agricultural activities are recommended for minimizing water quality impacts from these activities. Examples of BMPs can be found in Appendix 11. V I-31 Critical stream environment zones, floodplains, wetlands, riparian areas, and reservoir shorelines for public uses should be protected through zoning or acquired through conservation easements, land exchanges, transfer of development rights, or similar resource protection techniques. Wetlands disturbance should be avoided. Where such disturbance is unavoidable, offsetting mitigation measures should be employed, such as preventing direct runoff, detention or infiltration of site runoff, and construction of new.wetlands or enhancement of existing "poor quality" wetlands. Planning for public or private infrastructure and investments should be made to avoid floodplains, wetlands, riparian areas, steep erodable slopes, and geologic hazard areas whenever feasible. Where the potential for water quality impacts exist, the following requirements should be applied to any land use activity: Erosion cantrof plans: development activities involving soil disturbance and earth movement should be required to provide erosion control plans. Disturbance management and revegetation plan: this plan should include details of vegetation disturbance activity (schedule, area involved, equipment to be used, etc.) and a description of all measures to betaken during and following disturbance to minimize water quality impacts, including monitoring to determine effectiveness of the measure taken. Timing of disturbance: whenever possible, disturbances should be planned to occur at those times of the year when water quality impacts will be minimized. Disturbances immediately prior to or during the winter season require particular considers#ion of the period before the site can be revegetated, Area controls: consideration should be given to limiting the area of disturbance which occurs at any one time, particularly in locations where water quality impacts may be severe, such as on moderate to steep slopes having slowly permeable soils. , Equipment: methods.for vegetation disturbance should be selected to rriinimize water quality impacts. For example, clear-cutting should be restricted to relatively small acreages in deep snowpack areas and heavy lagging equipment should be restricted on steep slopes where severe erosion hazards may exist. Stabilization during disturbance: soil erosion controls and protection of surface waters should occur promptly after vegetation disturbance. Monitoring during disturbance: regular inspections should be made of the disturbed site to ensure that the operation is in conformance with the vegetation disturbance plan and that water quality impacts are being controlled to the maximum extent possible. Post-disturbance monitoring: inspections of the disturbance site after completion of the operation are necessary to ensure that measures to control V I-32 water quality impacts are effective and to determine If remedial actions are required. Performance bonds should be imposed to ensure that erosion control plans, including prompt and successfiul revegetation of disturbed areas, are implemented. Building restrictions on slaps greater than 3D°to should be considered as a means of limiting the water quality impacts of soil disturbance. Minimization and disconnection of impervious surfaces created as a result of construction of parking lots, buildings, roads, vegetation and soil removal; and other development activities, is recommended to ensure groundwater recharge in areas where development occurs. The greatest restrictions on impervious cover are recommended for groundwater recharge areas of regional importance and areas of high precipitation, where groundwater recharge will have the highest contribution to groundwater supplies and surface water base flaws. The Colorado Water Quality Control Division's Wellhead Protection Program has information on these areas. Stormwater detention should be required to minimize flooding, to maximize infiltration, and to minimize water quality impacts from impervious surface contaminants. S#ormwater discharges should result in no significant increase in fatal pollutant loadings. Land use activities should be regulated to maintain hydrologic characteristics of the development site similar to those of its pre-development condition. Drainage plans, including calculation of storm runoff volumes end velocities (before and after development) using accepted hydrologic calculation procedures, should be required. Direct discharge of stormwater to a lake, stream, or drainage way should be prohibited. Infiltration into the groundwater, detention, or passage over ~ 00 feet of grassed waterway should be considered an acceptable treatment mechanism, Siting and construction of roads and highways should be done in a manner which considers and minimizes water quality impacts. Local governments should request the assistance of the Colorado Division of Wildlife in the assessment of site specific and cumulative impact of subdivision development on aquatic and related habitat and these assessments should be used to minimize impacts to the aquatic environment and related habita#. Efforts to protect water quality typically provide additional benefits to wildlife, such as habitat protection. Local governments should request the assistance of the Colorado Division of Wildlife's assistance in the development of watershed management plans which address wildlife management, wildlife-based recreation and wildlife habitat V I-33 i preservation. These plans should be incorporated into the local master or comprehensive plans, and federal management plans. V I-34 POLICY 4. DOMESTIC, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT 4.9 Poficv Statement Decisions to locate water supplies, wastewater treatment systems, and other facilities will ~be made in a manner which protects wafer quality. Decisions regarding facility location shall also recognize the protection of floodplains, geologic hazard areas, wildlife habitats, wetlands, shorelines, and agricultural land. Plans for facilities which divert water or discharge wastes will be coordinated with existing facilities to protect water quality. 4.2 Policv Obiiectives To ensure that aN land use activities have adequate facilities to collect, treat, and dispose of anticipated types and quantities of wastewater. To ensure that the discharge of any water pollutants from waste treatment facilities industrial or commercial processing activities or mine waste tailings ponds meet the assigned conditions of its discharge permit so as to comply with stream standards as established by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. , To ensure the wasteload allocations for paint source discharges are met throughout the region through upgrading of existing treatment facilities and planning and construction of new facilities as required. To ensure that development of solid waste disposal sites including residuals from wastewater treatment is conducted in accordance with sound conservation practices giving consideration to potential pollution problems inherent in proposed sites. To recognize the sensitivity of regional and local groundwater aquifers to pollution from waste discharges or seepage from waste disposal sites and septic system leachate.. - To avoid the proliferation of wastewater treatment facilities andbr wastewater treatment agencies where practical alternatives exist. To ensure that wastewater treatment fiacilities are properly operated and maintained by a responsible operating entity. To seek the most cost-effective approach to limitation of critical pollutants by examining tradeoffs between point and nnnpoint sources. U f-3fi 4.3 Poificv Jus#ification The purpose of this policy is to ensure #hat public facilities be sited and constructed with consideration of water quality impact minimization, while recognizing financial limitations. The communities of the region have been extremely supportive of protection of water quality through the funding of well constructed, operated, and maintained wastewater treatment facilities. Careful planning of public infrastructure is needed to assure that maximum public benefit is attained with available funds. With the passage of the "Tax Payers Bill of Rights" Amendment (Article 10 Section 20 of the State Constitution), it is necessary to assure that the limited funds available far public projects be put to their best use while minimizing environmental impacts. 4.4 Implementation Recommendations The wastewater treatment plant Site Application process will include a coordinated review by appropriate management entities within the watershed. Local governments should identify floodplains, geologic hazard areas, wildlife habitats, wetlands, riparian areas, shorelines and signicficant agricultural lands. Public infrastructure and investment decisions should be made to encourage land use that avoids floodplains, wetlands, riparian areas, steep erodable slopes, and geologic hazard areas. Wasteload allocations, have been adopted or proposed for most of the major subbasins in the region. Continued tracking by the Water Quality Control Division to insure that appropriate allocations are in place, will ensure continued point source impact minimization. Subsurface disposal systems are a growing problem in Region Xil. With reduced federal funding, individual sewage disposal systems are likely to see increased use. Thorough state, regional, and coca! reviews are needed for proposed systems. Proper design, maintenance and proper disposal of septage needs to be ensured through regulatory review. Wastewater treatment with individual sewage disposal systems should be managed by encouraging clustering small scale subsurtace systems. Innovative operation and management approaches, such as pressure sewers, should be explored. Where site conditions require wastewater collection and central treatment, efforts should be made to consolidate treatment plants. Consideration, however, needs to V I-S6 be given to protection of instream flows. Every effort should be made to consolidate management agencies and special district boundaries, where possible and financially beneficial. At a minimum, proper Fong-term operation and maintenance should be provided by a responsible operating entity. NWCCOG should petition the Water Quality Cantoo! Division to apply stringent requirements to future opera#ion plans for proposed facilities during site application review. Full compliance with the Colorado Operator Certification Act should be required. The state should emphasize the legal responsibility of the plant owner to support the plant operator with timely repairs and reimbursement for operations. The state should promptly begin enforcement actions for chronic poor operation of treatment facilities. The use of pollutant trading should be examined by the Water Quality Control Commission. During facility planning and drafting of Colorado Discharge Permits CDPS), the cost-effectiveness of controlling nonpoint sources of critical pollutants should be considered. Dischargers should be given credit towards CDPS limits for removal of critical point source pollutants from nonpoint sources. As an example, if it is cheaper for a discharger to remove two pounds of a nonpoint source pollutant from an upstream area, the CDPS might allow the permittee to discharge an additional pound of pollutant at the facility. The current recommendation as set fiorth in Policy fi and the 1Vlanagement Chapter in Volume fl (Chapter a) calls far general purpose local governments to act as the water quality management agency except where sanitation districts provide wastewater treatment services. In those cases, management agency functions will be performed by the agency in a position to provide effective water quality control. All recommended agencies have the authority and the capability to carry out their assigned responsibilities. No additional regulatory authorities are considered to be needed at this time because the performance of these recommended management agencies has been excellent to date. Biosolids generated by municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants should be disposed of and/or beneficially re-used according to a disposal plan approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and the County. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has developed a mandatory system of approval for disposal sites and disposal methods. Re-use of biosolids is strongly encouraged ds an alternative to landfill disposal. Efforts to beneficially use biosolids should be supported by local govemments. V I-37 POLICY 5. CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT 5.1 Poiicv Statement The surface and graundwaters of the region shall be protected from the uses of pesticides, fertilizers, algaecides, road deicing and friction materials, and other chemicals which would temporarily or permanently cause a significant degradation of water quality conditions or impair the current or classified uses. 5.2 Poiicv Objectives To ensure that the appropriate amount, rate, and scheduling of pesticide, fertilizer, and road deicing and friction applications are determined and applied to protect the region's water quality. To ensure that pesticides, fertilizers, road sanding materials, and hazardous chemicals used in the region are properly stored, transported, and handfed during both normal and emergency operations. To ensure that potentially hazardous household wastes are disposed of in a manner that will minimize risk to the region's water resources. 5.3 Poiicv Justification Pollution prevention is acknowledged as being the most cost effective means far protecting water quality. The implementation recommends#ions below focus on Best Management Practices which prevent or minimize the entry of pollutants into the region's ground and surface waters. Most of these practices require planning and coordination, but reduce the long-term costs of chemical application and environmental remediation. 5.4 imofementation Recommendations Decisions about limitations and management of agricultural, industrial, and . domestic:.hemicals should be based upon preparation of carefully designed pest control and nutrient management plans reflecting integrated approaches to pest control and detailed coif testing and plant analyses. Appropriate Management Agencies will encourage education efforts in cooperation with the Nature! Resources Conservation Service and State Extension Service #o inform the public and other users of fertilizers and pesticides concerning the appropriate use and alternatives to the use of these materials in order to minimize water quality impacts. 1~' I-38 Application of road deicing and #riction materials should be conducted throughout the region in accordance with the following recommendations: Sanding materials and chemical application rates should be the minimum necessary to obtain safe and efficien# operation of streets, roads, and highways. Salt and other chemicals should be applied only when removal of snow and ice cannot be accomplished by blading, plowing, or sanding. It is acknowledged that a balance may need to be found with respect to environmental tradeoffs, for example the use of pre-storm application of compounds to decrease the sanding needs versus mechanical removal. Measures should be taken to minimize and mitigate the use of sand and chemicals in and adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas including: streams; lakes; ponds; wetlands; potential aquifers; and flood prone areas. Chemically treated or sanded snow and ice will not be dumped or stored where melt can flow directly into surface waters. Consideration for placement of snow storage areas shall consider water quality issues, including the state requirement that direct discharges of snow storage areas to waterbodies require a Colorado Discharge Permit. The Colorado Department of Transportation, counties, and municipalities should identify alternatives which reduce the Head for, or amount of, road sand and salt, including alternatives to car and truck fiorms of transportation. The most promising of these alternatives should be demonstrated at sites throughout Region XII. Local governments should enact regulations to require that storage and handling of hazardous substances be conducted in accordance with the following general guidelines: A!I materials should be kept in appropriate containers and for under cover, well protected from precipitation and stormwater flows. Alf storage areas should be kept clean of spilled material. Handling and moving of materials should be limited as much as possible. Only "reasonable'" quantities of toxic materials should be kept on hand. Hazardous substances should not be stared on potential aquifer recharge areas and unstable slopes. Restrictions should be extended to flood prone and other geologic hazard areas. Storage, handling and transporting of large amounts of .hazardous substances should be tracked and monitored throughout the region by the local fire departments or designated emergency response provider. Entities which depend on ground and surface waters for domestic water supplies should develop appropriate protection programs, such as a wellhead protection V 1-39 s • • program pursuant to Section 1428 of the Safe Drinking Water Act ar a watershed protection program pursuant to CRS 31-15-707(1}(b). The communities and solid waste disposal facilities in the region should encourage responsible disposal of household hazardous wastes {oil, paint, acids, pesticides, etc.) through public education outreach. Development of a region-wide hazardous materials disposal program is encouraged. The communities in the region should encourage waste minimization and source reduction programs through public education and outreach. V I-40 POf_fCY 6. MANAGEMENT SYSTEM fi.1 Policv Statement The surFace and groundwaters of the region shall be pro#ected by a management agency structure which recognizes the existing governmental and regulatory framework and allows decisions and management at the most appropriate level of control. Especially with respect to nonpoint source pollution prevention, the . recommended level of management is at the watershed level (municipality and county driven). 8.2 Policv Obiec#ives To address water quality pollution issues at the most appropriate level of authority To address water quality pollution issues using existing governmental and regulatory structure where it is appropriate. fi.3 Policv Justification 6.3.1 Background The federal Glean Water Act requires the governor of each state to designate management agendas responsible for carrying out the provisions of approved water quality management programs. Qnce designated by the governor and approved by the Regional Administrator of EPA, functional responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the water quality management plan is legally assigned to that entity. Further, the Federal Clean Water Act specifies tha#: Future construction grants for wastewa#er treatmen# facilities under Section 201 of the Act wil! be awarded only to entitias who are designated as management agencies. No discharge permit will be issued which is in conflict with the recommendations of an approved 208 Plan as updated by the designated planning and management agencies. 8.3.2 The Designation Process The designation of management agencies establishes part of the Iega1 basis for delegation of authorities necessary to carry out the recommendations of Water V I-41 a • Quality Management Plans. The management agency structure recommended by NWCC4G is described in Table 3. in 1989, the Water Quality Control Commission approved the NWCCOG management agency recommendations on the following condition: Prior to submission of the current plan to the Governor and EPA, specific management agencies shall be identified far each specific service area. Special districts may serve as management agencies only if acting cooperatively with a general purpose government, pursuant to identified intergovernmental agreements. - 6.4 imgiementation Recommendations The following water quality management agency structure {Table 3) is recommended far implementation of the NWCCOG Regional Water Quality Management Plan. Table 3. Recommended Management Agency Structure Activity and Policy reawkde Water Quality Planning ocai Land Use Planting 7olicy 1. Water Quality 2ecommend water quality standards revisions policy 2. Water Use and Development ssue 1041 Permits ssue Special Use Permits 1 Rig>'tt of Ways slue 404 Permits ssue 401 Certification policy 3. Land Use and Disturbance ncraachment aublkc Facili#ie5 Jegetative Disturbance 3oit Disturbance ssue 1041 Permits mpervious Cover Management Agency Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Counties and municipalities NWCCOG, counties, municipalities, special districts Counties and Municipalities USFS, ELM, Counties US Army Corps of Engineers Colorado Water Quality Control Division Counties, municipalities, special districts, federal land management agencies Counties, municipalities, special districts, federal land management agencies, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT} ' Counties, municipalities, federal land management agencies, Natural Rest~urce Conservation Service Counties, municipalities, federal land management agencies, Natural Resource Conservation Service Counties, municipalities Counties, municipalities Counties, municiaplities V I-42 Policy 4. Domestic, Municipal and Industrial Wastes Issue Colorado Discharge Permits Approve Site Applications Review Site Applications Issue 1041 Permits Biosolids Applications Landfill Site Approvals Policy 5. Chemical Management Spill Prevention and Cleanup Water Quality Control Division Water Quality Control Division NWCCOG, counties, municipalities, special districts Counties, municipalities Water Quality Contra{ Rivision, Counties Colorado pept. of Public Health and Environment, Counties -Hazardous Materials Division Colorado Departmen# of Public Health and Environment, CDOT, municipalities, special dlStrlCtS Note that federal land managers (USES, BI.M, NPS) are also recommended as management agencies for all policies on lands which- they manage. All recommended management agencies hold the needed authority to carry out their responsibilities and have been satisfactorily fulfilling these roles. At this time, although all sanitation dis#ricts consider themselves to be management agencies, the following districts operate under an intergovernmental agreement: Breckenridge, Frisco, Kremmling, Morrison Creek As other intergovernmental agreements (lGA} develop, they will be forwarded to the Commission. The following general purpose governments have municipal wastewater treatment facilities under their jurisdiction, and therefore do not require an IGA: The Towns of Eagle, Gypsum., Hayden, Hot Sulphur Springs, Red Cliff, Routt County (Milner, Phippsburg), Siiverthorne, Steamboat Springs, Summit County (Snake River}, and Yampa. . Sanitation districts should enter into agreements with their Coca( general purpose governmental body which indicates their resolution to act as the management agency responsible for controlling point source discharges consistent with the 208 Plan, and agree to abide by the local government's regulations with respect to nonpoint source control ofi water pollutants. As is explained in Volume II of this Plan, the Water Quality Control Commission is vested by the State legislature with the power to classify state waters, promulgate water quality standards, promulgate control and permit and regulations, and review classifications, standards and contra! regulations. Any individual or entity can, at the appropriate time, request the Commision to review classifications, standards, or V I-43 regulations, however, the authority to make those changes rests with the Commission. The recommended role of NWCCOG is to: Develop, review and revise the Regional Water Quality Management Plan; Provide outreach and education to its member jurisdictions; Support watershed water quality planning processes; Encourage and assist local governments iri developing regulations which address water quality issues as recommended in the 208 Policy Plan; Facilitate intergovernmental agreements which will further watershed water quality planning; Provide technical support in development of water quality improvement projects; Review Site Applications, water quality standards, and permits in the region. rtrlamlpraVdxs12fl8196v1 rev V I-44 7 99fi NWCCOG REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 02!29196 DRAFT VOLUME I1-WATER QUALITY PROGRAM ^EVELOPMENT Page Table of Contents Executive Summary VII - 1 Vll - 4 0 INTRODUCTION VII - 6 1.1 The Colorado River Basin VII - 7 1.2 The Yampa River Basin VII - 9 1.3 The North Platte River Basin VII - 9 2.0 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY VI[ -12 3.0 CLASSIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS VII -16 3.1 Overview Of Colorado's Classifcations And Standards System VII -16 3.2 ~ Existing Water Quality Standards VII -17 3.2.1 Table Value Water Quality Standards VII -17 3.2.2 Outstanding Waters in the Region VII -17 3.2.3 Use Protected Waters in the Region VII -18 4.0 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY ISSUES VII -20 4,1 Point Source Impacts VII -20 4.1.1 Municipal Dischargers VII -20 4.1.2 Industrial Dischargers VII -20 4.1.3 Construction Activities Vll -21 4,2 Nonpoint Source impacts _VII -21 4.2.1 Land Use and Disturbance VII -22 4.2.1.1 Inactive Mines VII -22 4.2. ~ .2 Development VII -23 4.2.1.2.1 Stormwater VII -23 4.2. ~ .2.2 Septic Systems V! I -23 4.2.'1.2.3 Wetland and Riparian Area Losses VII -23 4.2.1.3 Agriculture & Silviculture VII -24 4.2.1.4 Recreation Impacts VII -24 4.2.2 Water Use and Development VII -25 4.2.2.1 Hydrologic Modifications VII -25 VII-1 Page 4,2.2.1.1 Transbasin ^iversion 4.2.2.1.2 In-Basin Diversions 4.2.2.2 to-Basin Changes in Water Usage 4.2.2.2.1 Municipal and Domestic Usage 4.2.2.2.2 Ind~astriai Usage - 4.3 Colorado River Basin Salinity 4.4 Groundwater Issues 5.0 MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 5,1 Clean Water Act 5.2 Colorado Water Quality Control Commission 5.3 Point Sources 5.3.1 Industrial Dischargers 5.3.2 Wasteload Allocations 5.4 Nonpoint Sources 5.5 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 5.fi Colorado River Headwaters Forum 5.7 Regional Management Agencies. fi.0 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF TH1S PLAN 6.1 EnvironmentalImpacts 6.1.1 Overview 6.1.2 Previously Implemented Plan Recommendations 6.1.3 Future Plan Recommendations 6.2 Social and Economic Impacts 6.2.1 Overview fi.2.2 Previously lmplemented Plan Recommendations 6.2.3 Future Plan Recommendations 7.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 8.0 WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS Blue River Water Quality Management Plan Eagle River Water Quality Management Plan North Platte River Water Quality Management Plan Roaring Fork Water Quality Management Plan Upper Colorado River Water Quality Management Plan Upper Yampa River Water Quality Management Plan VII -2fi VII -28 VII -26 VII -28 VII -26 VII -27 VII -29 Vli -30 VII -30 VII -3D VII -31 VII -31 VI! -31 VIl -32 VII -32 Vil -32 VI! -33 VII -34 VII -34 VII -34 VII -35 Vll -36 V! L -37 VI1 ~37 VII -38 VII -39 Vil -40 6 1 - 8 49 E1-E39 NP1 - NP 18 RF1 - RF 43 C 1 -C46 Y1-Y38 V11-2 9996 NWCCOG REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES Appendix 1. Glossary Appendix 2. Towns and Counties within Region XII, and Population Projections Appendix 3. Wastewater Treatment Plants within Region XII, Including: capacity, type of treatment, sludge disposal method; rates; age; condition Appendix 4. Water providers within. Region Xll, including: gallons per year; population served; rates, etc. Appendix 5. Select water quality data from Region XII, with references for expanded water quality data. Appendix 6. Stream standards and classifica#ions for water within Region XI1. Appendix 7. Impaired Uses Stream Segments within Region X31 (304{I) list). Appendix 8. CDPS permit holder list for Region Xil (including stormwater permits) Appendix 9. Designated Management Agencies Agreements Appendix 10. Sample Local Government Water Quality Regulations Appendix 11. Example Best Management Practices Appendix 12. MAPS, MAPS, MAPS Index VI1-3 a • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 02129!96 DRAFT The Guidelines for Water Quality Planning in Colorado require annual updates of the Areawide Water Quality Management Plans under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act. The Purpose of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) 1996 Regional Water.Quality Management Plan is to satisfy the requirement for an update of the Plan to reflect the progress in plan implementation. A second purpose of the Plan is to address the current focus on water quality planning from a watershed perspective. The NWCCOG Regional Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan) 1996 update is structured to satisfy the requirements established under the applicable State Guidelines and to satisfy local planning requirements.which dictate a flexible and innovative approach to water quality planning to avoid future water quality problems. The 1986 208 Plan is composed of two volumes and a set of technical appendices. Volume i is presented in a policy plan format and describes the program recommendations to protect and enhance the !eve! of water quality consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act Volume i is intended to provide the direction for water quality decisions resulting from activities which have the potential to generate both point and nonpaint sources of water quality degradation in the Region. Volume ! of the plan is organized around six policies which will lead to maintaining and improving wa#er quality in the region. Under each policy, implementation Recommenda#ians are presented for use by agencies who have and will continue to implement the plan. These management agencies are identified in Policy fi of Volume I, and the rationale for their selection is discussed in Chapter 5 of Volume i I -Management Systems. Volume ll describes the water quality program developmen# in a format similar to the specific items contained in Colorado's planning guidelines. Volume II draws on material contained in previous 208 Pian submittals and from technical appendix information. Volume II provides supporting information for the development and adoption of water quality management policies currently in practice in Region XlI. The appendices provide supporting technical information regarding specific water quality issues addressed in the plan. A significant change from previous NWCCOG 208 Plans is that the water quality management plans presented in Volume it are organized an a watershed basis, whereas previous 208 Plan water quality assessments were done on a county basis. Table 4 provides a summary of the requirements for water quality planning established under the State Guidelines compared to the elements contained in the 1996 NWCCOG 208 Plan. White it is clear from this table that the Policy Plan V II -4 s Volume l) tpgether with the technical appendices contain a!l of the State required elements, a two volume format was ch osen to increase the utility of the z08 Plan. The content of Volume I has not been substantially changed, although the form has been changed. The number of policies has been reduced from eleven to six. Table 4 Water Quality Planning Elements i248 Pian i=iement~ Plan Policy (V.i}Program I Appenaix ~ i Devei. 1 2 3 5 6 V.I!)2 3 4 5 6 7 9 0 Facility location 4 x x x x Facility needs x x Facility capacity x x Facility timing x x Population projections x x Service area x Treatment level x x x Permit conditions x Wasteload allocations x x x NPS Information x x Management agency x x x WD standards recomm x x x x x Hydrologic modif~catlons x x Stream setbacks x x x Silviculture activity x x Construction activity x x lJrban runoff x x Chemical management x WQ assessment x x BMP recommendations x x x x x x x Water effciency x x x f Model development codes x Mine drainage management x x Agricultural management x'x x x V!I-5 1.D INTRODUCTION In 1972 the US Congress overrode a presidential veto to pass the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 {PL92-544), also known as the Clean Water Act. This Act has been further amended with significant changes in 1977 PL95-217) and ~ 987 (PL144-4). The Clean Water Act states that the ultimate objective of the Act is to "restore an maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters". In beginning the process of water quality improvements, th.e Clean Water Act identified a number of planning programs to be initiated at various levels.of government. n Colorado, the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) is responsible for regulating water quality through the establishment of water quality classifications, designations, standards, and control regulations to protect the beneficial uses of the streams and lakes in the state. To maximize efficient use of resources, Section 248 of the Act established an areawide approach to planning for the abatement of pollution. Section 208 provided criteria to design local plans, based on an integrated and comprehensive planning process. The state of Colorado has continued to use regional planning agencies as defined in the Act. The Northwes# Colorado Council of Governments {NWCCOG) was designated the areawide waste treatment management planning authority, under Section 248, in February 1976 by the governor of Colorado. NWCCOG develops and maintains the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (248 Plan) as a means of preserving and enhancing state water quality standards and classifications for both surface and groundwater. The Northwest Colorado Council of Governments' planning region includes Eagle, Grand, ,lackson, Piktin, Routt and Summit Counties. These counties include portions of three river basins: the Colorado River Basin; the North Platte River Basin; and the Yampa River Basin. The state is divided into seven geographic divisions for the administration and distribution of water in Colorado, under the Office of the State Engineer and the Division of Water Resources. These divisions do not neatly correspond to the planning regions with respect to the Water Quality Management Plans. The following information comes, in part, from "Colorado Water" produced by the League of Women Voters, 1992, and the USGS publication entitled "Hydrology of Area 58, Northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Coal Provinces, Colorado and Utah", 1987. VII-6 1.1 The Colorado River E3asin The Colorado River basin extends from Loveland and Berthod Passes on the east to the state line on the west, an east-west length of approximately 200 miles. The north-south boundaries are generally between 50 to 10~ miles wide. The major tributaries include the Fraser, the Williams Fork, the Blue, the Eagle, and the Roaring Fork rivers. The basin, including the Gunnison basin which is not part of this plan, encompasses 13,132 square miles (8,404,480 acres). Agriculture is still the dominant water user, with diversions of 2,415,950 acre-feet per year for the irrigation of 359,800 acres. Industrial diversions total approximately 2,392,400 acre-feet. The greatest expansion in industrial use during recent years has been for snow making at ski areas and there has been increasing pressure for instream flows for other recreational uses such as fishing and rafting. Transmountain water diversions historically total about 510,000 acre-feet per year from the Colorado River basin to Front Range cities and agriculture. The Colorado-Big Thompson and the Windy Gap projects supply approximately 272,000 for agriculture and municipalities on the Front Range. The Roberts and Moffat tunnels supply approximately 121,000 acre-feet per year to the Denver metropolitan area. The Boustead, Twin Lakes,and Homestake tunnels and other continental divide diversions supply approximately 117,000 acre-feet of western slope water to Colorado Springs, Aurora, and agriculture in the Arkansas River basin. Most of the annual streamflow in the perennial streams results from snowmelt during the months of May, June and July, when the high elevation deep snowpack melts. Streamflow characteristics have changed significantly from natural conditions due to reservoir storage. Streamflow is highly variable, both within any given year and between individual years. Low flows on perennial streams are sustained by flows from groundwater, gradual melting of perpetual snow fields and reservoir releases. Surface water storage (including the Gunnison basin) exceeds 2.3 million acre feet, with most of this storage in a few large reservoirs. This storage capacity is approximately 60 percent of the average annual streamflow in the basin. The storage capacity in Colorado basin portion of NWCCOG's region is 1,208,080 acre feet. The Northwest Colorado Council of Governments is responsible for producing the Water Quality Management Plan for the upper portion of the Colorado River basin. Essentially, the planning area includes ail the major tributaries previously mentioned, but excludes the area downstream of Eagle County (this includes the confluence of the Roaring Fork and Colorado River at Glenwood Springs). The drainage area for this basin, the Upper Colorado River basin, is approximately 6,010 square miles 3,846,400 acres). Figure 3 illustrates the Upper Colorado River Basin. Vll-7 er Caiarado River Basin Map. ~~! Figure 3. Up,p g~ ~~ rrer' r 1~ ,) I r rRf • } 1 ,~..~ !t- i r_ f ~' ~( G'rZ A ~ ;~ ~l ~~ ~ ~ ~."`~,.-ter. e,..w....r r t `~ / ~. r P ~¢T 4 ~ ~\~ r•rtwu~i ,,,,~rUrT i r•,r ~ ~/// r CO` .! ' ~ rHaot.tl~opNK S{!8 •9 SiN \s, ~ ' C:~st r. r/ ^~~,JI ~ i ~~ ~; SUCH ~' ~ ~ ice. ~ •Mr" ~ 1~ ~ r v~,t. wnruii• t•,...•~f, \nn ~ ; r ,, F.AG £'•~E° ice . )) ~ sere+tw+~'~may\~r+s :~ ~ ~ 5 `. ~ l s+ • 1 ~~ 1 l.~ s / 7 1 •~ nta•.^ r I! r ~` ~ ~ i }C~t}~JN15CN ,~ `~ 111 ~.a~, ~ ~ '~ t r ,,~~,.y nr~aer"~ ~ ~~ ss•ee r~. k i o~ fuu y o s ro ,y to ewit V~~-8 s :~ ~~ 1,2 The Yampa River Basin The river flaws in the Yampa, White, and North Platte River basins are ail administered by Water Division 6 out of Steamboat Springs. This area encompasses approximately 91,000 square miles in the northwest corner of the state. The major drainages administered by Water Division 6 include the Yampa, the White, the Green, and the North Platte rivers. The annual average precipitation ranges from eight inches in the west to over 60 inches in the mountain ranges. Most ofi the precipitation falls as snow between the months of November and April. Most annual streamflow is from snowmelt runoff during spring and early summer. Irrigation diversions affect streamflow during the summer growing season. Approximately 30,000 people live in Division 6, which also includes areas of the state not within Region XII (NWCCOG's regional planning boundaries}. Ranching, coal production, recreation, and tourism are the major economic activities. Nearly 8,000 individual decreed water rights are administered by the Division, distributing some 902,000 acre-feet of water far irrigation. The predominant craps are grass hay, and alfalfa hay used for the maintenance of large herds of cattle and sheep. The Northwest Colorado Council of Governments is responsible for producing the Water Quality Management Plan for the gpnerportion of the Yampa River basin Routt County} and the North Platte River basin (Jackson County} in Colorado. in Routt County the major land uses.include livestock grazing, timber harvesting, farming, mineral production, residential, and recreation. There is signifcant population fluctuation in the county due to the recreational uses of the county. Land ownership in Routt County in 1984 was 60% federal, 6% state, and 34% private. In 990 the permanent population of Routt County was 14,229 persons. The Upper Yampa River Basin is.shown in Figure 4. 1.3 ~e North Platte River Basin The headwaters of the North Platte River basin are located in Jackson County Figure 5). =Ranching, mining, and lagging are the predominant economic activities in the County. The population of Jackson County in 1990 was 1,597 persons and 1,733, in 1994. A signii•ican# aspec# of the North Platte River in Colorado is the Nebraska versus Wyoming Decrees (325 US 589 (1945}, and 345 US 981 (1953)} which limits the State of Colorado from diverting more water than that needed to irrigate 145,000 acres of land in Jackson County, prohibits storing more than 17,000 acre feet of water in any year for irrigation purposes, and prohibits the export of mare than fi0,000 acre feet of water out of basin in any ten year period. VII-9 Figure 4. Upper Yampa River Basin Map. 4 c~a ~ 1 1 t[cfw~ ~~,M/ f Siaaneseat i1M s~ i 4 i ~ ~, ~ ~G 1"y Q . 4 44t I 1 ~~`~ ~ ~:.~ ~ r e Qkhaad A 1 C .,~.;c f ~ `~} c~ rce ~ Fear waVO~n Powar Plant SoRlMGS ~ I Ciatq AoMp P{an[ ` ~ V 4 \\\ 4~ ~ ! f ~ = O `ice Lake Gtan-a~nt i '~ i`~ F~~F ~ L[ C~!!r1 ~ v~. Grit rf t r Grew " Ir 1ttlowf `~~` I ~~ 4 ` 8t .. satl 11 Sarvfca Cra~1[ ~ C~ eayrr co 1 N4 ii/JiCO COUN11' r~ ~ ~S nr \,~ a 0 A 4 ~ O.0.' u ii~ ~1 ~~ r Y^ l v I I -~ a o g ~~ asin MaP • er Nosh p~atte River ~ figure ~• ~~~ 1'1 pen~e~ Gat;~,RppO 2.0 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY Most of the streams in Region XII are very high quality, supporting all desired uses although not in every stream reach). This general assessment is supported by the Reconnaissance Evaluation of Surface Water Quality in Eagle, Grand, .lackson, Pitkin, Routt and Summit Counties prepared in 1979 by the USGS for NWCC~G and by the assessment of water quality of each watershed in Chapter 8 of this Volume . The emphasis of water quality planning in Region XII is largely directed toward preserving this existing high quality. There are some areas, however, where improvement of water quality is necessary and reasonable to restore beneficial uses, particularly with regard to acid mine drainage from historic mining areas. The water quality assessment includes specific sections on both point and nonpoint source wa#er quality issues in each of the region's watersheds. The assessment provides the basis far ranking problems wi#hin the region. Considering water quality prablems which need to be corrected to meet the objectives of the federal Clean Water Act throughout the region, the following are listed in order of priority (highest, or most serious, to lowest): Acid Mine Drainage Nonpoint Source Pollutants From Development Areas Point Source Discharges From Developed Areas Hydrologic Modifications From Water Projects Large Area Soil Disturbance Activities Roadways and Pavements This qualitative ranking is based on the existing or potential seriousness of the impact, miles of stream affected~or likely to be affected, and the degree of present or potential control of the problem. Five of the six significant water quality issues in Region XII are nonpoint source issues. The State's 3D5{b) Report which discusses water quality threatened stream segments (individual segments are discussed in the individual watershed plans in . Sections 2 and 8) are point source oriented because the system for identifying threatened segments is point source oriented. Point source controls will be applied to prevent damage to the threatened stream segments. The real challenge for water quality management lies in the area of nonpoint source control. Each problem category is briefly discussed below and is discussed in detail in Chapter 8 of Volume V II -12 Il under the status of watershed Water quality assessments and nonpoint Source control programs in the watersheds. Acid Mine Drainage Acid mine drainage impedes attainment of water quality standards for several streams in the Blue, Eagle, Roaring Fork, and Yampa watersheds. These streams are described in the Colorado Inactive Mine Reclamation Plan produced by the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology and in the water quality assessments contained in Chapter 8 of Volume II of this plan. Of particular concern are: Cross Creek and the Eagle River near Minturn; Oak Creek in Routt County; and French Gulch, Peru Creek, and the Snake River in Summit County. Nonpoiint Source Pollutants From Development Areas Nonpoint source pollution from development areas is a signifcant issue in Region XII. Water pollutants in nonpoint source runoff from urbanizing areas include nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), sediment, heavy metals, petroleum products, and organic pesticides. In Summit County, roughly one quarter of the phosphorus contributed to Dillon Reservoir is generated by nonpoint source runoff from human activities in the watershed. Preventing eutrophication in Dillon Reservoir requires tight controls on nonpoint sources. More detail on specific sources is provided in Appendix 5. Dillon Reservoir presents an example of the types of issues that are likely to increase in seriousness throughout the State in the future. As the rural West Slope grows, the areas contributing to construction-related erosion and urban runoff will also increase. Point Source Discharges From Developed Areas Point source discharges in Region XIl are typically well managed. Advanced wastewater treatment is often required for ammonia removal to protect fisheries and advanced phosphorus removal is required in the Dillon and Green Mountain Reservoirs' watersheds. Continued attention to point sources is needed to ensure that the region's high quality water streams are protected. Hydrologic Modifcations From Water Projects Hydrologic modifications are changes in stream channels, stream flows or the timing of those flows, generally resulting from water projects. Water quality impacts accompany major water use and development projects. The amount of water available to dilute natural and human induced pollutants is reduced; costs for VII -13 r • wastewater treatment are increased due to lower stream flaws (lower dilution flows), fish are stressed more often when low flows are combined with factors such as higher water temperatures and poor food supplies, water supply uses are -eliminated when water is not present in a stream, stream channel morphology is impacted as the stream volume is reduced in relation to the stream cross-section which results in higher water temperatures and lower stream capacity to move sediment [Effects of Flow Diversion on Downstream Channel Form in Mountain Streams, Sandra Ryan and Neil Caine, Completion Report.176, December 1993, Colorado Water Resources Research Institute; Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, Dave Rosgin, 1995]. Some recreational uses are also dependent on stream #lows, such as rafting and boating in lakes. Water use and development projects are listed as a significant water quality issue in the region in terms of potential to degrade existing high levels of water quality because of the number of uses affected and the extent of impact. All basins in the region, with the exception of the North Platte, and to a lesser degree, the Upper Yampa, are potentially affected by hydrologic modifications. Hydrologic modifications resulting #rom existing and projected water use and development projects in Region XII are also discussed in mare de#ail in Section 4.2.2 of this Volume. As a basis for comparison with other types of water quality degradation, a few numbers may be useful. According to State Engineer Office Division V records, Region XII transbasin diversions to the eastern slope totaled 606,817 acre feet in 1993. At the USGS Colorado River gauge below Glenwood Springs, total flows for 1993 equaled 2,874,000 acre feet. Based on rough estimates for water consumption far various uses (as estimated by the Division V Engineer, in-basin consumption in 1993 was about 315,000 acre feet. Thus, the total consumption in the basin was approximately 24% of the total s#ream flow, and the transbasin diversions amounted to approximately 213's of this consumption. In-basin water use can also raise water quality concerns. Included in these concerns are: conversion of agricultural water to municipal use (loss of groundwater recharge); change in timing of return flows (specifically related to snow making); and dewatering" stream segments between water diversion and wastewater return flows; and the "consumptive use" of various beneficial water uses. In-basin consumption can be calculated using general figures of 10% consump#ion for municipal use, 20-25% consumption for snow making, and approximately 1.8 acre-feet per acre rrigated for agriculture (Water Division V estimates). Large Area Soil Disturbances Large area soil disturbance activities such as mining, grazing, timber harvesting, and ski area expansion present the potential for large water quality impacts. The US Forest Service has identifed areas where excessive sail lass from existing timber harvest operations require remedial actions to protect water quality. In addition, V II -14 s-- large area surface mining operations can contribute excessive soil loss. At present, these operations are well managed under permits from the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology and the US Fores# Service. Ali watersheds in Region XII are potentially vulnerable to water quality impacts resulting from large area soil distrubances. Roadways And Pavement Water quality problems associated with roadways and pavements include sediment and associated nutrients resulting from road cuts and fills, continuing erosion of unstable slopes adjacent to roads, erosion of unpaved road and parking surfaces, and road sanding operations. To a lesser degree, heavy metals, petroleum products, and hazardous materials spills along roadways near waterbodies also have been documented to impact water quality. The Colorado Department of Transportation has a program underway to address these concerns while also considering public driving safety and existing fiends and needs. All watersheds. in Region X11 are potentially vulnerable to water quality impacts from this type of activity, although. the major areas of concern are in those areas where development has or is occurring. V II -15 r • 3.0 ~. CLASSIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS SYSTEM 3,1 Overview Of Colorado's Classifications And Standards ~~ The system for assigning surface and groundwater classifications and standards is administered by the Water Quality Control Commission and Division and is based on adopting use classifications that identify those uses to be protected on a stream segment and then adapting numerical standards for specific pollutants to protect those uses. Use classifcations and numeric water quality standards have been adopted far streams, lakes, and reservoirs throughout each of the State's river basins. Within each basin, waters are divided into individual stream segments for classification and standard setting purposes. Water quality standards~re applied in a regulatory context principally through Colorado Discharge Permit System {CDPS) where point spource dischargers are regulated to ensure that water quaity standards are met. Site-specifc water quality classifications are intended to protect all existing uses of state waters, and any additional uses for which waters are suitable or are intended to become suitable. The current use classification categories are: recreation (class 1 or 2); agriculture; aquatic life {cold or warm water, class 1 or 2); water supply; and wetlands. For each classified stream segment, numeric water quality standards are adopted that are intended to maintain water quality at a level sufficient to protect the classified uses. There are three potential approaches to the adoption of site-specific numeric standards. First, table value standards (TVS) are based on criteria set forth in three tables contained in the Commission's Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Waters (3.1.0 5 CCR1002-8). These are levels of pollutants determined to be generally protective of the corresponding use classifications, and are applied in mast circumstances, unless site-specific information indicates that one of the following approaches is more appropriate. Second, ambient quality-based standards i.e. standards based on the existing instream quality, may be adopted where natura! or irreversible pailutant levels are higher than would be allowed by table value standards, but are determined adequate to protect classified uses. The third option is to adopt site specific standards where a bioassay or other site specific analysis indicates that alternative numeric s#andards are appropriate for protection of classified uses. In addition to water quality classifications and standards, either of two water quality based designations may be adopted in appropriate circumstances. An "Outstanding Waters" designation may be applied to certain high quality waters that constitute an outstanding natural resource. Na degradation of outstanding waters by regulated V11=16 activities is allowed. A "Use-Protected" designation may be applied to waters with existing quality that is not better than necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfsh, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water. The quality of these waters may be altered so long as applicable water quality classifications and standards are met. Waters that are not given one of these designations are subject to the State's Antidegradation Review requirements before any new or increased permitted water quality impacts are allowed. 3.2 ~tina Water Q~al~ty St~ards The surface waters of the region have been divided into stream segments and classified by the Water Quality Control Commission. Certain stream segments in the region with known water quality problems have been identifiied, and are classifed as either Water Quality Limited, Partially Supporting, or Not Supporting Designated Uses, as presented in each of the watershed plans. 3.2.1 Table Value Water Quality Standards Most of the stream segments in our region meet ar exceed table value standards. These standards are based on levels of pollutants determined to be generally protective of the corresponding use classifications. Additional information on the specific stream segments can be found in each of the watershed plans. The Basic Standards and Classifications which are applicable to the Region, including the basis and purpose far the standards and classifications can be found in Appendix 6 3.2.2 Outstanding Waters in the Region Outstanding Waters designation is applied to certain high quality waters tha# constitute an outstanding natural resource. No degradation of #hese waters is allowed. The following stream segments in our region are currently designated Outstanding Waters". Headwaters of the Colorado River in Rocky Mountain National Park (Upper Colorado River Segment 1) Headwaters of the Roaring Fark River in the SnowmasslMaroon Bells and Hunter/Frying Pan Wilderness Areas Roaring Fork River Segment 1) Tributaries to the Encampment, North Platte, and Yampa Rivers in the Mount Zirkel Wilderness Area (North Platte and Yampa River Segment 1) V 11 -17 r • 3.2.3 Use-Protected Waters In The Region Use Protected designation is applied to waters of the state #hat the Water Quality Control Commission has determined da not warrant the protection provided by Outstanding Waters" designation or the antidegradation review process. The quality of these waters may l7e altered sa long as applicable water quality classifcations and standards are met. The following are the stream segments in our region which are designated "Use Protected". Willow Creek - mainstem of unnamed tributary (Church Creek) to Willow Creek from the headwaters to confluence of Willow Creek (Upper Colorado River Segments 6b and 6c). Soda Creek -Pram the source to Dillon Reservoir {Blue River Segment 5}. Snake River -from the source to Dillon Reservoir, excluding Deer and Keystone Creek (Blue River Segments 6 and 7). French Gulch -from 1.5 miles below Lincoln (site) to confluence with Blue River Blue River Segment 11). Illinois and Fredonia Gulches -from their source to their confluence with the Bfue River (Bice River Segment 12}. All tributaries to the Blue River below Green Mountain Reservoir (Blue River Segment 2Q). Eagle River from Belden to confluence with Gore Creek {Eagle River Segment 5). Alkali and Milk Creek, from their source to the confluence with the Eagle River Eagle River Segment 11 }. Brush Creek from its source to the confluence with the Roaring Fark River Roaring..Fork River Segment 4). North Fark of the Platte River tributaries, excluding those tributaries in the Mount Zirkel Wilderness Area {North Platte River Segment 4). Michigan River from its source to the confluence with the North Platte River North Platte River Segment 5). Government Creek mainstem from Colorado State Fores# to the confluence with the North Platte River (North Platte River Segment 7. Vil-18 Spring Creek from its source to the confluence with the Illinois River North Platte River Segment (North Platte River Segment 7). Little White Snake River from its source to the confluence with the Yampa River. Yampa River Segment 4b) Tributaries to the Yampa River from the canfluence with the Elk River to the confluence with the Eikhead River which are not on Forest Service land, except far Trout Creek, Foidei and its tributaries {Yampa River Segment 12). Waters that are not given the designation of "Outstanding Waters" or "Use Protected" are subject to the State's Antidegrada#ion Review requirements before any new or increased permitted water quality impacts are allowed. More information on stream standards can be found in each of the watershed plans under Water Quality Standards and Classifica#ions. VII-19 a 4.0 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY ISSUES 4.1 Point Source Imnact~ Paint sources discharges can be defined as discharge of water from a discernible, confined.- and discrete conveyance, such as a pipe, ditch, channel or conduit, from which pollutants are, or may be discharged. Point sources do not include irrigation return flows. The point source impacts within our region come from three types of sources which are permitted by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Water Quality Control Division under the Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS). These sources are: Municipal Dischargers; Industrial Dischargers; and Construction Activities. 4.1.1 Municipal Dischargers Municipal wastewater dischargers include both public and private dischargers which treat domestic and commercial wastewater. The genera! pollutants of concern from these facilities are: toxics such as metals and ammonia which are harmful to aquatic life; suspended material, mostly organic wastes, which use up oxygen in the water to decompose; nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus compounds, which cause algae growth; and pathogens (organisms which cause disease). The Water Quality Control Division has authority to permit facilities which discharge over 2,000 gallons per day. Most individual septic systems discharge less than this amount and are permitted under County regulations which are required by the State to meet certain minimum state-wide standards. Specifc municipal dischargers are discussed in each of the watershed plans under Point Source Water Quality Issues, and in Appendix 3. Domestic wastewater facility discharge permits are written by the state with EPA oversight. The state defines ma~ar municipal wastewater treatment plants as those discharging greater than 1 million gallons per day (MGD). In tftie area coverd by this plan there are 14 ma~ar municpal wastewater treatment plants: four in the Blue; three in the Colorado; three in the Eagle; three in the Roaring Fork; and one in the Yampa. 4.1.2 Industrial Dischargers There are a limited number of industrial dischargers in Region Xll. They all hold valid discharge permits and they are all operated under~the terms of. their permits. For the most part, industrial dischargers within our region are mining operations. Discharges from these facilities are also permitted by the Water Quality Control Division: Potential pollutants from industrial facilities in our region generally include: sediment, V II -20 which is a source of nutrients and also can "smother "the bottom of streams; heavy metals, and hazardous materials spills and leaks. Specific "major" industrial dischargers are discussed in the appropriate watershed plan under Point Source Issues -Industrial Activities. lndustrial dischargers in the region are fisted in Appendix 8. Industrial discharges are permited by effluent and industry type. There are three major industrial permits within Region XIL tf3e Eagle Mine; Cyprus Climax which opera#es the Henderson and Climax facilites; and the Cyprus Yampa Valley Coal Company. Industrial discharge permits are written by the state with EPA oversight. There are a number of specific point sources within the region which do not have permits -these are inactive or abandoned mines which have a discharge from the mine. These sites have been identified by the Department of Minerals and Geology, and some are known to impact the classifed uses of specific stream segments. The significant sites are discussed in the appropriate watershed plans. 4.1.3 Construction Activities Construction activities which disturb more than five acres of land are considered to be an industrial activity under the Clean Water Act and require a stormwater discharge permit. As the activity is required to be permitted, it is considered a point source discharge, although the requiremen#s of the permit are generally "Best Management Practices" directed towards controlling nonpoint source pollutants and hazardous materials spill prevention. These permits are issued by the Water Quality Control Division. The po#ential pollutants of concern are similar to the other industrial pollutants -sediment, and hazardous material spills. These permits are listed in Appendix 8. Point sources from construction dewater activities are also controlled through the Water Quality Control Division's permitting process. 4.2 Nonpoint Source Impacts Nonpoint sources of pollution can be defined as those sources resulting from diffuse sheet flow of stormwater or snowmelt runoff or reduced stream flows. Nonpoint sources include: runoff from mine tailing piles, roads, residential, and commercial land uses; irrigation return water, and clearcut areas; failing or inadequate septic systems; and hydrologic modifications. Hydrologic modifications are changes in water quality resultant from reservoirs, releases from reservoirs, or water diversions. The impacts of this type of nonpoint source pollution has been previously discussed Volume 1, Policy 2, and earlier in #his volume). The State has a Nonpoint Source Management Program which was approved by the EPA in May of 1989 which is VII-21 a a designed to address the problems identified in the State's "Nonpaint Assessment Repor'k" (November 1989}. 4.2.1 Land Use and Disturbance Development of land for residential, commercial, agricultural, and industrial use can have signifcant water quality impacts, especially when viewed cumulatively. Some of the nonpoint source issues related to land development include stormwater runoff, impacts of septic systems, habitat disturbance and loss, and recreational impacts. There are numerous pollutants which come from genera! land use activities. Runoff pollutants include: sediment; nutrients; heavy metals such as zinc, lead, copper, cadmium and nickel; salt; PCBs; pesticides; petroleum products; and asbestos. 4.2.1.1 Inactive Mines The impacts of mining have been previously discussed in the point source section, however, nonpoint source water quality impacts have also been identified in our region. These impacts are a result of runoff which comes in contact with mine tailing, waste rock, and roaster fines piles. These "left avers". of mining activities contain heavy metals, and sulfide products which farm sulfuric acid when exposed to water. Heavy metals are toxic to aquatic life at low concentrations and also act as stressors at sub-lethal concentrations. Acidity can also cause mortality and act as a stressor to aquatic life. A number of inactive mine sites have been identified in the watershed plans as impacting water quality in the region. The stream segments are: Blue River Watershed Peru Creek French Creek Upper Blue River (Segment 2) Upper Snake River Eagle River Watershed Cross Creek Upper Eagle River (Segment 5} Eagle River (Segment 5} Roaring Fork Watershed Thompson Creek Coal Creek V ll -22 Yampa River Basin Dak Creek Policy 1, Water Quality, recommends actions to reclaim these sites and minimize the associated water quality impacts. 4.2.'1.2 Development land development practices can impact water quality through increased polkutant loads, increased runoff (both in quantity and velocity), and wetland and riparian habitat fosses, as described below. A nonpoint source water quality management plan produced by the Northwest Colorado Counci# of Governments for the Tawn of Vail in 1995 indicated that the runoff water pollutants of most concern include: sediment, dissolved solids (salt); petroleum compounds, nutrients, and heavy metals. 4.2.1.2.1 S#ormwater 5tormwater runoff concerns are not only limited to pollutants, but also to timing and quantity of water. Increases in impervious surfaces such as roads, houses, etc., increase the amount of runoff and increase the rate at which the runoff occurs. This can lead to increased flooding which impacts water quality by increasing erosion and therefore sediment and nutrient inputs. 4.2.1.2.2 Septic Systems Another land use concern is an increase in density and design of septic systems - especiailythose constructed on marginal sites {poor soils, fractured bedrock, and high groundwater tables) which can lead to high inputs of nu#rients (phosphorus and ni#rate), and poten#iaily harm human health through transmission of water-borne pathogens. 4.2.1.2.3 Wetland and Riparian Area Losses Habitat disturbance and loss is another significant issue associated with land development which has secondary impacts to water quality. The habitats referred to are: wetlands, riparian areas, floodpiains, and shorelines which provide natural filtering of pollutants, flood water buffering, and provide shading which reduces water temperature and algae growth. V i I -23 4.2.1.3 .. Agriculture & Silviculture Agriculture and silviculture {logging) activities can cause increased sediment, nu#rients, and dissolved solids from associated land disturbance and fertilizer applications. In addition, crop and forage production is responsible for large water withdrawals for irrigation, and riparian and we#land disturbance and lass which has secondary impacts on water quality. Policy 3, Land Use and Disturbance, deals wi#h the impact of land use and development throughout the region. The policy recommendations are being implemented at the local government level and at the federal level for those land use agencies which have the appropriate authority. With respect to agricultural and silvicultural impacts, the policy recommendations are voluntary implementation of Best Management Practices. It should be noted that agricultural Best Management Practices, especially those related to livestock grazing, ranch management practices, and logging are being widely implemented througout Region XII. The ranchers, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the US Forest Service are actively involved in implementing the recommendations outline in Appendix 11. 4.2.1.4. Recreation impacts Another set of issues related to land development are recreation impacts to waterbodies, such as stream bank erosion and lack of proper sanitation facilities. , Increased population density generally results in greater demand for recreational opportunities, which are often centered around water, especially in mountain communities. Water quality impacts associated with recreation are usually related to habitat disturbance, which,as previously stated, has secondary impacts. Water diversion for recreational uses, such as irrigation of golf courses and §naw making also impact water quality, as a resul# of runoff and consumptive water use at critical times. Policy 3, Land Use and Disturbance, deals with the impact of land use and development throughout the region. The policy recommendations are being implemented at the local government level and at the federal level for those land use agencies which have the appropriate authority. Policy 4, Domestic, Municipal, and Industrial Wastes, includes recommendations regarding siting of facilities to reduce nonpoint source impacts. Policy 5, Chemical Management, includes recammendatiansfnr storage, handling, transportation, disposal, and application of materials, in such ways to minimize nonpoint source water quality impacts. VII-24 4.2.2 Water Use and Development The State's Nonpoint Source Management Program includes a "Hydrologic Modification Nonpoint Source Management Program" which is intended to identify and develop programs far minimizing adverse nonpoint source water quality impacts associated with hydrologic modifications. Hydrologic modifications are defined in the program as: reservoirs; releases from reservoirs; diversions; and other spatial and temporal changes of the movement and circulation of flow of water. The USGS did a study titled "Estimated Water Use in Colorado, 1985" [Vllater Resources investigations Report 88-4101, 1989] documenting water use by county. According to that report irrigation, followed by hydropower generation, domestic, livestock watering, commercial, and therma# power generation, are the principal uses of water in Region Xll. Water use and development can result in water quality impacts caused by reductions in stream flows. This document identifies water quality impacts from water diversions for out of basin needs and in basin needs separately. Generally, water used for domestic or agricultural purposes is not fully consumed; some portion of the diverted water remains as "wastewater" or "return flaw" which is directed back to a stream. For domestic use, the consumptive use is generally 10% of the diverted volume. Far snow making, the consumtive use is generally considered 20-25% of the diverted volume and water is usually applied at 1 acre foot per acre of terrain Colorado Ski Country USAF. Agricultural return flows are quite variable, but can range from 20 to 60% in consumptive use. For water that is taken out of the watershed, there is na return flow to the basin, while water which is used in-basin is returned #o the stream at some point, generally not too far downstream. Thus in- basin use is not 100% consumptive, while transbasin usage is 100% with respect to the basin of origin. The principal consumptive uses in the region are: agricultural (irrigation and stack watering; transbasin diversions; domestic and municipal; snow making; and reservoir evaporation. 4.2.2.1 Hydrologic Modifications The term hydrologic modifcation refers to changes in hydrologic conditions due to man's actions on the natural environment. Changes to the natural hydrology of a watershed occur from the construction of reservoirs, diversions, and infiltration galleries. Water quality impacts can include nutrient concentrations, dissolved oxygen, temperature, chemical concentrations, changes in chemistry, and turbidity. VII-25 4.2.2.1.1 Transbasin Diversions Region X11 is impacted by transbasin diversions, which as previously noted, are 100% consumptive far the basin from which the water is taken. Water quality impacts arise from the lass of high quality water from the basin and changes in the stream's hydromorphoigy which reduces natural scouring and affects habitat, etc. It should be' noted that, generally speaking, during the two critical low flow periods late summer and early winter) transbasin diversions are not in priority. 4.2.2.1.2 in-Basin Diversions Water usage in the basin includes irrigation, hydropower, domestic, commercial, and industrial uses. Generally speaking, in-basin diversions consume 10-50% of the water diverted or used. 4.2.2.2 in-Basin Changes in Water Usage Historically (and currently}, the most significant water use in the region has been for irrigation purposes. The 1988 USGS report "Estimated Use of Water in Colorado, 1985" [USGS, 1989] estmated that 952.82 million gallons per day {MGD) were used in our region for irrigation. The next highest useage was hydropower generation at 497.72 MGD. Domestic and commercial usage was estimated to be 11.6 and 4.fi8 MGD, respectively. As the region becomes more developed, changes in land uses wip result in changes in water usage in the basin. 4.2.2.2.1 Municipal and Domestic Usage Municipal water consumption is much less than that of agriculture, in other words, more 'of the water used is returned to the stream. 4.2.2.2.2 Industrial Usage industrial use of water means the use of water for purposes of producing or processing non-agricultural products or services for safe, such as manufacturing, mining, milling, land reclamation, golf course irrigation, snowmaking, and non-hydroelectric power generation. The water quality concerns associated with snowmaking are generally the removal of water from streams during critical low flow periods. Snowmaking studies have indicated that the spring peak runoff is extended in time as a result of snowmaking activities, but that runoff rates are not increased. V II -26 Although golf courses are much more efiicient at using water {they consume much Tess} than traditional agriculture, one of the concerns is that historical irrigation allowed groundwater recharge which provided late season groundwater returns to surface waters. With the more efficient applica#ion of water to golf courses, late season return flows to surface waters from groundwater are diminished. In Region XII, most of the stream flow results from snowmelt, which is greatest during May, June, and July. There are two critical periods of low stream flows -late summer, and early to mid winter. The late summer period coincides with significant agricultural usage and higher stream temperatures? which can stress cold water fish. The winter period -especially December can coincide with snow making water demands. Policy 2, Water Use and Development, recommends actions to reduce the water quality impacts associated with water use and development. Critical areas with respect to streamflows and water use and development in the region have been identified in the watershed plans. These areas include: Blue River Watershed Entire watershed Colorado River Watershed Fraser River Eagle River Watershed Upper Eagle River {above Gore Creek) Gore Creek Lower Eagle River (Gore Creek to the Colorado River confluence) Roaring Fork River Watershed Upper Roaring Fork (above the Crystal River) 4.3 Colorado River Basin Saliniix Total dissolved solids (TDS) or salinity is of concern in grid and semi-arid areas when water is consumptively used. Application of irrigation water to saline soils leaches increased concentrations of TDS back to streams. Transpiration by plants and evapora#ion from open water further concentrates the salts. TDS concentrations range from less than 50 mglL in the headwaters of the Region XII watersheds, to 1x0,000 mg/L in saline springs in the Colorado River basins. Water with a TDS of less than 500 mglL is preferable for water supplies. Agricultural VII-27 crops exhibit a wide tolerance to TDS, with more sensitive species such as fruit trees, potentially affected at concentrations greater than 590 mglL (USGS Open File Report 85-479, 1987]. Average concentrations for streams upstream of Glenwood Springs are all less than 509 mg/L. Downstream from Glenwood Springs, ail USGS stations on the Colorado River mainstem have average TDS concentrations between 509 and 1,000 mglL [USGS, ~ 987]. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program is designed to reduce salt loadings to the Colorado River Basin in order to maintain standards established in 1,972. Both the US Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior are involved in programs designed to control nonpoint sources of salt loading. The Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Reclamation are ail actively involved in salinity reduction measures from a variety of sources. Farm reduction measures are handled by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. State participation in the salinity control program is coordinated through the water quality management planning process for nanpoint sources and the CDPS permit program for point sources. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Cantrai Forum provides a forum for the states of the basin to coordinate their activities, and provide guidance to the federal agencies. The program does not address potential salinity concerns of the Grand Valley water users -especially Chase of fruit growers, whose crops are less salt tolerant than other agricultural producers. A USGS report [Open File Report 87-568] states "the reach of the Colorado River between the towns of Dotsero and Glenwood Springs, Colo., represents the largest single source of dissolved solids in the Upper Colorado River basin... which represents 17 percent of the dissolved-sodium and 38 percent of the dissolved-chloride kaads leaving the Upper Colorado River Basin... Most of this dissolved -solids load is contributed by very saline, thermal springs between the towns Dotsero and Glenwood Springs." Another USGS report [Open File Report . 84-4198] shows that the dissalv.ed solids concentrations in the mainstem of the Colorado River jumps from 230 mgll_ to 370 mglL at the confluence of the Eagle River. This information suggests two geographical areas, one of which (the Eagle River) is within Region Xli, which could be investigated for reducing salinity impacts to downstream water users. - It is important to note that a USGS study [Characteristics and Trends of 5treamfiow and Dissolved Solids in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, open File Report 87-568] found that municipal wastewater treatment plant discharges to the Colorado River and its tributaries contribute ,less than 5% of the total salinity at the Imperial Dam.. A "significant" annual decrease in annual stream flow on the Colorado River near Glenwood Springs from 1942-49 to 1950-83 occurred concurrent with an increase in dissolved solids concentrations. These stream flow decreases and dissolved solids increases were "significant" and "highly signii'ICant" simuianeously during the months of May, VII-28 r ~ June and July, which suggests that loss of streamflow is responsible far increases in dissolved soldis concentrations (see Appendix 5 for USGS exerpts~. Policy 2, Water Use and Development, recommends actions which reduce existing salt loads from areas which contribute signifcant salinity to the basin, 4.4 Groundwater Issues In our region, groundwater has not received the attention that surface waters receive, although there are 75 community ground water supply systems serving 37,838 people [Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Wellhead Program, ~ 994j. Data is collected by water providers relying on groundwater as part of the Safe Drinking Water Act, however, there are no known documents which summarize the collected data. Additional infomatian an both the quality and the quantity of ground water wi#hin Region XII is needed for proper planning. Ail of the Policies in Volume I are applicable to groundwater issues. Vll-29 5.0 .MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS The following is a briefi discussion of the existing water quality management framework under which our region operates. For further information, the ~ 994 Working Paper produced by the Colorado Water Quality Forum #itfed "Colorado Watershed Protection Approach" provides a more detailed explanation of the federal and state programs which are related to wa#er quality protection and restoration. 5.9 Clean Water Act The federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251, et. seq.) forms the federal environment under which the state operates. Other related federal environmental legislation includes: Safe Drinking Water Act National Environmental Protection Act Endangered Species Act Wild and Scenic River Act Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and friability Act Clean Air Act 2 ~ rolorado Water Q~ Control Commission The state has primacy (i.e. responsibility) fior carrying out the state programs developed in the Clean Water Act. Existing state water quality laws and regulations include the following: Establishment of regional water quality management plans; Classification of state waters - Establishment of water quality standards designations and regulations Regulation of s#ate agricultural practices Issuance of discharge permits Certifcation of federal licenses and permits Related state regulations and activities include: Water quantity laws and regulations Solid and hazardous waste requirements Fish and wildlife statutes Nonpoint Source Taskforce activities , V 11-30 5.3 Point Sources Point sources are regulated by the state's Water Quality Contras Division through its Colorado Discharge Permit System. There are essentially three broad types of permits: those far domestic wastewater discharges; those far industrial discharges; and starmwater permits. The state pemits domestic wastewater discharges based on stream segment water quality standards and stream flow #o establish discharge pollutant concentrations that will protect the designated uses. Specific information on the domestic wastewater treatment plants in our region is found in each of the watershed plans and also in Appendix 3 and 8. There are approximately 14 domestic wastewater treatment plants in the region which treat wastewater beyond the secondary level (85% removal of Biological Oxygen Demand). The Water Quality Control Division has devebped a Wellhead Protection Program which was approved by the EPA in '1994 as meeting and satisfying the federal requirement of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This program is aimed at protecting public groundwater wells from contaminants. 5.3.7 Industrial ©ischargers There are three major industrial dischargers in Region XI1. Major industrial discharge perms#s are issued by the Water Quality Control Division under EPA oversight. The three are all mines: the Eagle Mine above Minturn in Eagle Coun#y; Cyprus Molybdenum Company which operates the Climax Mine in Summit County and Henderson milling facility in Grand County; and Cyprus Yampa Valley Coaf Company, which operates the underground Twentymife Coal Mine outside of Oak Creek in Routt County. They all hold valid discharge permits and are operated under the terms of their permits. Besides the major industrial dischargers there are numerous other Indus#rial permit holders in the region. These include: sand and gravel operation permits; mining permits; construction dewatering permits; and stormwater discharge permits. Industrial permits within our region ar_e listed in Appendix 8: 5.3.2 Wasteload Allocations Wasteload allocation" means the portion of a receiving water's loading capacity that is allocated to one of its existing or future point sources of pollution. Wasteload allocations are a means to ensure #hat pollutants of concern from various sources do not exceed the applicable water quality standard. Allocations are developed in those areas where a number of permitted sources are discharging to the same stream segment and the possibility exists for the stream to exceed the water quality standard VII-31 r ~ for #hat poiiutartt. In our region, the pollutant which as been allocated to the greatest degree is ammonia. The wasteioad allocations are developed to ensure that all permitted discharges are treated fairly with respect to setting standards for their discharges. 5,4 ~nnnQint Source The S#ate's approach to contro! of nonpoint sources is documented in "Colorado Nonpoint Source Management Program, which was approved by the EPA in May, 1989. In addition, the "Colorado Nonpoint Source Assessment Report", prepared- by the Water Quality Control Division (November, 1989) documents specifc water quality concerns and programs. It describes federal control programs (such as the Agricultural Conservation Program, Conservation Reserve Program, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, and Resource Conservation and Development}, state programs (such as the State Revolving Loan Fund, the Water Quality Control Commission, and the Nonpoint Source Taskforce}, and local programs (such as state enabling legislation ,e.g. CRS 24-65.1-901 - HB9Q41 -protection of local resources; and CRS 29-20-101 - HB1034 -land use controls}. 5.5 CQJora~p River ! Fnry~ The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum is composed of members from the seven states in the Colorado River Basin (Arizona; California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming}. The Forum was established for the purpose of interstate cooperation and to provide states with the information necessary to comply with EPA regulation 40CFR, Part 120, entitled "Water Quality Standards, Colorado River System,Salinity Control Policy and Standards Procedures", and Section 303(a) and (b} of the Clean Water Act. More information on this Forum can be obtained through the Colorado Water Conservation Board. 5.6 ~olor~o River Headwaters Forum The Colorado River Headwaters Forum was initiated by the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments QualitylQuantity Committee in November, 1991 to facilitate the informal, non-adversarial discussion of water issues associated with the Colorado River headwaters. The Forum, open to "interested stakeholders", meets three times a year. Important outcomes of the Forum included the development of proposed methods for developing water projects allowing for,public comment prior to formal submission of a 1041 permit application and revision of the 208 Plan. V 11 -32 5,7 ReaionaJ Management Agencies, Policy 5, Management Systems, defines the recommended regional management agency str~ac#ure, wi#h regard #o both point and nonpoint source controls. V !I -33 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND EC~N~MIC IMPACTS OF THIS PLAN Continued implementation of the recommended Plan will necessarily have environmental impacts as well as racial and economic costs and benefi#s. In assessing the impacts of the Plan, the majority of its policy recommendations (the implementation recommendations) have been in effect in their substantially present form at a local level since 1979 with the Plan's initial adoption. For point sources, wasteload allocations and treatment system recommendations have existed in substantially their present form since the adoption of the 303(e) basin plans in 1974. There has been an extensive period of time during which the Plan's recommendations have acted as policy guidance for water quality decisions within the region. As a result of these decisions, many of the recommendations of the Pian have been implemented. This includes implementation of the point source discharge treatment levels (except the Fraser River was#eload allocation plan) and consolidation of municipal facilities through the recommended management agencies. It also includes implementation of nonpoint source controls for new sources of urban storm runoff, construction activities, silvicultural activities, stream encroachment, and water use and developmen# activities. Implementation items recommended by the Plan are the continuation of these point and nonpoint source control measures. Additional implementation recommendations include of controls far abandoned mine drainage, remedial controls for erasion due to past silvicultural activities on National Forest lands as recommended in forest management plans. Additional controls on other existing and potential nonpoint sources could be determined to be necessary by the towns or counties. The analysis of environmental and social and economic impacts of the Plan was split between those implementation items of the Plan that have been substantially implemented and those which remain to be implemented as described. 6.1 ~ironmep~llmn~ 6.1.1 Overview The Federal Clean Water Act has as its policy the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. The Plan is intended to accomplish these goals throughout the region based on the current understanding of important cause-effect factors leading to either existing or projected water quality problems. As the body of knowledge with regard to these factors Vll-34 continues to,grow, adjustments have been made in the Plan to accomplish these broad objectives. Environmenta! impacts may occur as a result of implementing the Plan either as a result of adoption of the recommended controls on new potential sources of water quality degradation {preventative strategies) or as a result of recommended cleanup actions (remedial strategies}. The overall intent of the Plan is to maintain the existing high quality of the Region's streams and lakes while accommodating growth and development. A second intent is to improve water quality in degraded stream segments which are unable to~ support the full range of potential uses. Each of the Plan's recommendations is aimed towards one of these objectives. Maintaining and improving the Region's water quality has and will continue to have a positive effect on aquatic life and fisheries, on the provision of adequate quality and quantity of water supplies for domestic, agricultural, commercial, and industrial use, and on the ability to support high quality recreational experiences. The implementation of the Plan will indirectly benefit the wetland and wildlife resources by maintaining such areas; will result in positive impacts on aesthetic resources of the State; and will conserve soil resources. The implementation of the Plan has and will continue to require energy and capital resources necessary to provide wastewater treatment to meet water quality standards. 6.1.2 Previously Implemented Plan Recommendations Previously implemented Plan items are described in each of the watershed plans. A major remedial elemsn# of the Plan is the implementation of point source controls. The establishment of effluent limitations, wasteload allocations, treatment service areas, and recommended areas of wastewater treatment consolidation have had a positive and negative impact upon the environment. Generally, the identified treatment needs have been satisfied through grants from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State Construction Grant and loans from the State Revolving Loan fund, along with local financing. Expansion and upgrading of collection and treatmen# systems were therefore subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and environmental impacts resulting from such impacts were addressed in either an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS} or Environmental Assessment (EA). A summary of the types of negative environmental impacts associated with meeting previous Plan wastewater #reatment requirements include: increased energy consumption where advanced wastewater treatment has been recommended for phosphorus and ammonia removal; land use impacts where additional land area is required to satisfy higher treatmen# levels; temporary local construction impacts an noise, dust, soil disturbance, and traffic; and impacts caused by the transportation and disposal of waste by-products resulting from higher sludge generation requirements of advanced waste treatment. Positive impacts include: improvement Vil-35 and maintenance of water quality in streams and lakes throughout the region; protection and enhancement of aquatic life and fishery resources; and protection and enhancement of recreational opportunities. Alternative configurations for service areas and treatment methods far wastewater facilities necessary to meet the higher recommended treatment standards and/or recommendations far consolidation were described in the EIS or EA for upgrading the individual treatment plant, These documents provide a thorough discussion of the impacts associated with providing wastewater treatment and consolidation of facilities, In addition to point source controls, prevention strategies will continue to be implemented in order to meet the objectives of the Clean Water Act: These include: controls on nonpoint sources of water quality degradation from water use and development activities; urban runoff; construction activities, agricultural activities; use of chemicals; and encroachment on wetlands, riparian areas, and waterbodies. Implementing these controls has and will continue to have a positive impact upon: wetland and riparian areas; protection of aquatic life and fisheries; protection of important wildlife habitat areas; stream channel stability; reduction of the potential damage to private property due to flooding and streambank foss; maintenance and improvement of recreational opportunities; reduction of eutrophication of lakes and streams; provision of safe domestic water supplies; maintenance of water quality at existing high levels. There are na identified negative environmental impacts associated with the implementation of these preventative wa#er quality strategies. 6.4.3 Future Plan Recommendations Remaining implementation items recommended by the Plan will be accomplished through the~continued use of point and nonpaint source control measures. These measures include the implementation of controls for abandoned mine drainage, remedial controls for erosion, and additional controls on existing septic systems and other existing and future nanpoint sources. Continued implementation of the paint source controls recommended in this Plan will have continuing positive and negative impacts as described previously in this section under Point Source Control Impacts. 1n addition, newly recommended waste load allocations for ammonia for the Fraser River, and treatment plant expans'sans as identified in the watershed plans, wiA have environmental effects upon energy V 11-3fi requirements and temporary local construction impacts to provide the necessary future wastewater treatment. Continued implementation of the preventative control strategies for nonpaint sources of water quality degradation will continue to have the environmental benefits described previously. Implementation of the recommendations for controls an existing identified mine drainage problems will have positive.impacts upon the improvement of water quality and aquatic life. It would also have positive impacts on public water supplies adversely affected by mine drainage. Depending upon the type of treatment technologies selected for control of mine drainage or stormwater runoff, there may be adverse impacts ta: energy requirements for treatment of the mine wastes; construction impacts necessary to remove or restore material from tailing, roaster and waste rock piles; and potential impacts to wetlands and wildlife if passive systems utilizing wetland treatment are selected far treatment of mine wastes. Remedial water quality controls recommended by the US Forest Service for past silvicultural activities have been assessed in three separate EIS documents covering their proposed actions in their land management plans. The closure of roads, revegetation and other measures recommended to reduce sediment loads form previously logged areas will have a positive impact on water quality, vegetation and water yields, and will protection soil resources. Road closures are consistent with recommendations far recreational and other uses of forest lands recommended in forest plans. 6.2 Social and Economic Impacts 8.2.1 Overview This Plan is intended to serve the population and economic growth projected by local governments within the region. The majority of the projected growth and development is associated with the growth of the tourism industry in the development of winter sports recreation areas and other year round outdoor recreational activities. The existing demographic character of the region is influenced by rapid seasonal fluctuations in population and in the demand for public and private services. In most of the Region, the peak seasonal population occurs during the ski season. Local planning efforts have recognized the desirability of utilizing existing facilities, both public and private, over a longer time frame to diversify economic activities and provide a more stable base for residen#s of the region. The emphasis for diversification has included the maintenance of traditional industries in the Region, VII-37 including agricult ~, silvilculture~'and mining, but the real emphasis has been upon development of year around economy based upon expanded summer taurism. Protection and enhancement of the environment is a key element to the potential for economic diversification and the provision of a stable economic community for residents of the region. Many examples of the potential for economic diversification relate to the protection and enhancement of water quality, such as tourism and recreation. Positive impacts of implementing this Plan include the protection and enhancement of water quality which leads to protecting the potential recreational resources far summer taurism activities. Negative impacts of this plan's implementation include increased levels of regulation and development costs associated with protecting water quality. These are described in more detail below. 6.2.2 Previously Implemented Plan Recommendations The provision of advanced wastewater treatment far selected communities has had an impact associated with tfie construction and operation of these systems. Higher costs for construction and operation of these systems have been passed on to system users in the form of higher tap fees and service charges. Construction costs have been supported, in part, by federal grant programs, state revolving loan fund and energy impact assistance programs. The cast of these systems has been in part offset by water quality benefts which are attributable to a broader population base than system users. This includes beneftts to recreation and tourism opportunities in the region as a result of protection of fish and wildlife, and improved aesthetic qualities of streams and reservoirs. Recreational studies have demonstrated a strong correlation between the opportunity for water-based activities and the selection of a recreational destination. To the extent that improved water quality maintains the opportunity for recreation, there should be a continuing benefit to summer tourism with a social and ecanamic beneft to the region in accordance with objectives for economic diversifcation. Controls ,on nonpaint sources of water quality degradation have also had social and economic costs and benefits. Controls for construction and grading ac#ivities have increased the cost of new construction for housing and commercial development. The cost increase on a per unit basis is dependent on the type of development and may range from a few dollars to several hundred dollars. Controls implemented on water use and development activities to protect water quality and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Region's lakes and streams has increased the cost to wa#er developers of providing new major water supplies utilizing water from the region. Windy Gap and Wolfard Mountain Projects in Grand County are examples of haw such additional casts are factored into the project costs for extension of major water supply systems in the V II -38 i Region under the Plan's recommendations. Additional development costs associated with provision of minimum streamflows, wastewater treatment and water supply are examples of costs added to such projects as a result of local program requirements. Because the majority of the projects are designed to serve water users outside of the Region, the costs of mitigating such impacts has been borne largely by Eastern Slope water users while the bene#its of requiring mitigation for water quality impacts have accrued to both residents and visitors to the Region. Locally adapted regulations to~protect the Region's water quality have had a social impact in terms of increased levels of government involvement in water quality concerns. implementation of the regulations far nonpoint source controls only where necessary to meet a specific water quality goal has limited this involvement. Adoption of local regulations (as opposed to state regulation} integrated into local development review has placed responsibility closes# to those impacted by the increased level of regula#ion. 6.2.3 Future Plan Recommendations The continued implementation of this Plan will continue to have both positive and negative social and economic impacts as previously described. Impacts due to recommended point source controls would be reduced to only those impacts associated with continued operation and maintenance of advanced wastewa#er treatment systems. This will reduce the continuing economic effect of higher user charges over time for those communities which have already made significant capital expenditures to provide for higher treatment levels. If expansion is necessary to accommodate growth, then both capita! and operation expenses will be necessary to maintain the higher levels of treatment recommended in this Plan. For communities in the~Fraser Valley not now subject to advanced treatment levels, accepting this Plan's recommended wasteiaad allocations will have similar future economic impacts (bath positive and negative} as described for communities which. have already implemented advanced wastewater treatment for ammonia removai.~ These impacts are expected to occur in the next few years, as growth in the Fraser Valley will require more advanced treatment to limit the potential of ammonia toxicity to the Fraser River fishery. New major expansions of water development projects will be subject to financial impacts for impact mitigation similar to those described for the Windy Gap and Wolford Mountain Projects. The specifcs of required mitigation under locally implemented regulations will be dependent upon the review of the impacts of water quality resulting from the construction and operation of the project. It is therefore not passible to estimate the future costs to project proponents without a detailed review of the proposed project. . VII-39 7.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The Critical implementation Strategy is a four pronged approach which consists of the following: Public education; l_acal implementation of the policy recommendations; Consistent enforcement of local regulations; lnitiatian of recommended watershed improvement projects. In order for the implementation of this plan to be effective and efficient, communication between the various management agencies needs to be facilitated. There are a number of efforts that NWCCOG is involved with that are moving in this direction: These include the Colorado River Headwater Forum, the formation of watershed water quality groups, the NWCCOG QuaiitylQuantity Committee, and a Great Outdoors Colorado grant. These are further discussed below. The Colorado River Headwaters Forum is a group which was originally formed by the NWCCOG, but is now managed independent of the NWCCOG. This Forum is designed to facilitate discussion regarding wa#er issues revolving around the Colorado River headwaters. The Forum meets three times annually, and is composed of federal, state and local entities, including both western and eastern slope interests. One important outcome of the Forum has been the formulation of a model process far new water development projects. The process allows public input to projects prior to formal submission of 1041 and other permit applications. The NWCCOG is continuing to assist in the formation, facilitation and technical assistance to local watershed water quality groups. Two groups have been formally established: the Summit Water Quality Committee (which has been established far 12 years); and the Routt County Committee on Water Quality. In addition, the Eagle River Watershed Plan has recommended the formation of such a group in the Eagle River basin. Entities in the Gore Creek Valley have moved to establish a partnership which involved in establishing a database and water quality management plan. In other watersheds, efforts have been somewhat more informal or specific issue driven. For example, the East Grand Water Quality Board has been working for the past five years to develop a comprehensive solution to wastewater treatment in the upper Fraser River drainage. The NWCCOG QualitylQuantity Committee, which used to be composed mainly of NWCCOG governmental entities, in 1995 formally requested participation by all the water and sanitation districts. In 1995 22 water and sanitation districts became members of the Committee. In 1996 three additional special districts have become members. The addition of water and sanitation districts represents a significant V II -40 move fiorward in improving communication and participation in water quality planning and management. In this forum, management agencies responsible for both point source and nonpoint source water quality management can share concerns, ideas and direction for water quality protection and improvement. The NWCCOG received a $40,Oa0 "capacity building" grant from Great outdoors Colorado in 1995. This grant will be used to further develop local watershed groups with respect.to focus and direction. The Intent is to bring together interested individuals from mariy different sectors of the community to further refine water quality planning and management efforts. Four watersheds have been targeted for this effort: the Eagle; the Roaring Fork; the Upper Colorado; and the Yampa. Inherent in all of these efforts is the acknowledgement that there is a need to increase the awareness of individuals on water quality issues. This educational outreach needs to include the identification of issues, potential solutions, costs associated with solutions, and costs of inaction. Same of this information is currently available, some still needs to be developed. Through the management agencies and watershed groups, Local needs and solutions will be further refined. Through the efforts outlined above, it is expected that the four pronged approach will result in successful implementation of this Regional Water Quality Management Plan. rtrlamiproldocs12o8196v2 rev Vii-41