2:00 p.m. Authority Board Call to Order Board Action Items · 3/22/2016 · - 1 - The Chatfield Watershed Authority promotes protection of water quality in the Chatfield Watershed

Authority Board Co-Chairs: Tim Grotheer and Kevin Urie Financial Officers: Ronda Sandquist, Larry Moore, Kevin Urie and Tim Grotheer

TRC Co-Chairs: Jim Dederick and David Van Dellen

- 1 - The Chatfield Watershed Authority promotes protection of water quality in the Chatfield Watershed for drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and

other beneficial uses

Agenda Chatfield Watershed Authority Board Meeting

2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Roxborough Water and Sanitation District 6222 Roxborough Park Road, Littleton, CO

Board meeting packets are available at www.chatfieldwatershedauthority.org

For Teleconference call – in capabilities, please contact Manager in advance of meeting to arrange

2:00 p.m. Authority Board Call to Order Introductions – Please sign in Board Member Disclosures

Board Action Items A. February 23, 2016 Board Meeting Minutes– A copy of the draft meeting minutes from February 23, 2016

is included in the packet for Board review and approval (See Board Action - 1). B. Financials – A copy of the February 29, 2016 Bank Statement and Financial Report for operations and

modeling is in the packet (See Board Action – 2). The 2015 Audit Exemption is prepared and will be distributed by CPA Ted Snailum for Board approval and signatures.

C. Invoices for Payment – Table 1 summarizes the February 2016 invoices included in the Board packet for

approval and payment totaling $38,092.03 (See invoices, Board Action – 3a through 3c).

Table 1. February 2016 Authority Invoices Operation Contracts Services Services Provided Amount Service Date Tetra Tech 2016 Watershed

Management $14,987.28 February 2016

TWS Financial Financial and Accounting $1,000.00 February 2016 Special Projects/Modeling Contract Services Services Provided Amount Service Date Leonard Rice Engineers Chatfield Watershed Model

Development $22,104.75 February 2016

Total Payable $38,092.03

D. Chatfield 2015 Annual Report – The 2015 Chatfield Watershed Authority Annual Report is submitted to the

Water Quality Control Commission annually, in accordance with Control Regulation 73. Board approval is requested (See Board Action – 4). A briefing to the Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) will be scheduled later this summer based on availability of Authority Co-Chairs, Authority Board of Directors, and the WQCC.

Informational Items A. Colorado Department of Transportation Annual Update – Ms. Carrie DeJiacomo-Wiedner, PE, will brief

the Board on 2015 CDOT and MS4 activities specific to the Chatfield Watershed Authority.

http://www.chatfieldwatershedauthority.org/

Authority Board Co-Chairs: Tim Grotheer and Kevin Urie Financial Officers: Ronda Sandquist, Larry Moore, Kevin Urie and Tim Grotheer

TRC Co-Chairs: Jim Dederick and David Van Dellen

- 2 - The Chatfield Watershed Authority promotes protection of water quality in the Chatfield Watershed for drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and

other beneficial uses

B. DRAFT IGA, Bylaws, and Governance Structure Update - An updated draft 2017 dues scenarios proposal is provided herein (Info-1) for review and discussion. The IGA Committee is scheduled to meet on March 23 to discuss Authority input from February and proposed revisions. IGA governance document updates, as available, will be provided.

C. Management Service Options – Two Chatfield Management Service options are presented herein for Board consideration and input; (1) Draft RFP Option 1 – Management services only, whereby technical services are contracted separately (See Info-2a), and (2) Draft RFP Option 2 – Management services that are comprehensive and include management and technical support services (See Info-2b). In preparation for releasing the RFP, Board input is requested on the preferred RFP and management services approach for the Authority, RFP schedule, and selection committee to participate in review of proposals, shortlisting, interviews and recommendation to Board.

D. Chatfield Watershed Model Update – Dan DeLaughter will provide an update on the watershed modelling

water quality calibration efforts.

E. Chatfield State Park Update – An update from Chatfield State Parks manager Scott Roush or Jennifer Anderson.

F. Chatfield Reservoir Mitigation Company Update – An update from CRMC representatives.

G. Reservoir and Watershed Water Quality Update – No data to update due to icing conditions. Sampling to resume in March as conditions allow.

H. Regulatory Update – The Basic Standards rulemaking hearing is scheduled before the WQCC on June 13,

2016. The Division’s proposal is focused on proposed temperature standards to address in large part the shoulder season and elevation temperature variability in cold water and warm water waterbodies. As proposed, the standard revisions adopted by the WQCC in June would not be integrated in the Chatfield Watershed until the South Platte hearing in 2020 (See Info-3a -3c).

I. Other Board and Associate Member Updates

J. Manager’s Update

K. Upcoming Chatfield Meetings

• Next Chatfield Board Meeting (tentatively scheduled as needed to conduct Authority business regarding IGA, Management Services, and Watershed Model) – Tetra Tech, 350 Indiana Street, Golden, CO, April 26, 2016, 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM.

4:00 p.m. Adjournment of Regular Meeting

Chatfield Watershed Authority

Page 1 of 2 The Chatfield Watershed Authority promotes protection of water quality in the Chatfield Watershed for drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and other beneficial uses

Board Meeting Minutes February 23, 2016

Kevin Urie (Denver Water) Tim Grotheer (Centennial WSD) Julie Tinetti (Centennial WSD) Rick McLoud (CRMC) Bill Ruzzo (CRMC) Barbara Biggs (CRMC) Katie Fendel (CRMC) Harold Smethills (Dominion WSD)

Ronda Sandquist (Dominion/Roxborough WSD) Jim Dederick (Douglas County) Pat O’Connell (Jefferson County) Wes Martin (PCWRA) Chris Carson (PCWRA) David Van Dellen (Town of Castle Rock) Mark Marlowe (Town of Castle Rock)

Other Associate Agencies and Attendees:

Julie Vlier (Chatfield Watershed Authority (CWA) Manager)

Esther Morison (CWA Management Team) Erica Keyser (CWA Management Team) Ted Snailum (TWS Financial) Courtney Hartman, Attorney (Jefferson County)

Dan DeLaughter (Leonard Rice Engineers) Bill Szafranski (Lynker Technologies) Scott Roush (Colorado Parks & Wildlife) William Vanderpoel (Douglas County

Conservation District) Cathy Beges Elaine Hassinger (Tri-County Health)

The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Co-Chairman Kevin Urie at Jefferson County. Introductions were made. Approval of the January 26, 2016 Board Meeting Minutes – A motion was made by Ronda Sandquist to approve the minutes from the January 26, 2016 meeting. Jim Dederick seconded the motion, the motion carried. Financials – Ted Snailum reviewed the financial statement. A copy of the Application for Exemption from Audit was handed out for board members to review. This is due to the State by March 31, 2016. Jim Dederick made a motion to accept the financial report for operations and modeling; Harold Smethills seconded the motion. The motion carried. Approval of Invoices for Payment – Julie Vlier summarized the January invoices. Tim Grotheer made a motion to approve payment of the invoices totaling $19,158.00, David Van Dellen seconded the motion. The motion carried. Draft IGA, Bylaws, and Governance Structure – The IGA Committee has prepared draft governance documents for review and approval by the Authority Board. There was discussion over the comments that have been received regarding weighted vote vs. super majority vote, voting issues and dues structure. There needs to be some clarification regarding the definition of the Board and members. The Board also discussed removing the dues from the bylaws, or describing the 2017 dues structure to memorialize the intent in the IGA preamble. It was recommended the IGA and bylaws documents go back to the

Member Attendees

Page 2 of 2 The Chatfield Watershed Authority promotes protection of water quality in the Chatfield Watershed for drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and other beneficial uses

committee for a final review and revision. If revisions are made then the March meeting would be ideal for final review and approval. Budget Amendment Request – Tetra Tech has prepared a scope of work to provide Watershed Management services April 1, 2016 thru May 31, 2016. Julie explained these would only be services as needed to help get through the transition period on an as-needed basis. Ronda Sandquist made a motion to approve the scope of services as submitted and if additional services are needed for the transition to look at that in the future. Tim Grotheer seconded the motion, the motion carried. Chatfield Reservoir Mitigation Company MOU – The newly formed CRMC has signed the 2016 MOU with the Chatfield Watershed Authority regarding collaborative water quality monitoring activities on Chatfield Reservoir and request the Authority sign the 2016 MOU, re-affirming its commitment to water quality monitoring coordination. Ronda Sandquist made a motion to approve signing of the MOU and Tim Grotheer seconded the motion. The motion carried. Informational Items: Chatfield 2015 Annual Report – Tetra Tech has requested WWTP and MS4 data and information from members by January 31, 2016. Comments on the Annual Report are due to Julie Vlier by March 4th and will be presented at the March Board meeting for final approval. The Annual Report is due to the commission May 15, 2016. Chatfield Watershed Model Update – Dan DeLaughter of Leonard Rice, and Bill Szafranski from Lynker gave an update on the data, including land use coverages, and hydrology calibration. Water quality calibration is proceeding and will be presented in March 2016. The project is on schedule and on budget. Chatfield Reservoir Mitigation Company Update – Bill Ruzzo gave an update stating they have hired all of the consultants and everyone is under contract. They are in the process of forming a committee that would include a representative from Chatfield Watershed Authority to attend the meeting and give their input in reviewing proposals for the reservoir model, including the selection process. It was recommended to email the draft proposal directly to the TRC co-chairs for review. Colorado Parks and Wildlife Update – Scott Roush reported with the ice melting, they will be open for boating on March 1st. Sampling on the reservoir will start in March as well. A meeting will be set up to coordinate the sampling team. Reservoir and Watershed Water Quality Update – Phytoplankton data through October 2015 are available for review. As shown, Cyanophyta (blue green algae) were predominant during early April and August – October). Harry Gibbons will call in at an upcoming meeting to discuss these data and possible trigger monitoring for next year. Other Board and Associate Member Updates – None reported. Managers Update – Julie reported that South Santa Fe (which has sold to Martin Marietta) and Aurora Water have declined 2016 membership in the Authority. Upcoming Chatfield Events and Meetings

• Next Chatfield Board Meeting – March 22, 2016, 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM, Roxborough Water & Sanitation District, 6222 N. Roxborough Park Road, Littleton, CO.

Adjournment of Regular Meeting – The meeting was adjourned at 4:05.

InvoiceDate

3/8/2016

Invoice #

15314

Bill To

Chatfield Watershed Authority4255 N. US Highway 85Castle Rock, Co 80108

TWS FINANCIAL INC.

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS7345 S. PIERCE ST. #205LITTLETON CO. 80128(303) 933-4207

P.O. No. Terms Project

Thank you for your business.Total

DescriptionQuantity Rate Amount

Feb. 2016 Financial Statement Prep. 1,000.00 1,000.00

$1,000.00

Chatfield Watershed Authority2015 Annual Report

We Protect The Water You Enjoy

www.chatfieldwatershedauthority.org

The Chatfield Watershed Authority promotes protection of water quality in the Chatfield Watershed for drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and other beneficial uses.

May 2016

Dear Chatfield Watershed Stakeholders,

We are proud to present the 2015 Chatfield Annual Report, summarizing the water quality and watershed health of Chatfield Reservoir and its watershed. 2015 proved to be one of the wettest years in recent history, resulting in US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers) Chatfield Reservoir operations at flood control stages. With the expertise of the Corps of Engineers, diligent releases from Chatfield Reservoir controlled downstream flooding and kept the public safe. Prolonged inflows and high snowmelt runoff exceeded the historic flood pool record from 1980, measuring 5447.9 feet. The Chatfield State Park swim beach and boat ramps were closed through July 2015 due to the flooding, but we are pleased to report that even with the significant runoff, three times the median, the chlorophyll-a and total phosphorus concentrations were below water quality standards established in Control Regulation #73. Our report provides more water quality specifics, along with these other noteworthy 2015 highlights that supported progress towards development of the revised TMAL:

Adoption of the Chatfield Watershed Plan. Through this collaborative watershed planning process, we have built partnerships, characterized water quality, identified potential nonpoint sources, and developed an implementation plan to guide our progress.

Chatfield Watershed Model Development. Chatfield Watershed Model tools will strengthen our understanding of total phosphorus fate and transport mechanisms, potential phosphorus sources, and phosphorus inputs to the Reservoir. The watershed modeling effort is well underway, with hydrologic calibration and validation phases nearing completion.

Plum Creek Monitoring to Support Modeling and Nonpoint Source Identification. In the Plum Creek basin, watershed monitoring continues through voluntary sampling efforts by the Plum Creek Water Reclamation Authority (PCWRA).

Collaborations with the Chatfield Reallocation via the Chatfield Reservoir Mitigation Company (CRMC). The Authority has memorialized partnerships with the sponsors of the Chatfield Reallocation Project and the newly formed CRMC, regarding data collection to support water quality goals in the Reservoir. This data will facilitate upcoming Chatfield Reservoir modeling efforts and TMAL development.

Outreach and education to Colorado Foundation for Water Education participants on Chatfield Reservoir water quality/quantity issues. A fun and educational bike tour to support Chatfield outreach efforts.

Strengthening the Governmental Structure of our Organization. While grant funding and strategic partnerships are important to support water quality improvements and Watershed Plan implementation, it has been widely recognized that a restructuring of the Authority Board to include elected officials will promote the needed political support for collaborative water quality efforts. An amended and restated IGA is being formulated, along with new bylaws and governance structure. This restructuring will provide the political and fiscal decision-making to support water quality goals and long-term funding strategies.

Our water resources are becoming more and more precious each year. So, protection of water quality in Chatfield Reservoir for drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and agricultural uses is crucial to ensure their continued use into the future. Thank you for your continued support in the Chatfield Reservoir and its watershed.

Sincerely,

Chatfield Watershed Authority

A note from the Chatfield Watershed Authority ChairmenKevin Urie and Tim Grotheer

CHA

TF

IELD

WATERSHED AU

TH

OR

ITY

SI NCE 1984

Tim GrotheerCo-Chair

Kevin UrieCo-Chair

In Memory ofMARTHA J. HAHN

1974 – 2015

Dedicated to the Engineering and Science of Water Reclamation, Treatment, and Sanitation

Chatfield Watershed Authority www.chatfieldwatershedauthority.org

Authority Board Co-Chairs: Kevin Urie, Denver Water Tim Grotheer, Centennial Water & Sanitation District

Technical Review Committee Co-Chairs: David Van Dellen, Town of Castle Rock Jim Dederick, Douglas County

Financial Officers: Ronda Sandquist, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Bob Deeds, City of Littleton Kevin Urie, Denver Water Larry Moore, Roxborough Water & Sanitation District

Accountant: Ted Snailum, TWS Financial

The 2015 Chatfield Report is the annual water quality summary and status report presented by the Chatfield Watershed Authority to communicate the water quality of Chatfield Reservoir and its watershed, highlighting information required by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission in Control Regulation #73. Reservoir Regulatory Compliance ......................... 3 Compliance with TMAL……………… .......... 7 Reservoir Monitoring Program .............................. 11 Wastewater Treatment Plants. ................................. 17 Regulated Stormwater Sources................................ 19 Progress to Promote Water Quality Protection ........... 22

2015 Chatfield Annual Report 1


2 2015 Chatfield Annual Report

The Chatfield Watershed includes over 400-square miles and is comprised of the Plum Creek basin and South Platte River basin (from the outfall of Strontia Springs Reservoir to Chatfield Reservoir, including the Massey Draw and Deer Creek sub-basins).

2015 was a very wet year with high inflows from the South Platte River and Plum Creek exceeding 3,300 cubic feet per second (cfs). Prolonged inflows and high snowmelt runoff exceeded the historic flood pool record in 1980, measuring 5447.9 feet. Diligent reservoir operations by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided downstream flood control and public safety.

Reservoir inflows were over 3 times greater than the median inflow of 100,860 acre-feet. As anticipated, the higher inflows from the South Platte and Plum Creek resulted in higher total phosphorus (TP) loading to the Reservoir, approximately 57,000 pounds; nonetheless, the Reservoir was in compliance with TP and chlorophyll-a water quality standards.

Regardless of hydrology, the Authority’s water quality focus remains steadfast on reduction of nonpoint sources of TP in the watershed and Chatfield Reservoir. Implementation of the Chatfield Watershed Plan, including progress in Chatfield Watershed Model development, are essential steps in understanding TP dynamics in the watershed and control strategy options.

Reservoir Regulatory Compliance In 2015, Chatfield Reservoir was in compliance with the growing season averages regulated for chlorophyll-a (chl-a) and total phosphorus (TP) (Control Regulation #73, Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC), 5-CCR-1002-73).

Chlorophyll-a The chlorophyll-a (chl-a) growing season (July through September) average was 7.2 µg/L, below the standard of 10 µg/L, with an assessment threshold of 11.2 µg/L, 1 in 5 year allowable exceedance frequency. Observed 2015 chl-a concentrations in Chatfield Reservoir are depicted in Figure 1. The chl-a concentrations observed are a function of nutrient availability from reservoir inputs and internal loading, and other conventional reservoir parameters like dissolved oxygen, temperature, and pH. During the past five years (2011-2015), the chl-a growing season average concentration has not

exceeded the 11.2 μg/L water quality assessment threshold (Figure 2).

Chl-a is composed of many types of algae. In 2015, blue-green phytoplankton, also known as Cyanophyta or cyanobacteria, (species Anabaena, Ankistrodesmus, and Aphanocapsa) concentrations ranged from 30 to 65,000 algal cells/mL, with highest concentrations occurring in August (Figure 3). These algal species typically correspond with elevated chl-a measurements. Specific species of Cyanobacteria convert nitrogen gas to biologically available forms of nitrogen, serving as an additional source of nitrogen to the reservoir system. Cyanobacteria were the predominant algae observed in April, late July and August (Figure 4).

Total Phosphorus The total phosphorus (TP) growing season average was 20.5 µg/L, below the standard of 30 µg/L, with an assessment threshold of 35 µg/L, 1 in 5 year allowable exceedance frequency. The TP concentrations observed in 2015 in Chatfield Reservoir are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 1 Observed 2015 Chlorophyll-a Concentrations in Chatfield Reservoir – The growing season average (July – September) was 7.2 µg/L, below the 10 µg/L standard.


Figure 2 Historical Chl-a Growing Season Compliance 1983 to 2015 at Chatfield Reservoir

Figure 3 2015 Phytoplankton Monthly Summary - Phytoplankton samples were taken in the Reservoir during 10 sampling events from April through October 2015. Cyanophyta, or blue-green algae, is shown to peak in October at 72,000 algal cells/mL.


Figure 4 – 2015 Phytoplankton Speciation Variability – Cyanophyta (cyanobacteria) were the predominant algae observed in April, late July through October.

Figure 5 Observed 2015 TP Concentrations in Chatfield Reservoir – The growing season average (July – September) was 20.5 µg/L, below the standard of 30 µg/L.


Figure 6 depicts the variability of TP concentrations at various depths in the Reservoir between May and October of 2015. TP concentrations in the top 1 meter ranged between 18-31 µg/L. In the early summer months (May through July) TP concentrations observed at depths beyond 10 meters did not exceed 30 µg/L. In August through October TP concentrations observed at depths beyond 10 meters exceeded 30 µg/L, reaching 67 µg/L in one observed event. As summer turns into fall, increased TP concentrations are observed in the lower depths of the Reservoir indicating presence of internal phosphorus loading. A historic review of TP compliance from 1983 to 2015 is illustrated in Figure 7. The TP growing season average has remained below the water quality assessment threshold of 35 μg/L since the standard changed in 2009.

Figure 6 Total Phosphorus Water Column Depth Profile – Generally during late summer months, higher TP concentrations observed at depths of 10-17 meters indicate presence of internal phosphorus loading.


Figure 7 Historical Review of TP Growing Season Compliance 1983 to 2015

Compliance with the TMAL The phosphorus Total Maximum Annual Load (TMAL) of 19,600 pounds/year at a median flow of 100,860 acre-feet/year was revised by the WQCC in 2009 to reflect a statewide probabilistic model describing the linkage between watershed TP loads and in-lake TP concentrations. The WQCC acknowledged that progress towards development of revised phosphorus allocations to meet the TMAL of 19,600 pounds was contingent on suitable funding to support data and modeling needed to re-partition loads between the South Platte River and Plum Creek, reallocating loads within each basin, and revising wasteload allocations, as appropriate. Therefore, until these tasks are completed to provide a scientific basis for development of revised allocations, the original point and nonpoint source allocations totaling 59,000 pounds/year remain applicable (WQCC, 2009).

2015 Flows Hydrology in the Chatfield watershed was one of the wettest in recent history. Inflows were retained in Chatfield Reservoir in the flood control pool to reduce downstream flood impacts, resulting in closure of the swim beach and boat ramps along with other reduced recreational opportunities at the State Park through July 2015 (Photos 1 and 2). Significant rainfall occurred across the Chatfield Watershed totaling about 27.17 inches of rainfall observed in Highlands

Photo 1 - Picnic facilities at flood stage elevation 5447.9 feet.


Ranch, CO (National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The heaviest precipitation occurred during the months of April through July with 56% of the annual rainfall (15.33 inches). Heavy rainfall and snowmelt runoff observed during

these spring months corresponded to the high flows observed (Figure 8), over three times what was measured in 2014. Inflows are measured at USGS monitored stations at Plum Creek at Titan Road and South Platte River at Waterton Road (Colorado Division of Water Resources Gage). Inflows totaled 389,215 AF (Figure 9), over three times the median inflow into the Chatfield Reservoir (100,860 AF). The South Platte River contributed the majority of the inflow, 338,215 AF (87%). Plum Creek contributed approximately 12% of the inflow, or 45,101 AF. Other inflows included direct precipitation on the Reservoir (27.2 inches) and alluvial flows (2,684

AF). Flows from Deer Creek and Massey Draw are not gaged and have limited flow related to Plum Creek and the South Platte River. Because of these limitations, combined with the Authority’s limited financial resources, these drainages were not measured.

Figure 8 - Comparison of 2015 and 2014 Hydrology in Chatfield Watershed- Plum Creek and South Platte River inflows to Chatfield Reservoir resulted in flood control storage through July 2015.

Photo 2 - High water levels in June 2015 near boat inspection facilities at Chatfield Reservoir.


Figure 9– Chatfield Reservoir Calculated Annual Inflow (1986 – 2015) 2015 TP Concentrations – Instream and Reservoir Observed monthly TP concentrations of South Platte and Plum Creek inflows, Chatfield Reservoir outflow and Chatfield Reservoir are depicted in Figure 10. Plum Creek TP concentrations were highest for all months of the year in comparison to measurements observed elsewhere in the watershed. These average monthly TP concentrations for all sites are slightly higher than those in 2014.


Figure 10 – Average Monthly TP Concentrations in the Chatfield Watershed and Chatfield Reservoir Calculated TP Load The high inflows observed in 2015 contribute to the higher annual TP load calculated for 2015 (Figure 11). The 2015 annual TP load to the Reservoir totaled 57,247 pounds, exceeding the

TMAL of 19,600 pounds, however, below the 59,000 pounds that remains in effect until repartitioning of TP loads has occurred (WQCC, 2009). In 2007, similarly high inflows of approximately 289,000 AF resulted in a TP annual load of approximately 56,000 lbs.

Figure 11 Calculated TP Load to Chatfield Reservoir (1986 – 2015) – 2015 TP loads were below the 59,000 pound TMAL which remains in effect until modeling is completed and loads and wasteloads are reallocated.


Despite the magnitude of TP loading into the Reservoir in 2015, the relative TP loading from sources is typical compared to historic TP inputs. This year, TP loading from Plum Creek was 26,653 pounds, or 47% of total input, compared to 29,464 pounds from the South Platte River, or

51% of total input. Direct precipitation on Chatfield Reservoir and alluvial inflows and other direct flow sources contributed approximately 1,000 pounds, or 2% of total input. A comparison of the inflow and TP load contributions is presented in Figure 12.

Figure 12 2015 Comparison of Chatfield Reservoir Inflows and TP Loads

Reservoir Monitoring Program The Authority maintains a monitoring program to characterize Reservoir water quality and determine regulatory compliance. Surface water samples are collected by Denver Water and GEI Consultants, Inc. at four locations as shown in Figure 13. These locations include:

• South Platte River at Waterton Road, • Plum Creek at Titan Road, • South Platte River below Chatfield, and • Chatfield Reservoir (centroid, South Platte

arm and Plum Creek arm).

The constituents (Table 1) are monitored monthly when ice has melted off the Reservoir. During the growing season (July through September), Reservoir sampling is conducted twice monthly. To better understand reservoir dynamics, the Authority collects water column measurements, including the epiliminion and hypoliminion layers, at various depth intervals. All water quality data are available on the Authority’s website, located at www.chatfieldwatershedauthority.org.



Figure 13 Chatfield Reservoir Monitoring Locations

Table 1 Chatfield Reservoir Water Quality Monitoring Parameters Field Parameters Nutrients Biological Wet Chemistry

Temperature, degrees C Chl-a, µg/L E. coli (number/mL) Alkalinity, mg/L pH (s.u.) TP, µg/L Phytoplankton (# of

organisms/ml) Total Suspended Solids (TSS), mg/L

Specific Conductance, µS/cm Ortho Phosphorus (Ortho-P), µg/L

Dissolved metals

Dissolved Oxygen (DO), mg/L Nitrite + Nitrate-nitrogen, mg/L

Secchi Depth, meters Ammonia Nitrogen, mg/L

Instantaneous Flow (Rivers and Creeks), cubic feet per second (cfs)

Total Nitrogen, mg/L


Plum Creek Watershed Monitoring Program In 2015, the Authority continued the watershed monitoring efforts at locations illustrated in Figure 14. In the Plum Creek basin, watershed monitoring continues through voluntary sampling efforts by the Plum Creek Water Reclamation Authority (PCWRA). The Plum Creek monthly analyte list is provided in Table 2. The objective of Plum Creek monitoring program is to better characterize water quality in Plum Creek and identify potential nonpoint source pollutant sources. A variety of potential nonpoint sources have been identified in the Chatfield Watershed, including stormwater runoff from historic urbanized and rural areas, leachate from unmaintained septic systems, agricultural activities, including runoff from overgrazed agricultural lands, runoff from wildfire burn areas, runoff from impervious areas, and erosion from degraded streambanks (Chatfield Watershed Plan, May 2015). Further data collection is needed, contingent on available resources, to identify and quantify phosphorus sources in the Plum Creek watershed. The 2015 Plum Creek water quality observations included the following:

• E. coli measurements are higher and have less variability at EPC-11.1 (E. Plum Creek above confluence with Plum Creek) compared to other sites in Plum Creek watershed. Although variability is evident at all sites, central tendency of observed E. coli remains below the water quality standard of 126 organisms/100 mL (Figure 15). In 2015, the Authority commenced a molecular source tracking monitoring program to help understand potential sources of E.coli (human,

horses, cattle, beaver, etc.) Results are inconclusive at this initial stage, however, data collection will continue in 2016 and findings will be summarized at that time.

• TP concentration generally increased from upstream to downstream along E. Plum Creek (Figure 16). No significant spatial trends were found in W. Plum Creek or Plum Creek. TP concentrations have historically been observed to be relatively high at the E. Plum Creek above Plum Creek confluence, compared to other sites in Plum Creek watershed. In 2015, average TP observed at this site was 220.5 µg/L, the highest compared to all other sites.

• For many sites, average TSS concentration (an indicator of sediment and high precipitation events) were greater in 2015 compared to 2014. The highest average TSS concentration observed in 2015 was at E. Plum Creek above the confluence with Plum Creek (134 mg/L) (Figure 17).

• The relationship between TP and TSS is complex. Some of the highest TSS and TP data collected in the watershed are coincidental with the highest precipitation events in the basin (i.e., on May 20, 2015 and July 8, 2015, had the highest observed precipitation observed on those sampling dates of 0.13 inches and 0.12 inches of rainfall, respectively). Based on review of the hydrologic data, these extreme events result in data that are not considered outliers. The TP vs TSS relationship, along with identification of potential nonpoint sources of TP, will be further evaluated as monitoring in Plum Creek basin continues.


Figure 14 2015 Chatfield Watershed Monitoring Locations – Watershed sampling sites are located along Plum Creek (PC), East Plum Creek (EPC), West Plum Creek (WPC), and the South Platte River (SP).


Table 2 Plum Creek Basin Analyte List Field Parameters Nutrients Biological Wet Chemistry

Temperature, degrees C Total Phosphorus, µg/L E. coli (number/mL) Alkalinity, mg/L

pH (s.u.) Ortho Phosphorus, µg/L Total Suspended Solids, mg/L

Specific Conductance, µS/cm

Nitrite + Nitrate-nitrogen, mg/L

Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L Ammonia Nitrogen, mg/L

Instantaneous Flow, cfs Total Nitrogen, mg/L

Figure 15 2015 E. coli in the Plum Creek Basin


Figure 16 2015 TP Variability in the Plum Creek Basin

Figure 17 2015 TSS Concentrations in the Plum Creek Basin


Wastewater Treatment Plants Table 3 summarizes the thirteen wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in the Chatfield watershed and their respective TP wasteload allocations. In 2015, reported TP discharges from WWTPs were approximately 2,416 pounds or 32% of the allowable wasteload allocation of 7,533 pounds. Wastewater providers treat effluent to meet stringent water quality requirements pursuant to Control Regulation #73. Their monitoring and reporting of effluent discharges demonstrates compliance with their individual permits and the state regulations. During 2015, the discharges maintained their record of compliance, with every discharger in the Chatfield Watershed complying with their TP concentration limits and TP wasteload allocation (Table 3).


Table 3 2015 Phosphorus Wasteloads from WWTPs in the Chatfield Watershed

Allocation Sources TP Wasteload

Allocation (pounds)

2015 TP Loading from WWTPs*

(pounds) Plum Creek Water Reclamation Authority 4,256 2,253.0 Perry Park Water and Sanitation District: Waucondah 365 73.2 Perry Park Water and Sanitation District: Sageport 73 38.2 Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company 1,005 31.2 Town of Larkspur 231 11.7 Centennial Law Enforcement Foundation 305 8.1 Centennial Water and Sanitation District 20 0.0 Ponderosa Center 753 0.17 Louviers Water and Sanitation District 122 0.0 Roxborough/Dominion Water and Sanitation District 1,218 No discharge1 Jackson Creek Metropolitan District 504 No discharge1 Sacred Heart Retreat 152 0.67 South Santa Fe Metro District 216 No discharge1 Reserve Emergency Pool 52 Not Used

Total Phosphorus Wasteload 7,533 2,416.1 Notes: *TP loading from WWTPs is from the WWTP point of discharge; the TP load discharged from WWTPs does not equate to the TP load delivered to Reservoir due to assimilation of TP and geochemical fate and transport processes in the watershed.

1. No discharge of wastewater effluent in the Chatfield watershed. 2. Temporary five-year phosphorus allocation of 15 pounds for inclusion in discharge permit; allocation obtained from Roxborough Water and Sanitation

District. 3. Ponderosa Center water quality credits are subject to completing a trade project pursuant to the Authority Trading Program. 4. Jackson Creek Metropolitan District received point source allocations through trades pursuant to the Authority Trading Program. Jackson Creek has a

transfer agreement of 50 pounds with Roxborough Water and Sanitation District. 5. Centennial Law Enforcement Foundation water quality credits awarded pursuant to Authority’s Trading Program. 6. South Santa Fe Metropolitan District received a point source allocation of 21 pounds through trade pursuant to the Authority Trading Program. 7. Estimate.

Recommendations on Clean Water Plan Amendments, New or Proposed Expansion of WWTPs, and Lift Stations As the 208 Management Agency, the Authority reviews Clean Water Plan (CWP) Amendments, Site Applications, and Engineering Reports for new or proposed facilities to effectively manage waste treatment works and related facilities serving Chatfield Basin in conformance with the

water quality management plan and regulatory requirements. In early September 2015, Dominion Water and Sanitation District (Dominion) requested Authority approval of its revision/amendment to the Site Approval for Dominion’s Titan Lift Station to reflect that water from the lift station could also be treated at the Roxborough Wastewater Treatment Plant or the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant. Authority approval was provided to CDPHE on September 22, 2015.


Regulated Stormwater Sources Colorado’s stormwater permit program requires control of stormwater runoff in all Phase I and Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) entities. These requirements are separate and distinct from the Chatfield Control Regulations, but complement the TMAL’s purpose. Through the efforts of the MS4’s, rate payers have spent significant funds to address water quality through implementing projects to mitigate impacts from urban stormwater runoff. Authority members with Phase I and II MS4 permits in the Chatfield Basin include:

• Jefferson County • Town of Castle Rock • City of Littleton • Castle Pines Metropolitan District • City of Castle Pines • Colorado Department of Transportation

Figure 18 depicts MS4 boundaries within the Chatfield Watershed. Currently, none of Douglas County’s MS4 Permit Boundary is within the Chatfield Watershed, as their boundary presently includes the Cherry Creek Basin portion of unincorporated Douglas County and Highlands Ranch. However, the anticipated renewal of CDPS MS4 permits will result in updated MS4 boundaries in Chatfield Watershed. MS4 permits require the permittee to develop programs that meet six minimum control measures:

• Public education and outreach on stormwater impacts

• Public participation and involvement • Detection and elimination of illicit

connections and discharges • Construction site stormwater runoff control • Post-construction stormwater management

in development and redevelopment • Pollution prevention/good housekeeping

for municipal operations MS4 permits require implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutants discharged to the “maximum extent practicable.” A summary of 2015 MS4 permit inspection and

enforcement metrics and education and outreach activities are provided in Table 4. Castle Rock’s annual “Spring Up the Creek” public outreach event continues to bring volunteers together to create awareness of water quality and stream health. In 2015 approximately 173 volunteers participated in the event (Figure 19). The theme for this year’s event was “Leave Only Footprints” (Figure 20). The results are always astonishing, with more than 112 bags of trash and 65 bags of recyclables collected to cleanup East Plum Creek. Sponsored in part by Douglas County and the Chatfield Watershed Authority, the event solicited the help from community volunteers to clean up debris along East Plum Creek, Sellars Gulch, and tributaries to the Meadows.


Figure 18 2015 MS4 Boundaries in the Chatfield Watershed


Figure 19 Volunteers at Castle Rock’s `12th Annual “Spring Up the Creek” – In only two hours, 173 volunteers picked up trash and recyclable materials from East Plum Creek, Sellars Gulch and tributary streams in the Meadows.

Figure 20 T-shirt design reminding everyone our creeks, rivers and lakes depend on you.


Table 4 Summary of 2015 MS4 Permit Activities

Land Use Agency

Permit Inspection Actions Permit Enforcement Actions Education and

Outreach Illicit Discharges Construction Post

Construction Illicit

Discharges Construction Post Construction

Douglas County 8 3400 1 0 55 0

Participated/co-sponsored Spring Up the Creek; Presented to schools in basin.

Jefferson County 36 2768 147 12 28 0

Rooney Road Recycling Facility - in 2015 collected over 350,000 pounds of household hazardous waste; participated in a number of public events on MS4 and floodplain management programs.

Town of Castle Rock 0 3639 329 8 1200 0

Annual outreach in Plum Creek basin at Spring Up the Creek event.

Notes: Castle Pines Metro District inspection and enforcement action data incorporated in Douglas County reporting; City of Castle Pines MS4 boundary predominately in the Cherry Creek Basin; only a very small portion is located in the Chatfield Watershed.

Progress to Promote Water Quality Protection While funding sources remain very limited, the Authority’s collaborative role seeks out partnerships to support our water quality goals now and in the future. In 2015, donations and in-kind services from Authority members have supported progress towards development of the revised TMAL in the following ways:

• Adopted the Chatfield Watershed Plan (May 2015).

• Began model development for the Chatfield Watershed.

• Monitored Plum Creek to support modeling and nonpoint source identification.

• Collaborated with Chatfield Reservoir Mitigation Company (CRMC) regarding data collection to support upcoming future reservoir modeling efforts.

• Conducted outreach and education on Chatfield Reservoir water quality and the Chatfield Reallocation to the Colorado Foundation for Water Education (CFWE) at its June 2015 South Platte bike tour.

• Drafted amended Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and bylaws to strengthen the governmental structure of our organization.


Chatfield Watershed Plan In 2015, the Authority adopted the Watershed Plan. While data collection and modeling are a priority in understanding water quality processes in the Reservoir and Watershed and developing the new TMAL, there is still a need to holistically address nonpoint source water quality issues in Chatfield Reservoir and its Watershed to protect water quality now and in the future.

• Proactive measures are required to protect Chatfield Reservoir for its designated uses for the long term. High quality surface water is essential to sustain growth and development in the watershed.

• Nonpoint sources potentially impact water quality. Nonpoint sources in the watershed may include degraded streambank erosion, runoff over agricultural lands, seepage from unmaintained septic systems located in the floodplain, and wildfire burn areas.

The Watershed Plan prioritizes the additional monitoring, data collection, studies, and projects, contingent on funding, to address water quality concerns. The draft Watershed Plan provides a starting place to define water quality issues, solve potential nonpoint problems, with the goal of promoting water quality for high value water uses; drinking water supplies, recreation, aquatic life, and agriculture.

Watershed Modeling Our additional data collection efforts in the watershed are providing the basis for developing Chatfield Watershed Model tools to strengthen our understanding of TP fate and transport mechanisms, potential phosphorus sources, and phosphorus inputs to the Reservoir. The HSPF watershed modeling effort is well underway, with hydrologic calibration and validation phases nearing completion (Figures 21 and 22) and water quality calibration underway. The model anticipated completion is in 2016.

Figure 21 – Hydrologic calibration at South Platte River at Waterton is one example of the analytical rigor required to model the watershed.

Figure 22 – Hydrologic calibration efforts along Plum Creek at Titan Road support modeling efforts. Chatfield Reservoir Mitigation Company Collaborations Collaborative discussions on data collection efforts with CRMC will also support the revised TMAL in the coming years. In 2015, the Authority memorialized its continued coordination with the CRMC through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding reservoir monitoring and data collection to support joint water quality objectives in the Reservoir.

Chatfield Outreach & Education The June 2015 Chatfield bike tour hosted by the CFWE was a big success. The Authority conveyed important information on Chatfield Reservoir and watershed water quality and the Chatfield Reallocation Project (Figure 23). This outreach activity coupled with the annual Spring Up the Creek event in Castle Rock remind stakeholders of the importance to promote water quality to protect beneficial uses.


Figure 23 – CFWE Bike Tour Handout – Education and outreach to stakeholders on key Chatfield water quality/quantity issues.


Amended IGA and Governance Structure While grant funding and strategic partnerships are important to support water quality improvements and Watershed Plan implementation, it has been widely recognized that a restructuring of the Authority Board to include elected officials will promote the needed

political support for collaborative water quality efforts. An amended and restated IGA is being formulated, along with new bylaws and governance structure. This restructuring will provide the political and fiscal decision-making to support water quality goals and long-term funding strategies. Anticipated completion in Spring 2016.


Chatfield Reservoir at Sunset (Photograph by Thad Roan)


We Protect The Water You Enjoy

www.chatfieldwatershedauthority.org

Authority Members:Patrick O’Connell, Jefferson County

Jim Dederick, Douglas County

Bob Deeds, City of Littleton

David Van Dellen, Town of Castle Rock

Kevin Urie, Denver Water

Matt Krimmer, Town of Larkspur

Larry Moore, Roxborough Water & Sanitation District

Diana Miller, Louviers Water & Sanitation District

Wes Martin, Plum Creek Water Reclamation Authority

Father Ed Kinerk, Sacred Heart Retreat

Jeff Coufal, Castle Pines Metro District

Tim Grotheer, Centennial Water & Sanitation District

Diana Miller, Perry Park Water & Sanitation District

Doug Lohrey, Ponderosa Retreat & Conference Center

Bob Mattucci, South Santa Fe Metro District

Harold Smethills, Dominion Water & Sanitation District

Steve Miller, Centennial Law Enforcement Facility

Chris Pacetti, Ken Caryl Ranch Master Association

Sean Lieske, Aurora Water

Rick McLoud, Chatfield Reallocation Mitigation Co.

Technical Review Committee Members:David Van Dellen, Town of Castle Rock

Jim Dederick, Douglas County

Fred Bromberger, City of Littleton

Authority Board Members

Associate Members:Warren Brown and Elaine Hassinger,

Tri-County Health Department

Tammy Allen and Joni Nuttle, Colorado Water Quality

Control Division

Scott Roush and Jennifer Anderson,

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Chris Sturm, Colorado Water Conservation Board

Timothy Rose, United States Army Corps of Engineers

Carol Ekarius, Coalition for the Upper South Platte

Jeff Shoemaker, Greenway Foundation

Greg Kernohan, Ducks Unlimited

Brooke Fox, Colorado Agricultural Leadership Foundation

Derick Clemons, NRCS

Management:Tetra Tech, Inc.

Julie Vlier, Manager

Website:Hughes and Stuart Sustainable Marketing

Chatfield Watershed Authority Draft Dues Scenarios

2016 DuesProposed

$1k & $250Increase/Decrease

$1k/$250 duesProposed $2k

& $500Increase/Decrease

$2k/$500 duesProposed $3k

& $1kIncrease/Decrease

$3k/$1k duesJefferson County 25,746$ 24,155$ (1,591)$ 24,155$ (1,591)$ 24,155$ (1,591)$ Douglas County 39,178$ 62,925$ 23,747$ 62,925$ 23,747$ 62,925$ 23,747$ Town of Castle Rock 39,178$ 62,925$ 23,747$ 62,925$ 23,747$ 62,925$ 23,747$

26,305$ 1,000$ (25,305)$ 2,000$ (24,305)$ 3,000$ (23,305)$ Castle Pines MD 12,872$ 1,000$ (11,872)$ 2,000$ (10,872)$ 3,000$ (9,872)$ Perry Park WSD 3,081$ 1,000$ (2,081)$ 2,000$ (1,081)$ 3,000$ (81)$ City of Littleton 3,081$ 1,000$ (2,081)$ 2,000$ (1,081)$ 3,000$ (81)$ Centennial WSD 3,081$ 1,000$ (2,081)$ 2,000$ (1,081)$ 3,000$ (81)$

842$ 1,000$ 158$ 2,000$ 1,158$ 3,000$ 2,158$ Louviers WSD 842$ 1,000$ 158$ 2,000$ 1,158$ 3,000$ 2,158$ Roxborough WSD 842$ 1,000$ 158$ 2,000$ 1,158$ 3,000$ 2,158$ Ponderosa Center 570$ 250$ (320)$ 500$ (70)$ 1,000$ 430$ Law Enforcement 570$ 250$ (320)$ 500$ (70)$ 1,000$ 430$ Dominion WSD 570$ 1,000$ 430$ 2,000$ 1,430$ 3,000$ 2,430$ Ken Caryl Ranch 570$ 250$ (320)$ 500$ (70)$ 1,000$ 430$ Sacred Heart 570$ 250$ (320)$ 500$ (70)$ 1,000$ 430$

5,977$ 1,000$ (4,977)$ 2,000$ (3,977)$ 3,000$ (2,977)$ Denver Water1 2,125$ 1,000$ (1,125)$ 2,000$ (125)$ 3,000$ 875$

166,002$ 162,005$ 174,005$ 187,005$

1 Does not include in-kind service contribution of ~$20,000

Notes:1. Jefferson County, Douglas County & Castle Rock have dues based on land area2. Non permanent board member due scenarios based on dues of $1k, $2k, or $3k for voting members and dues of $250, $500 or $1000 for non-voting members3. Red values indicate a reduction in dues compared to 2015 dues4. Lockheed Martin, Aurora Water & South Santa Fe Metro District are not anticipated to pay dues in 2017

3/4/2016

Larkspur

PCWRA

Chatfield Reservoir Mitig

Authority Member

Chatfield Watershed Authority Kevin Urie, Co-Chair Tim Grotheer, Co-Chair

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

2016 CHATFIELD WATERSHED AUTHORITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Title: Chatfield Watershed Authority Manager Work Location: Chatfield Watershed Contract Terms: Initial 1-year contract with the ability for annual extensions Chatfield Watershed Authority Overview The Chatfield Watershed Authority (“Chatfield”) is an organization formed by cities, counties, special districts, CDPS permit holders, and water providers in the Chatfield Watershed. The organization arose from the need for coordinated approaches to implement water quality requirements in Control Regulation No. 73 (the “Chatfield Control Regulation”), TMDLs, monitoring and implementation of water quality controls and projects, and dialogue among its membership. Pursuant to a restated and amended Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) amongst Authority members, the Chatfield Board of Directors meets quarterly to address policy and fiscal issues. The Board is comprised of elected officials from local jurisdictions and representatives of wastewater districts and at-large interests. The Chatfield Board may establish standing committees as appropriate. The Technical Review Committee (TRC) is a standing committee of the Authority that generally meets monthly to address all Authority matters of a scientific or technical nature. Recommendations of the TRC are forwarded to the Board for full consideration. Chatfield Watershed Authority Manager Position Chatfield is seeking an incorporated individual or firm to provide management support services and support, as “Chatfield Watershed Authority Manager”. The position is responsible for administrative, communication, and management functions to support the operation of an established and evolving watershed organization, including overarching management of separate contracted services for technical and financial services. The position requires travel to meetings and organization business. Chatfield Manager Duties The Chatfield Manager will report to the Chatfield Board of Directors, responsible for the following duties;

Page 2

The Chatfield Watershed Authority promotes protection of water quality in the Chatfield Watershed for drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries and other beneficial uses

• Coordination and Administration o Organize, publicly notice, facilitate, and follow-up for Chatfield Board and

TRC meetings in accordance with governance documents. o Annual agenda planning and coordination. o Production and distribution of meeting summaries, agendas, records, and

announcements o Maintenance of organization records, documents, work products, e-files, etc. o Coordination and facilitation of committee meetings, such as the Technical

Review Committee, and other special committees that may be designated by the Board

o Updating and posting of information on the Chatfield website, www.chatfieldwatershedauthority.org

• Budget and Contract Management o Act as liaison with contractors and vendors hired by Chatfield, including

Technical Consultant(s), Financial Consultant, and Legal Consultant; o Coordinate with CPA regarding administration of accounting and

tax information including: Participation in organization budgeting, tracking, and

forecasting. Contract administration including establishing annual

assessment and invoicing Reporting for affiliated water-quality related organizations

and grants o Coordinate with Technical Consultant on the following activities;

Fulfilling regulatory requirements outlined in Chatfield Control Regulation.

Coordinating water quality monitoring activities in the Chatfield Reservoir and its watershed.

Presentation of data, reports and findings to Board. o Coordinate with legal counsel on regulatory and administrative

support functions as requested by Board. o Coordinate Scopes of Work, financing, and provide progress reports to Board

To Apply Please submit the following in a proposal format to Co-Chairmen Kevin Urie ([email protected]) and Tim Grotheer ([email protected])

1. A written approach to fulfilling the job requirements 2. Price proposal for a one-year contract January 2016 through December 2016 3. Resume(s) for the individual(s) assigned to fulfill job requirements. 4. Statement of availability to meet contract requirements 5. Name and contact information of three professional references 6. Conflict of interest statement


mailto:[email protected]


Page 3


Submittals outlining the firm’s ability to accomplish the above duties should be emailed to Co-Chairmen Kevin Urie and Tim Grotheer. Submittals must be received electronically by [DATE] at 5:00 p.m. for consideration.

Chatfield Watershed Authority Kevin Urie, Co-Chair Tim Grotheer, Co-Chair

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

2016 CHATFIELD WATERSHED AUTHORITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Title: Chatfield Watershed Authority Manager Work Location: Chatfield Watershed Contract Terms: Initial 1-year contract with the ability for annual extensions Chatfield Watershed Authority Overview The Chatfield Watershed Authority (“Chatfield”) is an organization formed by cities, counties, special districts, CDPS permit holders, and water providers in the Chatfield Watershed. The organization arose from the need for coordinated approaches to implement water quality requirements in Control Regulation No. 73 (the “Chatfield Control Regulation”), TMDLs, monitoring and implementation of water quality controls and projects, and dialogue among its membership. Pursuant to a restated and amended Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) amongst Authority members, the Chatfield Board of Directors meets quarterly to address policy and fiscal issues. The Board is comprised of elected officials from local jurisdictions and representatives of wastewater districts and at-large interests. The Chatfield Board may establish standing committees as appropriate. The Technical Review Committee (TRC) is a standing committee of the Authority that generally meets monthly to address all Authority matters of a scientific or technical nature. Recommendations of the TRC are forwarded to the Board for full consideration. Chatfield Watershed Authority Manager Position Chatfield is seeking an incorporated individual or firm to provide management support services and technical support, as “Manager”. The position is responsible for administrative, financial, communication, technical and management functions to support the operation of an established and evolving watershed organization. The position requires travel to meetings and organization business. Chatfield Manager Duties The Chatfield Manager will report to the Chatfield Board of Directors.

• Coordination and Administration

Page 2


o Organize, publicly notice, facilitate, and follow-up for Chatfield Board meetings in accordance with governance documents.

o Annual agenda planning and coordination. o Production and distribution of meeting summaries, agendas, records, and

announcements. o Maintenance of organization records, documents, work products, e-files, etc. o Coordination and facilitation of committee meetings, such as the TRC, and

other special committees that may be designated by the Board. o Updating and posting of information on the Chatfield

website, www.chatfieldwatershedauthority.org • Financial Management

o Coordinate with CPA regarding administration of accounting and tax information including dues collection, accounting duties involved in organization operations, and insurance and taxes.

o Contract administration including working with Board and CPA to establish annual assessment, invoicing and reporting for affiliated water-quality related organizations and grants.

o Participate in organization budgeting, tracking, and forecasting. • Contract Management

o Act as liaison with contractors and vendors hired by Chatfield (i.e. legal services, financial services, etc.).

o Coordinate Scopes of Work, financing, and provide progress reports. o Provide project support as needed.

• Technical Management o Support fulfilling regulatory requirements outlined in Chatfield Control

Regulation o Draft and final Annual Report o Coordinating water quality monitoring activities in the Chatfield

Reservoir and its watershed. o Presentation of data, reports and findings to Board. o Fulfill or assist in fulfillment of data requests (i.e. 303(d) data call). o Analyze and manage Chatfield Reservoir and Watershed data. o Develop graphics to support Annual Report and presentations. o Update Chatfield on pertinent regulatory activities

• Chatfield Representation o Represent Chatfield at relevant water quality meetings, including annual

briefings before the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission and other watershed events, as requested.

o Produce materials and talking points for Board officers. o Present information to interested parties, as requested. o Act as primary point of contact to membership and public. o Other duties as assigned.

To Apply


Page 3


Please submit the following in a proposal format to Co-Chairmen Kevin Urie ([email protected]) and Tim Grotheer ([email protected])

1. A written approach to fulfilling the job requirements. 2. Price proposal for a one-year contract. 3. Resume(s) for the individual(s) assigned to fulfill job requirements. 4. Statement of availability to meet contract requirements 5. Name and contact information of three professional references 6. Conflict of interest statement

Submittals outlining the firm’s ability to accomplish the above duties should be emailed Kevin Urie and Tim Grotheer. Submittals must be received electronically by [DATE] at 5:00 p.m. for consideration.



WQCD Proposal #31 Reg: Ripeness 1 January 20, 2016

THE BASIC STANDARDS AND METHODOLOGIES FOR SURFACE WATER

31.1 AUTHORITY AND SCOPE

This regulation is promulgated pursuant to 25-8-101 et seq., and in particular, 25-8-203 and 25-8-204, C.R.S. It provides basic standards, an antidegradation rule and implementation process, and a system: for classifying state surface waters; for assigning water quality standards; for granting temporary modifications and for periodic review of the classifications and standards.

. . .

31.8 ANTIDEGRADATION

. . .

(b) Use-Protected Designation

These are waters that the Commission has determined do not warrant the special protection provided by the outstanding waters designation or the antidegradation review process.

(i) Waters shall be designated by the Commission use-protected if any of the criteria below are met, except that the Commission may determine that those waters with exceptional recreational or ecological significance should be undesignated, and deserving of the protection afforded by the antidegradation review provisions of section 31.8(3):

(A) The use classifications of the waters include aquatic life warm water class 2, except as provided in subsection (iii) below;

(B) The existing quality for at least three of the following parameters is worse than that specified in tables I, II and III for the protection of aquatic life class 1, recreation class P and (for nitrate) domestic water supply uses:

Table I: dissolved oxygen, pH, E. coli

Table II: chronic ammonia, nitrate

Table III: chronic cadmium, chronic copper, chronic lead, chronic manganese, chronic selenium, chronic silver, and chronic zinc

The determination of existing quality shall be based on adequate representative data, from samples taken within the segment in question. Data must be available for each of the 12 parameters listed; provided, that if E. coli samples from within the segment are infeasible due to its location, and a sanitary survey demonstrates that there are no human sources present that are likely to impact quality in the segment in question, E. coli data will not be required. “Existing quality” shall be the 85th percentile of the data for ammonia, nitrate, and the dissolved metals, the 50th percentile for total recoverable metals, the 15th


percentile of such data for dissolved oxygen, the geometric mean of such data for E. coli, and the range between the 15th and 85th percentiles for pH; or

Option 1

(C) The water body was an effluent-dominated or effluent-dependent stream during the period 2000-2009, except that the Commission may determine that the water body should be undesignated, and subject to the protection provided by the antidegradation review process, based on the water body's public resource value and ecological significance.

Option 2

(C) The water body was an effluent-dominated or effluent-dependent stream and the effluent was subject to water quality-based effluent limits for at least four of the parameters listed in 31.8(b)(i)(D) during the period 2000-2009, except that the Commission may determine that the water body should be undesignated, and subject to the protection provided by the antidegradation review process, based on the water body's public resource value and ecological significance.

(D) Ammonia, nitrate, E coli, manganese, selenium, copper, zinc, and iron.

. . .

(3) Antidegradation Review Process

. . .

(d) Necessity of Degradation Determination

. . .

(iii) If the proposed regulated activity is determined to be important economic or social development, a determination shall be made whether the degradation that would result from such regulated activity is necessary to accommodate that development. The degradation shall be considered necessary if there are no water quality control alternatives available that (A) would result in no degradation or less degradation of the state waters and (B) are determined to be economically, environmentally, and technologically reasonable. In situations where water quality control alternatives are identified that satisfy the tests in (A) and (B), the Division shall consider the proposed degradation to be unnecessary, and require implementation of a non-degrading or less degrading alternative as a condition of authorizing the proposed activity.

. . .

31.14 INTEGRATION INTO DISCHARGE PERMITS RESERVED

(13) For purposes of implementation of water supply-based numerical standards for iron, manganese and sulfate into discharge permits, the Division shall develop effluent limitations that do not


penalize the discharger for the concentrations of these constituents present in the water entering the wastewater treatment plant or other discharging facility, where the source of the constituents is ambient surface or ground water tributary to the receiving waters that is no worse than existing quality as of January 1, 2000.

. . .

31.16 TABLES

. . .


TABLE I PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS

Parameter Recreational Aquatic Life Agriculture Domestic Water Supply

CLASS E (Existing Primary Contact)

and CLASS U (Undetermined

Use)

CLASS P (Potential

Primary Contact Use)

CLASS N (Not Primary Contact Use)

CLASS 1 COLD WATER BIOTA

CLASS 1 WARM WATER BIOTA

CLASS 2

PHYSICAL D.O. (mg/l)(1)(9) 3.0(A) 3.0(A) 3.0(A) 6.0(2)(G)

7.0(spawning) 5.0(2)(G) 5.0(A) 3.0(A) 3.0(A)

pH (Std. Units)(3) 6.5–9.0 (Bm) 6.5–9.0 (Bm) 6.5–9.0 (Bm) 6.5–9.0(A) 6.5–9.0(A) 6.5–9.0(A) 5.0–9.0(A) Suspended Solids(4)


TABLE I PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS Parameter Recreational Aquatic Life Agriculture Domestic

Water Supply



Use)

CLASS P (Potential





CLASS 2

Temperature ( C) (5)

Rivers & Streams: Tier Ia: June-SeptJuly-Aug = 176.09 (ch), 21.73 (ac) May,June,Sept,Oct = Narrative applies Oct –MayNov-Apr = 9.0 (ch), 13.0 (ac) Tier IIb: Apr-OctMay-Sept = 18.3 (ch), 234.93 (ac) Mar,Apr,Oct,Nov = Narrative applies Nov-MarDec-Feb = 9.0 (ch), 13.0 (ac) Lakes & Res: Apr-DecMay-Sept = 17.0 (ch), 21.2 (ac) Mar,Apr,Oct,Nov = Narrative applies Jan-Mar Dec-Feb = 9.0 (ch), 13.0 (ac) Large Lakes & Resc: Apr-DecMay-Sept = 18.3 (ch), 234.82 (ac) Mar,Apr,Oct,Nov = Narrative applies Jan-MarDec-Feb = 9.0 (ch), 13.0 (ac)

Rivers & Streams: Tier Id: Mar-NovMay-Oct = 24.2 (ch), 29.0 (ac) Mar,Apr,Nov,Dec = Narrative applies DecJan-Feb= 12.1 (ch), 14.524.6 (ac) Tier IIe: Mar-NovMay-Oct = 27.5 (ch), 28.6(ac) Mar,Apr,Nov,Dec = Narrative applies DecJan-Feb = 13.8 (ch), 14.326.4 (ac) Tier IIIf: Mar-NovMay-Oct = 28.7 (ch), 31.8 (ac) Mar,Apr,Nov,Dec = Narrative applies DecJan-Feb = 14.3 (ch), 15.924.9 (ac) Lakes & Res: Apr-DecMay-Oct = 26.32 (ch), 29.53 (ac) Mar,Apr,Nov,Dec = Narrative applies Jan-Mar Feb = 13.21 (ch), 14.825.3 (ac)

Same as Class 1

BIOLOGICAL:


TABLE I PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS Parameter Recreational Aquatic Life Agriculture Domestic

Water Supply



Use)

CLASS P (Potential





CLASS 2

E. coli per 100 ml 126(7) 205(7) 630(7) 630 Note: Capital letters In parentheses refer to references listed in section 31.16(3); Numbers in parentheses refer to Table 1 footnotes. Temperature Definitions

a Cold Stream Tier I temperature criteria apply where cutthroat trout, and brook trout, or mountain whitefish are expected to occur. b Cold Stream Tier II temperature criteria apply where cold-water aquatic species, excluding cutthroat trout or brook trout, are expected to occur. c Large Cold Lakes temperature criteria apply to lakes and reservoirs with a surface area equal to or greater than 100 acres surface area. d Warm Stream Tier I temperature criteria apply where common shiner, Jjohnny darter, or orangethroat darter, or stonecat are expected to occur. e Warm Stream Tier II temperature criteria apply where brook stickleback, central stoneroller, creek chub, finescale dace, longnose dace, mountain sucker, Nnorthern redbelly

dace, razorback sucker, or white sucker are expected occur, and none of the more thermally sensitive species in Tier I are expected to occur. f Warm Stream Tier III temperature criteria apply where warm-water aquatic species are expected to occur, and none of the more thermally sensitive species in Tiers I and II are expected to occur.


Table I – Footnotes

. . .

(5) Temperature shall maintain a normal pattern of diel and seasonal fluctuations and spatial diversity with no abrupt changes and shall have no increase in temperature of a magnitude, rate, and duration deleterious to the resident aquatic life. These criteria shall not be interpreted or applied in a manner inconsistent with section 25-8-104, C.R.S.

a. The MWAT of a waterbody shall not exceed the chronic temperature criterion more than once in three years, except as described in c, below.

b. The DM of a waterbody shall not exceed the acute temperature criterion more than once in three years, except as described in c, below.

c. Elevation Adjustment in Transition Zones: For individual sites in the transition zones, the statewide elevation adjustment shall apply. For such sites, the segment MWAT shall be replaced by the calculated MWATelev based on the site’s elevation.

Temperature Tier Transition Zone MWATelev (calculated using site elevation)

Cold Stream Tier I Below 7516 ft

MWATelev = -0.002(elevation) + 31.931 Cold Stream Tier II Below 6816 ft Warm Stream Tier I Below 3866 ft Warm Stream Tier II NA Warm Stream Tier III NA Cold Lakes Below 9433 ft

MWATelev = -0.0016(elevation) + 32.31 Cold Large Lakes Below 8632 ft Warm Lakes Below 3702 ft

c. The following shall not be considered an exceedance of the criteria:

i. Air temperature excursion: ambient water temperature may exceed the criteria in Table 1 or the applicable site-specific standard when the daily maximum air temperature exceeds the 90th percentile value of the monthly maximum air temperatures calculated using at least 10 years of air temperature data.

ii. Low-flow excursion: ambient water temperature may exceed the criteria in Table 1 or the applicable site-specific standard when the daily stream flow falls below the acute critical low flow or monthly average stream flow falls below the chronic critical low flow, calculated pursuant to Regulation 31.9(1)

iii. Lakes and reservoirs: When a lake or reservoir is stratified, the mixed layer may exceed the criteria in Table 1 provided that an adequate refuge exists in water below the mixed layer. Adequate refuge depends on concurrent attainment of applicable dissolved oxygen standards. If the refuge is not adequate because of dissolved oxygen levels, the lake or reservoir may be included on the 303(d) List as “impaired” for dissolved oxygen, rather than for temperature.

iv. Winter shoulder-season excursion: For the purposes of assessment, ambient water temperatures in cold streams may exceed the winter criteria in Table 1 or applicable site-specific winter standard for 30-days before the winter/summer transition, and 30-days after the summer/winter transition, provided that the natural seasonal progression of temperature is maintained and that temperature exceedances during these periods are not the result of anthropogenic activities in the watershed.

. . .

WQCD Proposal #31 SB&P: Ripeness 1 January 20, 2016

31.xx STATEMENT OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE; JUNE 13-14, 2016 RULEMAKING

The provisions of sections 25-8-202(1)(b), 25-8-204; and 25-8-402, C.R.S., provide the specific statutory authority for adoption. The Commission also adopted, in compliance with section 24-4-103(4) C.R.S., the following statement of basis and purpose.

BASIS AND PURPOSE

In this rulemaking the Commission considered revisions to criteria and revisions to implementation methodologies. The Commission adopted changes as detailed below.

I. TEMPERATURE

In 2007, the Commission adopted temperature criteria and implementation methods for Colorado’s surface waters. The criteria were derived from laboratory-based studies of individual fish species’ tolerance to elevated water temperatures. The implementation methods were developed based on review of other states’ methods and adaptation of methods for implementation of other water quality standards. Since that time, the Division and stakeholders have gained a great deal of experience with empirical records showing spatial and temporal patterns of temperature in surface water and effluent. Experience has shown that the adopted standards often are not attainable due to natural environmental constraints that are closely tied to elevation. Consequently, revisions are needed to incorporate those natural constraints and are an appropriate incremental improvement to the current standards. The revisions adopted in this rulemaking build on a decade of practical experience gained from massive data collection efforts. Today’s actions are intended to improve the basis for the standards, incorporate the effects of elevation on attainability and ensure more consistent implementation.

There are four parts to the revisions. The first, part A, is a change to the definition of existing quality to clarify the implementation of exceedance frequency and to eliminate unworkable excursions. Part B establishes transition zones that locate elevations below which the physiologically-based temperature standards cannot be attained routinely. Part C establishes elevation zones in which the start date or end date of winter cannot be attained routinely; these are shoulder seasons. Parts B and C address the spatial and temporal limitations, respectively, of having a fixed boundary regulatory scheme superimposed on a continuous, elevation-related natural temperature gradient. Parts B and C also include changes to implementation. Part D revises criteria to incorporate new information about the temperature tolerances of fish.

A. Definition of Existing Quality

. . .

B. Additional Flexibility in Transition Zones

The physiologically-based summer temperature standards are not attainable in every year in every segment where they have been adopted. The attainability problem is not tied to specific watersheds or isolated locations, but is instead a statewide phenomenon that shows a clear spatial pattern related to elevation. The problem arises from an unavoidable conflict between the historical distributions of fish species and the expectation that protective conditions for all life history stages can be sustained in every year throughout a segment. The environment varies naturally and fish move in response to environmental stimuli.


Temperature tiers have been adopted on the basis of the best available information concerning the fish species that have been found in the segment. The assignment of temperature tiers is logical and defensible, but an implementation problem arises if the assignment is accompanied automatically by the assumption that temperature standards are always attainable throughout the segment.

Water temperature in unimpacted streams is governed by physical factors (e.g., solar radiation) that affect heat gain and loss, for which elevation is a practical surrogate. Current evidence shows that because of this natural phenomenon, maximum temperatures are expected to exceed the physiologically-based standards in some years at lower elevations for some temperature tiers.

In this rulemaking the Commission adopted a statewide elevation adjustment for the summer MWAT (the MWATelev) that defines a modified expectation for maximum temperatures. The elevation range where the adjustment is applied is called the transition zone. As a policy matter, the Commission chose to include this adjustment to the table values in Table 1 in section 31.16, at footnote 5(c). Elevation is a surrogate for the natural factors that constrain water temperatures throughout the state. This adjustment informs, but does not change, the narrative standard which requires maintenance of a normal pattern of increase and decrease in water temperature. This adjustment does not eliminate the opportunity for site-specific numeric standards. At the time of the next routine review of each basin regulations, this elevation adjustment will be implemented.

At this time, the Commission has not provided the same adjustment to the Daily Maxima. Such an adjustment could be considered on a site-specific basis and future analysis may identify the same statewide attainability issues that can be addressed in future rulemaking.

Lakes

Temperature standards for lakes apply to the upper, mixed layer where water temperatures are governed by physical factors (e.g., solar radiation). Elevation has proven to be a useful surrogate for the suite of physical factors driving temperature in lakes. The Division presented evidence based on 574 lake-years of data from 116 lakes sampled over a broad range of elevations during the last 20 years. To be included in this analysis, a lake had to have been sampled during a 6-week period in mid-summer (11 July to 21 August) when maximum temperatures (MWAT) are expected. Several lakes showed evidence of anthropogenic influence in the form of “tailwater” effects from upstream reservoirs (e.g., Morrow Point) or very short retention times (e.g., Estes); these were excluded.

Regression analysis was used to define the relationship between summer MWAT and elevation. Lines for individual years were compared to assess interannual variability, which was small for the slope. The exceedance frequency was addressed by developing a regression line for the 66.7

th percentile MWAT at

each of the 33 lakes with at least 5 years of qualifying data. In the resulting equation, elevation explains more than 90% of the variability in MWATs for lakes.

MWATelev = -0.0016(elevation) + 32.31

The MWAT adjustment shall be used for lakes where the MWATelev is predicted to exceed the adopted standard. For example, the MWAT adopted for Cold Large Lakes currently is 18.3

oC, and the equation

predicts that it is not routinely attainable in lakes at elevations below about 8630 ft. This matches the data records.

Footnote 5(d)(iii), the allowance for temperature excedances in lakes where adequate dissolved oxygen is present below the mixed layer (the refuge allowance) was deleted because the elevation adjustment addresses the concern intended by the footnote.


Streams

Like lakes, water temperature in streams is governed by physical factors and elevation is a useful surrogate for these factors. The Division presented evidence from analysis of water temperature records from 267 sites in Colorado over a broad range of elevations and throughout Colorado’s varied landscape. Data from approximately 1162 site years was used to examine the relationship between summer maximum temperatures and elevation. All sites were screened for likely anthropogenic influences from waste water treatment facilities and reservoirs (tailwaters). Of 10 different physical and geographic watershed and site attributes, site elevation most strongly predicts annual MWATs across the state. Additionally, residuals (unexplained variance) from the relationship between each year’s MWAT and elevation were analyzed to determine whether the remaining variance was related to the following attributes: slope, aspect, strahler stream order, percent canopy cover, 30-year max air temperature, CHILI Index (an index of solar radiation, slope, latititude and aspect), watershed area, upstream active diversions count, and sum of absolute and conditional diversion rates. This analysis indicated that these attributes did not exert a bias, with the exception of sites with more than 1000 upstream active diversions. These few sites had warmer water than expected for sites at similar elevations. Data from these highly diverted sites were not used in the final equation. Regression analysis between the maximum summer temperature and elevation showed that roughly 80 percent of the variance is explained by elevation alone. Annual variability was examined by comparing the relationships for individual years; these were in close agreement. The exceedance frequency was addressed by developing a regression line for the 66.7

th percentile MWAT at each of the 63 sites with at least 5 years of data. The resultant equation is:

MWATelev = -0.002(elevation) + 31.931

The MWAT adjustment shall be used when a temperature logger site is in the transition zone. For example, for a site in a Cold Stream Tier II segment at 6800 feet elevation, the MWATelev of 18.5

oC would

be the operative standard instead of the 18.3 oC standard for the segment.

C. Additional Flexibility in Shoulder Seasons

For each temperature tier, there are summer and winter criteria, and the shift from one season to the next occurs abruptly on a single date. The rigid, first-of the-month changeover of seasons does not reflect the natural pattern of gradual, predictable change in temperature, nor does it provide flexibility to allow for inter-annual variability in the timing and rate of temperature change. These two factors reflect the natural constraints on temporal patterns of water temperature in streams and lakes, partially as a function of elevation.

The Commission revised the table values for each stream and lake temperature tier to substitute the existing narrative standard for the months on either side of the transitional date (i.e., the shoulder seasons) for each temperature tier. Support for applying the narrative was provided by the elevation-related trend in the duration of winter (i.e., consecutive days below the adopted wither standard) and the natural variability documented for the fall and spring transition dates at individual sites.

The numeric criteria now apply only for the core winter and summer months. The narrative standard continues to require a normal pattern with no abrupt changes. Because this change applies to all temperature tiers, the Commission deleted Footnote 5(iv) to Table 1 in Regulation #31 at 31.16, which addressed wither shoulder season excursions.

Attainment of the narrative standard during the fall and spring will be assessed for 303(d) purposes by determining the direction of the general temperature trend, using the average WAT of each month. If the surface water is cooling or warming at the appropriate season, then it is not an exceedance of the narrative temperature standard.

For the purposes of implementation in permits, the intent is to ensure the natural seasonal progression is maintained. For each of the months in the shoulder seasons, simple linear interpolation is used to


establish a value for the water quality standards that can be used in the mass balance equation for setting permit limits.

D. Temperature Criteria

. . .

II. OTHER CRITERIA

. . .

III. ANTIDEGRADATION PROVISIONS

. . .

D. Default Use Protected Designation for Effluent Dependent/Effluent Dominated Waters

After the 2010 rulemaking hearing, EPA disapproved a modification of section 31.8(2) (b)(i)(c) which allows the Commission to designate a waterbody as Use Protected if the waterbody was effluent dominated or effluent dependent during the period 2000-2009. EPA disapproved this concept because federal policy is that antidegradation designations are to be made based on the quality of the water, not on the source of the water.

Option 1

The Commission deleted this provision. It has only been used in for the designation of two segments and EPA has stated they will not approve a Use Protected designation based on this provision in the future.

Option 2

The Commission revised this provision to include a water quality showing. During the baseline time period, the water body must have been an effluent-dominated or effluent-dependent stream and the effluent was subject to water quality-based effluent limits for at least four of the following parameters: ammonia, nitrate, E coli, manganese, selenium, copper, zinc, and iron. Water quality based effluent limits ensure that uses are protected but allocate all of the assimilative capacity in the water body for that parameter at the critical condition (low flow and plant capacity). As stated in the federal rule, (see 40 CFR 131.12(a)(2) “where the quality of the waters exceeds levels necessary to support propagation of fish shellfish and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and protected...” through the antidegradation review process. (emphasis added). The water quality of effluent dependent and dominated waters is adequate to protect the uses, but does not exceed the levels necessary to protect the uses.

E. Alternatives Analysis – Selection of Alternative

The Commission added a sentence to section 31.8(3)(d)(iii) to align the Basic Standards rule with the recently-revised EPA water quality standards regulation. This modification was adopted because the Colorado antidegradation rule did not explicitly address what outcome is required in situations where, as part of a necessity of degradation determination, one or more non-degrading or less degrading alternatives are identified. It now explicitly requires selection of a non-degrading or less degrading alternative. The Commission does not intend this to change Colorado policy or procedures.


IV. REVISION OF SECTION. 31.14 "IMPLEMENTATION IN DISCHARGE PERMITS"

Substantial changes were made to the portions of the Basic Standards that address the way the standards are implemented in discharge permits. Many provisions that were in 31.14 were deleted to reduce redundancy with other regulations (namely Regulation #61 “Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations”) and to eliminate language that has outlived its useful life. Other provisions were moved to section 31.9, to consolidate the provisions that address implementation of standards. Section 31.10 continues to contain the provisions that address Mixing Zones.

Restructuring: The title of section 31.9 was changed from “Flow Considerations” to “Implementation of Standards. Even before today’s rulemaking, the section contained provisions that went beyond flow considerations. Most of the material from section 31.14 that was deemed to be still relevant was moved to this section.

Results of Review of 31.14: Section 31.14 now is empty and the section is “reserved.” The history of each sub-section, its origin and fate are described below:

. . .

31.14(13) This section was added in 2000. The Division is not aware of any current permits that have implemented this provision, and Colorado’s intake credit provisions are found at section 61.8(2)(d) of Regulation #61. It is not clear how this provision is intended to be used, and thus it was deleted.

V. OTHER CHANGES TO METHODOLOGIES

. . .

VI. HOUSEKEEPING CHANGES

. . .

WQCD Exhibit C June 2016 – Reg. No. 31 & 61 RMH

WQCD PHS – March 9, 2016 2

I. TEMPERATURE STANDARDS REVISIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION ....... Error! Bookmark not defined.

II. IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINES ....................................................................................................3 A. Standards ..............................................................................................................................3 B. Assessment............................................................................................................................3 C. Permitting .............................................................................................................................4

III. TEMPERATURE REVISION IMPLEMENTATION BY PROGRAM ........................................................4 A. Temperature Criteria Update .................................................................................................4

1. Proposed Standards Change ........................................................................................................ 4 2. Implementation into Assessments .............................................................................................. 4 3. Implementation into Permits ...................................................................................................... 4

B. Existing Quality Definition and Deletion of Excursions .............................................................4 1. Proposed Standards Change ........................................................................................................ 4 2. Implementation into Assessments .............................................................................................. 4 3. Implementation into Permits ...................................................................................................... 5

C. Shoulder Season ....................................................................................................................5 1. Proposed Standards Change ........................................................................................................ 5 2. Implementation into Assessments .............................................................................................. 5 3. Implementation into Permits ...................................................................................................... 6

D. Elevation Adjustment/Transition Zones ..................................................................................6 1. Proposed Standards Change ........................................................................................................ 6 2. Implementation into Assessments .............................................................................................. 7 3. Implementation into Permits ...................................................................................................... 7



The Division is proposing numerous revisions to the temperature provisions at the June 2016 Regulation #31 rulemaking hearing. The proposed revisions include an update of the underlying temperature criteria, revising the definition of existing quality for temperature, adopting narrative shoulder season standards, and applying an elevation adjustment to transition zones. This document outlines how these revisions would be incorporated in Commission regulations and implemented through the Division’s permitting and assessment programs.

A. Standards Following adoption of temperature standards revisions in Regulation #31, revisions would be implemented per the normal basin-by-basin approach and schedule (Table – 1). Table value standards in the front of each basin regulation would be revised to match the changes adopted in Regulation #31, and any elevation-based adjustment of temperature standards would be adopted where appropriate using documentation outlined in the Example Categorical UAA submitted as WQCD Exhibit-D.

Table – 1. Rulemaking Hearing Schedule

Basin and Regulation Rulemaking Hearing Basic Standards (#31) 2016 San Juan (#34) and Gunnison (#35) 2017 Arkansas (#32) and Rio Grande (#36) 2018 Upper (#33) and Lower Colorado (#37) 2019 South Platte (#38) 2020

B. Assessment Assessment of the revised temperature standards in Regulation #31 would determine the attainment and impairment status of waterbodies. These determinations would be made as part of the Regulation #93 process starting in 2017. Assessment methods would also be revised and refined to reflect the Regulation #31 revisions as part of the Listing Methodology process starting in late 2016.



C. Permitting Temperature standards would be implemented in permits using the methods below and as described in the policies and procedures provided in Water Quality Permits Policy 23 (WQP23)1 beginning on the date the revisions to Regulation #31 would become effective.

A. Temperature Criteria Update

1. Proposed Standards Change

Revise warmwater winter acute temperature standards. Revise temperature table value standards where appropriate based on results of

the Colorado temperature database update.

2. Implementation into Assessments This revision only changes the magnitude of the standard used in current assessment methods.

3. Implementation into Permits This revision only changes the magnitude of the standard used in current permit methods.

B. Existing Quality Definition and Deletion of Excursions


Revise definition of Existing Quality (EQ) for temperature. Delete the allowable temperature excursions at current Footnote 5(c) to Table I.

2. Implementation into Assessments The temperature values derived from the revised EQ method would be compared with water quality standards to determine attainment of Colorado streams. Exclusions included in Regulation #31 would be deleted, and no excursions would apply for the purposes of assessment.

Site-specific temperature criteria would continue to be assessed where applied to a segment or portion of a segment. For the purpose of determining impairment, instream conditions would be represented by the temperature calculated using the EQ method (as

1 https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/WQP23.pdf



revised in Regulation #31) and compared to the site-specific standard for that segment or portion of the segment.

3. Implementation into Permits

The temperature values derived from the revised EQ method would be used to represent the upstream ambient value for temperature effluent limit calculations. Exclusions included in Regulation #31 would be deleted, and no excursions would apply for the purposes of permitting. Monthly limits may be considered when developing permit limits for temperature. This option has been available previously, and offers the potential for increased dilution for several months out of the year where the monthly low flow exceeds the annual low flow condition. When the case can be made that monthly effluent limits for temperature are appropriate (see WQP23), the recurrence interval rank would only apply to the one warmest summer and winter month. The highest recorded DMs or WATs must still be used for the rest of the months as it would not be appropriate for the second hottest maximum temperatures to represent EQ for each month in a five year POR.

C. Shoulder Season


Adopt a narrative standard for the four shoulder season/transitional months for all temperature tiers. Numeric criteria would only apply for the core winter and summer months for all tiers.

2. Implementation into Assessments

Attainment of the narrative standard could be assessed for 303(d) purposes by determining the direction of the general temperature trend, using the average WAT of each month. If the surface water is cooling and warming at the appropriate season, then an exceedance of the narrative temperature standard has not occurred. This proposal would be refined in the 303(d) Listing Methodology process.

CS-I waters: Water temperatures must progress so that May is warmer than April, June is warmer than May and July is warmer than June. Likewise in the fall, the temperature should cool progressively from August to November. CS-II waters: Water temperatures must progress so that March is warmer than February, April is warmer than March and May is warmer than April. Likewise in the fall, the temperature should cool progressively from September to December. WS-I, II and III waters: Water temperatures must progress so that February is warmer than January, March is warmer than February, and April is warmer than March.



Likewise in the fall, the temperature should cool progressively from October to January.

Table – 2a. Cold Stream Example Table – 2b. Warm Stream Example Cold Stream Tier I Warm Stream all Tiers

Month Season T Direction Month Season T Direction Jan Winter Jan Winter Feb Winter Feb Spring 1 Warming Mar Winter Mar Spring 2 Warming Apr Winter Apr Summer May Spring 1 Warming May Summer June Spring 2 Warming June Summer July Summer July Summer Aug Summer Aug Summer Sept Fall 1 Cooling Sept Summer Oct Fall 2 Cooling Oct Summer Nov Winter Nov Fall 1 Cooling Dec Winter Dec Fall 2 Cooling

3. Implementation into Permits

The narrative standard would be implemented in permits by utilizing a translation to numeric limits to ensure the natural seasonal progression of instream temperature is maintained.

Table – 3. Numeric Translation of Narrative Standard

Season/Month WQBEL Basis Winter Winter MWAT & DM

1st Spring month 1.25 * winter standard 2nd Spring month 1.75 * winter standard

Summer Summer MWAT & DM 1st Fall month 1.75 * winter standard 2nd Fall month 1.25 * winter standard

These factors are derived from looking at how a straight line represents the cooling from the summer to the winter requirements. The point on the line for middle of the first fall month is a value that is 1.75 times the winter season standard. The point on the line for the middle of the second month is a value that is 1.25 times the winter season standard.

D. Elevation Adjustment/Transition Zones


Adopt an elevation-based adjustment for all temperature tiers at revised Footnote 5(c) to Table I.



2. Implementation into Assessments

Assessment of sites where an elevation-based adjustment of the temperature standard has been applied would use the same methods used to assess sites where table value or site-specific temperature standards apply. For the purpose of determining impairment, instream conditions would be represented for a site by the temperature calculated using the revised EQ method (as revised in Regulation #31) and compared to the elevation-adjusted standard for that site.

3. Implementation in Permits Permitting of facilities where an elevation-based adjustment of the temperature standard has been applied would use the same methods used to permit facilities where table value or site-specific temperature standards apply. For the purpose of determining upstream ambient quality, instream conditions would be represented by the temperature calculated using the revised EQ method (as revised in Regulation #31) and compared to the elevation-adjusted standard for that facilities outfall.

Documents

2:00 p.m. Authority Board Call to Order Board Action Items · 3/22/2016 · - 1 - The Chatfield Watershed Authority promotes protection of water quality in the Chatfield Watershed