for larimer and weld county (region 2) (tbd) the update … · 2020. 4. 20. · 208 areawide water...

208 AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

2020 UPDATE

For Larimer and Weld County (Region 2)

(TBD)

The update includes all amendments through this date.

Approved by

NORTH FRONT RANGE WATER QUALITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION 257 Johnstown Center Dr., Unit 206 Johnstown, CO 80534 970-587-8872 – http://www.nfrwqpa.org

DRAFT

http://www.nfrwqpa.org/

i

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 DESIGNATION OF MANAGEMENT & OPERATING AGENCIES ................................................... 5

STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN(S) ........................................................ 9

2.1 Colorado Water Plan .................................................................................................................. 9

2.2 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring & Assessment Report ............................................. 12

2.3 Colorado 10-Year Water Quality Roadmap .......................................................................... 12

2.4 Nonpoint Source Activities ..................................................................................................... 12

2.5 Stormwater ................................................................................................................................ 13

2.6 Oil and Gas-Mining ................................................................................................................... 13

2.7 EPA’s Nine Elements for Nonpoint Watershed Plans .......................................................... 13

Chapter 3 Water Quality ......................................................................................................................... 15

3.1 Water Bodies Requiring TMDLs or Identified for Monitoring & Evaluation ..................... 15

3.2 NFRWQPA Region Water Quality Assessment Results Summary ....................................... 16

3.3 South Platte River Basin Assessment Results Summary ..................................................... 18

3.4 Cache la Poudre River Basin Assessment Results Summary .............................................. 19

3.5 St. Vrain River Basin Assessment Results Summary ........................................................... 20

3.6 Big & Little Thompson River Basin Assessment Results Summary ................................... 21

3.7 Big Dry Creek River Basin Assessment Results Summary ................................................... 22

3.8 Regional Impairment Summary .............................................................................................. 22

3.9 Classifications Amortized Assessment Results Summary ................................................... 23

3.10 Regional Nutrients Assessment Results Summary ............................................................... 25

3.11 Cache la Poudre River Basin Nutrients Assessment ............................................................ 26

3.12 South Platte River Basin Nutrients Assessment .................................................................. 28

3.13 Big & Little Thompson River Basin Nutrients Assessment ................................................. 31

3.14 Saint Vrain River Basin Nutrients Assessment ..................................................................... 34

3.15 Nutrients Assessment Summary ............................................................................................. 38

3.16 Watershed Rapid Assessment Program (WRAP) .................................................................. 38

Agency Regional Financial Summary .................................................................................. 39

4.1 NFRWQPA Agency Capital Improvement Projects Financial Summary ............................ 39

4.2 NFRWQPA Agency Site Location & Design Applications Projects Financial Summary .. 40

4.3 NFRWQPA Agency User Rates Summary ............................................................................... 40

DRAFT

ii

4.4 NFRWQPA Agency Plant Investment Fees Summary ........................................................... 41

Chapter 5 RIVER BASIN POPULATION AND LOADING PROJECTIONS ................................................. 43

5.1 CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER BASIN ............................................................................................. 43

5.2 BIG & LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER BASIN.................................................................................. 46

5.3 ST. VRAIN RIVER BASIN ............................................................................................................ 49

5.4 SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN ................................................................................................... 51

5.5 BIG DRY CREEK RIVER BASIN ................................................................................................... 53

Section 208 Planning Requirements ................................................................................... 55

NFRWQPA 208 AWQMP RECOMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 57

7.1 Issue Identification ........................................................................................................................ 57

7.2 Gather and Transfer Information ............................................................................................... 57

7.3 Agency Utility Plan Development ............................................................................................... 57

7.4 208 AWQMP Recommendations Development .......................................................................... 57

7.5 208 AWQMP Recommendations and Actions ............................................................................. 58

7.5 208 Plan Summary ......................................................................................................................... 59

Works Cited ............................................................................................................................ 60 Tables Table 1-1 Approved Utility Plans .................................................................................... 4 Table 1-2 Management Agencies .................................................................................... 6 Table 1-3 Management/Operating Agencies ....................................................................... 7 Table 1-4 Industries ................................................................................................... 8 Table 1-5 Private Agencies ........................................................................................... 8 Table 2-1 Colorado's Water Plan Actions .......................................................................... 10 Table 2-2 EPA Elements of a Watershed Plan ..................................................................... 13 Table 3-1 NFRWQPA 208 Region rivers and streams category summary ...................................... 18 Table 3-2 NFRWQPA 208 Region lakes and reservoirs category summary ..................................... 18 Table 3-3 South Platte River basin rivers and streams Category summary ................................... 19 Table 3-4 South Platte River basin lakes and reservoirs Category summary ................................. 19 Table 3-5 Cache la Poudre River basin rivers and streams Category summary .............................. 20 Table 3-6 Cache la Poudre River basin lakes and reservoirs category summary ............................. 20 Table 3-7 St. Vrain River basin rivers and streams category summary ........................................ 21 Table 3-8 Big and Little Thompson basin rivers and streams category summary ............................ 21 Table 3-9 Big and Little Thompson basin lakes and reservoirs Category summary .......................... 22 Table 3-10 Big Dry Creek basin rivers and streams Category summary ....................................... 22 Table 3-11 Regional Impairment Summary ........................................................................ 23 Table 3-12 NFRWQPA region rivers and streams category summary amortized .............................. 24 Table 3-13 NFRWQPA region lakes and reservoirs category summary amortized ............................ 24 Table 4-1 Regional CIP Summary ................................................................................... 39 Table 4-2 Site Location and Design Application Summary ...................................................... 40 Table 4-3 Regional User Rates Summary .......................................................................... 41 Table 4-4 Regional Plant Investment Fees Summary ............................................................ 42 Table 5-1 Cache la Poudre River Basin Agencies ................................................................. 44

DRAFT

iii

Table 5-2 Big & Little Thompson River Basin Agencies .......................................................... 47 Table 5-3 St. Vrain River Basin Agencies .......................................................................... 49 Table 5-4 South Platte River Basin Agencies ...................................................................... 51 Table 5-5 Big Dry Creek River Basin Agencies .................................................................... 53 Table 6-1 WQCD Policy 98-2 Section 208 Planning Requirements.............................................. 55 Figures Figure 3-1 EPA Categories ........................................................................................... 17 Figure 3-2 Total Nitrogen Regional Assessment .................................................................. 25 Figure 3-3 Total Phosphorus Regional Assessment ............................................................... 25 Figure 3-4 Cache la Poudre Total Nitrogen Assessment ......................................................... 26 Figure 3-5 Cache la Poudre Total Phosphorus Assessment ...................................................... 26 Figure 3-6 Cache la Poudre WWTFs Total Nitrogen .............................................................. 27 Figure 3-7 Cache la Poudre WWTFs Total Phosphorus ........................................................... 27 Figure 3-8 Cache la Poudre Stormwater Total Nitrogen ......................................................... 28 Figure 3-9 Cache la Poudre Stormwater Total Phosphorus ..................................................... 28 Figure 3-10 South Platte River Basin Total Nitrogen ............................................................. 29 Figure 3-11 South Platte River Basin Total Phosphorus .......................................................... 29 Figure 3-12 South Platte WWTFs Total Nitrogen ................................................................. 30 Figure 3-13 South Platte WWTFs Total Phosphorus .............................................................. 30 Figure 3-14 South Platte Stormwater Total Nitrogen ............................................................ 31 Figure 3-15 South Platte Stormwater Total Phosphorus ......................................................... 31 Figure 3-16 Big & Little Thompson Total Nitrogen ............................................................... 32 Figure 3-17 Big & Little Thompson Total Phosphorus ............................................................ 32 Figure 3-18 Big & Little Thompson WWTFs Total Nitrogen ..................................................... 33 Figure 3-19 Big & Little Thompson WWTFs Total Phosphorus .................................................. 33 Figure 3-20 Big & Little Thompson Stormwater Total Nitrogen ................................................ 34 Figure 3-21 Big & Little Thompson Stormwater Total Phosphorus ............................................. 34 Figure 3-22 St. Vrain River Basin Total Nitrogen ................................................................. 35 Figure 3-23 St. Vrain River Basin Total Phosphorus .............................................................. 35 Figure 3-24 St. Vrain WWTFs Total Nitrogen ...................................................................... 36 Figure 3-25 St. Vrain WWTFs Total Phosphorus ................................................................... 36 Figure 3-26 St. Vrain Stormwater Total Nitrogen ................................................................ 37 Figure 3-27 St. Vrain Stormwater Total Phosphorus ............................................................. 37 Figure 5-1NFRWQPA Regional Planning Projections .............................................................. 43 Figure 5-2 Cache la Poudre Planning Projections ................................................................ 44 Figure 5-3 CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER BASIN ........................................................................ 45 Figure 5-4 Big & Little Thompson Planning Projections ......................................................... 46 Figure 5-5 BIG & LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER BASIN ................................................................ 48 Figure 5-6 St. Vrain River Basin Planning Projections ........................................................... 49 Figure 5-7 ST. VRAIN RIVER BASIN .................................................................................. 50 Figure 5-8 South Platte River Basin Planning Projections ....................................................... 51 Figure 5-9 SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN ............................................................................ 52 Figure 5-10 BIG DRY CREEK BASIN .................................................................................. 54

DRAFT

iv

Acronyms Listing NFRWQPA North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association gpd Gallons per Day CWA Clean Water Act EPA Environmental Protection Agency WQCD Water Quality Control Division CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment WUSA Wastewater utility service area SWQMP Statewide Water Quality Management Plan MS4 Municipal separate storm sewer systems NPS Council Colorado Nonpoint Source Council M&E Monitoring and Evaluation TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads mgd million gallons per day mg/l milligrams per liter TIN Total Inorganic Nitrogen GIS geographic information system GMA Growth Management Area WWTF Wastewater treatment facility WWTP Wastewater treatment facility SBNR Single Basin Nutrient Removal GMA Growth Management area IGA Intergovernmental agreement DRAFT

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association (“NFRWQPA” or “Association”) provides the 2020 Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (208 AWQMP) for Larimer and Weld Counties (Region 2). NFRWQPA has been the responsible 208 Areawide Water Quality Management Agency since 1987. This update contains information on the following items:

• Water quality information for the region • Statewide Water Quality Management Plan information for the region • Watershed initiatives • Policy/management changes • A current listing of all the designated Management Agencies for the region • All incorporated modifications to the plan through plan amendments or site applications since the

last update (2018) • All municipal point source discharges including population, loading projections provided by the

entities, and a description of the facility and service area map are now available online • Region and subbasin nutrient loading estimates

DRAFT

1.2 OVERVIEW

The Clean Water Act (CWA), first passed in 1972, and later amended in 1977 and 1987, is the primary federal law that regulates the quality of surface waters in the United States. This act establishes the need for water quality planning, which includes regional water quality planning, as outlined in section 208. The CWA allows states to administer many programs under the act as long as the state laws and regulations governing these programs are at least as stringent as the federal act. The Colorado Water Quality Control Act was established for the state to assume the lead role in many of these program areas, including water quality management. This Act authorizes the governor to designate planning agencies for the federal Clean Water Act. NFRWQPA is the designated Management Agency for Larimer and Weld Counties (Region 2). The Association has the following Mission and Vision:

Mission Statement To use collaborative regional planning, facilitation, and review to ensure that present and future wastewater needs are met economically and with a focus on water quality protection.

Vision Statement As an advocate for our streams, lakes, and communities, NFRWQPA aspires to be a highly respected regional leader in resolving water quality planning issues, and a source of reliable information and data, regulatory interpretation, and thoughtful comment on proposals. It is a unifying force in regional long-term wastewater and water quality planning, ensuring that wastewater service is provided with coordination of effort, and technical expertise.

DRAFT

As the designated planning agency, the Association has the responsibility of developing and updating the 208 AWQMP to keep it current. Once approved, the 208 AWQMP serves as the overriding planning document used to coordinate water quality planning in the region. As stated in the CWA, the plan shall include “the identification of treatment works necessary to meet the anticipated municipal and industrial waste treatment needs of the area” and “the identification of the measures necessary to carry out the plan.” EPA’s 40 CFR 130.6 establishes policies and program requirements for water quality planning, management, and implementation under several sections of the CWA, including section 208. Included in these program requirements is the need for states to establish a continuing planning process that, among other things, creates the mechanism for updating and maintaining Water Quality Management Plans. The Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) prepared “A Guide to Colorado Programs for Water Quality Management and Safe Drinking Water” (Commission Policy #98-2, updated in December of 2019). The Water Quality Control Commission’s Website (https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/wqcc-policies) provides stakeholders access to all policies and regulations, such as Policy 98-2. This document is the latest version of guidelines for the continuous planning process for the state. It also discusses additional details regarding the roles and required elements of 208 plans. It provides a list of factors that “need to be kept current through the update and amendment process” for the 208 plans to remain useful decision-making documents. NFRWQPA is also responsible for carrying out the tasks identified in the plan. The Association has policies and guidance documents that govern specific activities associated with these tasks. These policies are designed to steer the planning process. In the 2020 Update, the following policies and guidance documents have been updated and can be viewed online.

• Utility Plan Policy • Utility Plan Guidance Document (updated in 2019) • Site Location and Design Approval Review Policy • Plan Amendment Process

This 208 AWQMP update includes information that the Association has identified as needing to be kept current. These elements include facility needs, facility location, capacity, facility expansion timing, population, service areas, level of treatment, and partnerships. Facilities descriptions and individual datasheets for each management / operating agency can be viewed online. These datasheets include information such as treatment levels, anticipated future needs, and projections of when the facility will reach 80% and 95 % of capacity. The Utility Plans are critical in determining how wastewater service will be provided to urbanized portions of the region and unique case locations that have a permitted wastewater treatment facility. The long-term goal is to have a Utility Plan approved by NFRWQPA for all authorized domestic wastewater treatment systems in the region. In working towards that goal, NFRWQPA has established a Utility Plan Policy that requires any management / operating agency submitting a site application, plan amendment request or district formation/designation request have in place an approved Utility Plan. The Association is also working with the Division’s Permit Section to ensure as the state issues permits agencies have a Utility Plan. These Utility Plans provide specific information as to how service will be provided to the planning area and include detailed information regarding recommendations, including infrastructure, to meet projected needs, as well as how all water quality standards will be met by the treatment processes being recommended. These Utility Plans become the foundation upon which the 208 Plan Update is built and supports decisions and recommendations that are made by the Association. The 208 Plan, Utility Plans, and Site Applications collectively overlap to protect, maintain, and restore the environmental watershed quality. A listing of the Associations approved Utility Plans are in Table 1-1.

DRAFT

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/wqcc-policies

Table 1-1 Approved Utility Plans

NFRWQPA Approved Utility Plans Agency Approved Date Agency Approved Date Abbey of St. Walburga March-2010 Hidden View Estates December-2007 Annunciation Heights Camp & Retreat Center

October-2014 Hudson, Town of July-2008

Ault, Town of June-2014 Johnstown, Town of September-2011 Ben Delatour Scout Ranch

February-2010 Keenesburg, Town of January-2018

Berthoud Estates September-2014 Loveland, City of September-2010 Berthoud, Town of November-2014 Mead, Town of November-2006 Boxelder Sanitation District

March-2018 Metro Wastewater Reclamation District

September-2010

Broomfield, City of July-2012 Milliken, Town of May-2016 Broomfield North Park Basin Wastewater Service Area Plan

July-2012 Northglenn, City of July-2012

Covenant Heights October-2014 Platteville, Town of November-2018 Crystal Lakes May-2014 Prairie School District May-2012 CSU Mountain Campus April-2019 Eaton, Town of October-2003 Resource Colorado

Water & Sanitation Metro District

September-2008

Eden Valley Institute June-2013 Saddler Ridge Metro District

October-2008

Erie, Town of January-2016 High Peak Camp -Salvation Army

January-2018

Estes Park Sanitation District

December-2011 Severance/Saddler Ridge Metro District Joint Utility Plan

December-2010

Evans, City of August-2015 St. Vrain Sanitation District

April-2019

Fort Collins, City of January-2009 Shambhala Mountain Center

April-2010

Fort Lupton, Town of August-2014 South Ft. Collins Sanitation District

March-2018

Fox Acres May-2015 Sunrise Ranch June-2014 Galeton, Town of January-2018 Upper Thompson

Sanitation District February-2010

Glacier View Meadows Conditional-October-2007

Wellington, Town of January-2014

Greeley, City of December-2019 Windsor, Town of November-2019 Grover, Town of June-2010

All Utility Plans may be viewed on at: https://nfrwqpa.stg.colorado.gov/approved-utility-plans

DRAFT

https://nfrwqpa.stg.colorado.gov/approved-utility-plans

Updates to the Wastewater Utility Service Area (WUSA) boundaries as a result of 208 Plan Amendment changes are implemented into 208 AWQMP as amendments are approved. The WUSA maps outline the boundaries of the areas for which the operating entity will be responsible for all wastewater service in the foreseeable future. No overlaps in service area boundaries are allowed by the 208 Plan unless there is, in existence, an agreement between the involved service providers as to how service will be provided to the overlapping areas. The WUSA boundaries are mapped using a GIS system (ESRI) that is maintained by the Association. Any change in these boundaries requires an amendment to the plan unless it is a minor adjustment involving less than ten acres. As indicated above, all changes must be supported by an approved Utility Plan for the entity requesting the change. All agency WUSA boundary maps may be viewed online at: https://nfrwqpa.stg.colorado.gov/agency-service-area-maps, or https://data-nfrwqpa.hub.arcgis.com/.

1.3 DESIGNATION OF MANAGEMENT & OPERATING AGENCIES

The original 208 Plan prepared in 1985 listed all the designated management agencies and operating agencies in Larimer and Weld Counties. The agencies have been updated over time by the inclusion of additional agencies when they have become eligible for designation. As in previous updates, the management agencies having the authority to implement responsibilities and actions in the 208 AWQMP include: Land-Use Management Agency: A general-purpose type of governmental agency with land use control powers such as a county, city and county, city, or town. These land-use management agencies are responsible for oversight of all water quality concerns related to land use within their jurisdiction, including point and non-point sources of pollution and activities which can degrade receiving waters. The management agency is responsible for all wastewater service in the foreseeable future within their WUSA.

DRAFT

https://nfrwqpa.stg.colorado.gov/agency-service-area-maps

https://data-nfrwqpa.hub.arcgis.com/

Wastewater Management / Operating Agency: An agency responsible for controlling all aspects of the collection, treatment, and discharge of sewage or industrial wastewaters within their (district) boundaries or service area or, in the case of an industrial concern, within their company’s sphere of operation. The wastewater management / operation agency is responsible for all wastewater service in the foreseeable future within their WUSA. A wastewater management / operating agency must be able to design, construct, operate, and maintain waste treatment works and satisfactorily finance these operations through the raising of sufficient revenues. As in previous updates, a city or town which serves as their wastewater collection system and treatment plant(s) is designated both as a land-use management agency and a wastewater management / operating agency. All agencies should have the capacity to enter into agreements with each other to provide the best cooperative approach to water quality management. A land-use management agency should have land-use authority to be useful in solving water quality problems associated with development, including nonpoint source urban runoff. The land-use management agency would be responsible for land-use decisions that could affect the quality of waters in their area of jurisdiction or the ability of the wastewater management / operating agency to provide adequate wastewater collection and treatment. The concerns for water quality related to septic tank use, the proliferation of small treatment plants, urban runoff, and construction-caused erosion and sedimentation, and other activities that can be approached through various forms of land use control. Land-Use Management Agencies Responsibilities:

• Define urban wastewater utility service areas and urban growth areas • Review site approval applications • Exercise land-use powers based on water quality considerations • Provide expertise to the planning process • Seek agreements with appropriate wastewater management / operating agencies • Make recommendations to NFRWQPA on any service area boundary change or any facility expansion

and certify compliance with the 208 Areawide Water Quality Management Plan • Encourage cooperation in accomplishing pollution abatement activities within their jurisdictions • Include in their respective comprehensive plans the necessary water quality considerations • Propose and implement in their Utility Plans stormwater BMPs to control nonpoint source urban

runoff Table 1-2 Management Agencies

NFRWQPA Designated Land Use Management Agencies: (Recommended for approval) Ault, Town of Garden City Mead, Town of Berthoud, Town of Gilcrest, Town of Milliken, Town of Brighton, City of Greeley, City of New Raymer, Town of Broomfield, City & County of Grover, Town of Northglenn, City of Dacono, Town of Hudson, Town of Nunn, Town of Eaton, Town of Johnstown, Town of Pierce, Town of Erie, Town of Keenesburg, Town of Platteville, Town of Estes Park, Town of Kersey, Town of Severance, Town of Evans, City of Larimer County Timnath, Town of Firestone, Town of La Salle, Town of Weld County

DRAFT

Fort Collins, City of Lochbuie, Town of Wellington, Town of Fort Lupton, Town of Longmont, City of Windsor, Town of Frederick, Town of Loveland, City of

Wastewater Management / Operating Agencies Responsibilities:

• Define their sewerage service area • Refer to the responsible land-use management agency any plans for modifying service area

boundaries and expansion of sewerage collection and treatment facility • Refer to NFRWQPA any change in the service area and proposals for new service plant expansion • Seek agreements with the appropriate land-use management agency on urban growth areas and

service areas • Operate and maintain their sewerage facilities in compliance with all applicable permit conditions • Maintain a viable financial and revenue program to provide for future required capital expenditures

and operation maintenance costs • Propose and implement in their Utility Plans stormwater BMPs to control nonpoint source urban

runoff Table 1-3 Management/Operating Agencies

NFRWQPA Designated (Public) Management/Operating Agencies: (Recommended for Approval) Ault, Town of Gilcrest, Town of Northglenn, City of Berthoud, Town of Greeley, City of Nunn, Town of Boxelder Sanitation District Grover, Town of Pierce, Town of Brighton, City of Hudson, Town of Platteville, Town of Broomfield, City & County of Johnstown, Town of Prairie School District, Weld

County Eaton, Town of Keenesburg, Town of Resource Colorado W & S

Metro. District Erie, Town of Kersey, Town of Severance, Town of Estes Park Sanitation District Larimer County South Fort Collins Sanitation

District Evans, City of La Salle, Town of St. Vrain Sanitation District Firestone, Town of Lochbuie, Town of Timnath, Town of Fort Collins, City of Longmont, City of Weld County Fort Lupton, Town of Loveland, City of Wellington, Town of Frederick, Town of Mead, Town of Windsor, Town of Galeton Sanitation District Metro Wastewater Reclamation

District Upper Thompson Sanitation District

Garden City Milliken, Town of

DRAFT

Table 1-4 Industries

NFRWQPA – Industries: Carestream Front Range Energy Swift Beef – Lone Tree In Bev – Anheuser-Busch Leprino Foods Colorado Division of Wildlife;

Watson Hatchery Colorado Division of Wildlife; Bellvue Hatchery

Colorado Division of Wildlife; Poudre Hatchery

Table 1-5 Private Agencies

NFRWQPA – Private/Other Agencies Abbey of St. Walburga Davies Mobile Home Park Crystal Lakes Water & Sewer

Association Dao House Eden Valley Institute Pine Lake Village B & B Mobile Home Park Fox Acres CSU - Mountain Campus Ben Delator Boy Scout Ranch Glacier View Meadows Water &

Sanitation Association New Vision Mobile Home Park

Berthoud Estates High Peak Camp-Salvation Army Shambhala Mountain Center Best Western Coach House Resort

Hemingway Lodge at Eagles Nest

Magic Sky Ranch Lutheran Camp

Bonnell West HOA Hidden View Estates Sunrise Ranch -Emissaries of Devine Light

Buckhorn United Methodist Camp

High County Estates Laramie River Guest Ranch

Annunciation Heights Camp & Retreat Center

Yogi Bear’s Jellystone Park

DRAFT

STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN(S)

One of the goals of these reports is to fulfill the requirements of 40 CFR 130.6 as required by the Clean Water Act (CWA) to develop a water quality management plan. In doing so, the 208 AWQMP covers a variety of water quality planning subjects being conducted on a statewide level to address these planning areas. These subject areas overlap with the elements associated with regional 208 Plans and with the State Water Quality Management Plan and Colorado’s Water Plan. These overlapping subject areas are discussed below.

2.1 Colorado Water Plan

In 2013, the Governor decreed the development of a “Water Plan” for Colorado through the year 2050. In the following months, many entities participated in hundreds of public meetings to discuss and develop the plan, which was overseen by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. In November of 2015, the Plan was produced, which provides many long-reaching goals for the State involving water quantity and quality. As a result of the Plan, the WQCD will work with stakeholders, including watershed groups, and those with point and nonpoint dischargers to continue to employ available programs to maintain and or improve water quality at a basin-scale level. The full report can be accessed online at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cowaterplan. Colorado’s Water Plan actions and the association's deliverables can be viewed in Table 2-1.

DRAFT

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cowaterplan

Table 2-1 Colorado's Water Plan Actions

Action: Deliverables: 1. Identify existing

watershed coalitions and existing watershed plans and assessments, including source-water protection plans.

1a. North West Colorado Council of Governments, Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Bear Creek Watershed Association, Pueblo Area Council of Governments, Big Dry Creek Watershed Association, Barr Milton Watershed Association, CDPHE.

2. Encourage and support capacity in many areas that currently do not have watershed groups or other groups that work with a broad set of local stakeholders.

Support Education efforts through: 2a. Water Education Colorado. 2b. Colorado Water Assembly. 2c. CSU’s One Water Solutions Institute - (eRAMS). 2d. Big Thompson Watershed Forum. 2e. Poudre Learning Center. 2f. Colorado Water Assembly. 2g. Colorado Rural Water Association.

3. Assist stakeholders in existing watershed groups to identify tools and resources that address gaps and build capacity in existing plans.

3a. Stakeholders Attorney General’s Office Big Thompson Water Conservation District Big Thompson Watershed Forum Cattleman’s Association Partners for Western Conservation Ag Water

Network Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Colorado Agricultural Water Alliance Colorado Decision Support Systems Colorado Ground Water Commission Colorado Hazard Mapping Colorado Healthy Rivers Fund Colorado Riparian Association Colorado River Water Conservation District Colorado Parks and Wildlife Colorado State University – One Water Solutions Institute (eRAMS) Colorado Stormwater Council Colorado Watershed Assembly Colorado Water Conservation Board Department of Agriculture Department of Natural Resources Department of Local Affairs Division of Local Government Division of Local Affairs, Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety, Colorado Ducks Unlimited EPA Healthy Watersheds Protection Growing Water Smart Nation Forest Service Foundation Northern Water Conservancy District River Network South Platte Coalition for Urban River Evaluation The Greenway Foundation The Water Research Foundation Trout Unlimited U.S. Bureau of Land Management U.S. Forest Service U.S. National Park Service Water Education Colorado

DRAFT

West Greeley Conservation District

4. Identify public and private funding sources that together can support watershed- and forest health projects.

4a. Funding through Colorado Water Conservation Board, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Colorado Healthy Rivers Fund, Colorado Watershed Restoration Program, Fish and Wildlife Resources Fund, Water Supply Reserve Account, CDPHE-Grants, and Loans Unit, and Watershed Wildfire Protection Group.

5. Identify watersheds that are critical to the water supply.

5a. South Platte 5b. Big & Little Thompson 5c. Cache la Poudre 5d. St. Vrain 5e. Dry Creek

6. Work toward a long-term goal of developing watershed master plans for watersheds critical to the consumptive and nonconsumptive water supply.

6a. Identified in 2019 Strategic Plan. 6b. Defined 2019 Master Plan. 6c. Bi-annual revisions of the 208 AWQMP.

7. Prioritize and implement projects identified in master planning.

7a. Incorporate Nonpoint source planning. 7b. Fund eRAMS nonpoint source project. 7c. Summarize IR Report Water Quality Assessments for NFRWQPA Region. 7d. Blue – Green Projects. 7e. Bring nature into City Projects.

8. Monitor projects to ensure that objectives are met and maintained.

8a. Ongoing.

9. Conduct adaptive management as necessary.

9a. Implementing a New Utility Plan Guidance document, NFRWQPA must be flexible regarding the new requirements. 9b. Goals are based on the WQCD’s Integrated 303(b) Report Water Quality Assessment.

10. Coordinate statewide watershed-coalition and partnership plans, projects, monitoring, and adaptive management strategies.

10a. Keep It Clean ‘Cause we are all downstream& Live like you love it – campaigns 10b. Water Districts 10c. Sanitation Districts 10d. Conservancy and Conservation Districts 10e. Urban Drainage and Flood Control 10f. Groundwater Management Districts

11. Watershed management plans may include potential impacts on the environment, public water supplies, and agricultural production from abandoned mines, and a strategy for addressing these impacts. CDPHE and DRMS are potential partners in developing a prioritized list of mines

11a. New Utility Plan format should address the impacts of listed topics. 11b. Information from these Utility Plans will be incorporated into the NFRWQPA 208 AWQMP.

DRAFT

that could impact streams.

2.2 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring & Assessment Report

The WQCD will use the Statewide “2020 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report,” which is updated biennially to report on water quality progress in the State. This periodic report is available for review on the WQCD website https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/wqcc-reports-and-plans. The Association can then regionally assess the water quality in the South Platte basin. This regional water quality assessment is presented in Chapter 3.

2.3 Colorado 10-Year Water Quality Roadmap

Additionally, WQCD has developed a Water Quality 10-year roadmap (2017-2027) for the implementation of specific regulations and water quality goals. CDPHE’s plan allows stakeholder input concerning how the new or revised standards will be adopted for the next 10-years. The Water Quality roadmap addresses point sources and nonpoint sources outlining major milestones the division, WQCC, and stakeholders will undertake collaboratively to implement the plan. Including water quality goals for nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and chlorophyll-a), cadmium, temperature, arsenic, ammonia, and selenium through 2027. Water quality goal development will include technical and scientific assessments to give the commission evidence to support the adoption of the goals. Once the commission adopts the goals, those water quality standards will be translated into permits that allow the discharge of acceptable levels of pollutants based on the scientific assessments. CDPHE’s 10-year water quality roadmap may be viewed here: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/WQ-10-Year-Roadmap.

2.4 Nonpoint Source Activities

The original 208 Plans provided a first attempt at addressing nonpoint sources of water pollution. In 1987, the Clean Water Act was amended to include Section 319 to address nonpoint source types of pollution specifically. In Colorado, the WQCD has been given the primary responsibility for administering the federally mandated nonpoint source program. As such, much of the emphasis of nonpoint source planning and management has shifted from traditional 208 plans into the Nonpoint Source Program at the state level. The WQCD’s responsibility includes preparing and updating the nonpoint source assessment and management plan, maintaining the statewide manual of best management practices (BMPs), preparing lists of nonpoint source funding priorities, and administering grants, as necessary, to achieve the goals of section 319. To assist with these planning responsibilities, the WQCD established the Colorado Nonpoint Source Council (NPS Council). The NPS Council served as an advisory group and workgroup to assist the WQCD with the Colorado Nonpoint Source Program (through 2014). Since then, the Division has managed the NPS process. The NPS Council played a role in the continuing effort to identify nonpoint source problems and issues in Colorado, propose programs and projects, and demonstrate and promote best management practices. As with many federal programs, the NPS program has grown and evolved. In 2005, the WQCD, in cooperation with the NPS Council, created the 2005 supplement to the Nonpoint Source Management Program. This document supersedes the major update to the program that was approved by EPA in 2000 and provides an updated action plan, program priorities, and funding guidelines. The Nonpoint Source Management Plan was last updated in 2014.

DRAFT

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/wqcc-reports-and-plans

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/WQ-10-Year-Roadmap

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/WQ-10-Year-Roadmap

The supplement outlines the program actions for the next five years. It describes how the NPS program will migrate from an individual pollutant category approach, such as agriculture, mining, or construction, to a pollutant-integrated watershed approach, addressing the collective NPS needs of a specific geographic region of Colorado. Also, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted new strategic targets and associated reporting requirements, which will need to be implemented in the program. Additional nonpoint source information can also be found at www.npscolorado.com.

2.5 Stormwater

Historically, stormwater was considered a nonpoint source of pollution and, therefore, was not regulated as a discharge. In August 1993, Colorado established regulations to control the release of stormwater from specific industrial and municipal sources. These regulations were necessary to implement the 1987 revisions to the CWA. As a result, these regulations redefined discharges of stormwater from these sources as point source discharges, which would require a permit. The WQCD issues stormwater discharges that fall into the point source category permits under Regulation No. 61: Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulation (5 CCR 1002-61). These include permits for stormwater discharges from industry and construction sites and to government entities (municipalities) that are responsible for stormwater discharges from urban areas. Additional details regarding stormwater regulation and permits can be found on the WQCD’s website, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/cor400000-stormwater-discharge. For the types of releases that still fall under the category of nonpoint sources, additional information can be found in the WQCD’s Nonpoint Source Management Program.

2.6 Oil and Gas-Mining

The Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment has a free groundwater testing program for residents concerned about common oil and gas mining contaminates. The Health Department posts results online and results also may be requested by concerned parties at: https://www.weldgov.com/departments/health_and_environment/environmental_health/laboratory_water_quality/water_quality. The Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment laboratory is a regional Health Department lab and may be contracted for sample analysis outside of Weld County.

2.7 EPA’s Nine Elements for Nonpoint Watershed Plans

The EPA has nine minimum elements to be included in nonpoint watershed plans for threatened or impaired waters (EPA, Integrating Watershed Assessment and Protection across EPA, 2016). NFRWQPA has defined the Association’s actions related to the EPA’s nine elements for nonpoint source watershed plans in Table 2-2. Table 2-2 EPA Elements of a Watershed Plan

EPA Elements of a Watershed Plan NFRWQPA Actions a) Identify the causes and

sources of pollution. Focused Water Quality Assessments.

b) Estimate pollutant loading into the watershed and the expected load reductions.

eRAMS Assessments of both POTWs and Nonpoint Sources.

c) Describe management measures that will achieve

Best Management Practices recommended in Utility Plans and adopted in the 208 AWQMP.

DRAFT

http://www.npscolorado.com/

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/cor400000-stormwater-discharge

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/cor400000-stormwater-discharge

https://www.weldgov.com/departments/health_and_environment/environmental_health/laboratory_water_quality/water_quality

https://www.weldgov.com/departments/health_and_environment/environmental_health/laboratory_water_quality/water_quality

load reductions and targeted critical areas

d) Estimate amounts of technical and financial assistance and the relevant authorities needed to implement the plan.

Identified in Table 2-1, Colorado’s Water Plan Actions.

e) Develop an information/education component.

Identified in Table 2-1, Colorado’s Water Plan Actions.

f) Develop a project schedule. Strategic Plan Outlines Schedule. g) Describe the interim,

measurable milestones. Listed in Chapter 8.

h) Identify indicators to measure progress.

Listed in Chapter 8.

i) Develop a monitoring component.

208 AWQMP and Water Quality Assessments.

Photo Credit: https://www.carlislepa.org/my-borough/stormwater-information/

DRAFT

Chapter 3 Water Quality

The state programs which establish water quality standards must meet the minimum requirements set by EPA under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The system used by the state for determining surface water quality classification and standards is based on the adoption of a use classification for waterbody segments (i.e., uses to be protected), and then adopting numeric standards for specific pollutants to protect those uses. There are three components to water quality standards, which include: (1) use classifications, (2) numeric or qualitative standards, and (3) antidegradation provisions. The Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) assigns water quality classifications and standards for specific water body segments as part of their rulemaking processes. All point source dischargers must meet the levels of effluent quality necessary to achieve and maintain these water quality standards which have been established for the receiving stream. Regulation #38 Classifications and Numeric Standards for South Platte River Basin, Laramie River Basin, Republican River Basin, Smoky Hill River Basin identify the standards associated with all segments located in Larimer and Weld Counties. This regulation can be found on the Water Quality Control Commission website at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/water-quality-control-commission-regulations. Stream Segments that do not meet the water quality standards for the assigned use classification are considered water quality limited or impaired and are identified in the state’s 303(d) list. This 303(d) listing is part of the WQCC’s Regulation #93. All water bodies on the 303(d) list are required by EPA and the Clean Water Act to have Total Maximum Daily Load’s (TMDL’s) prepared for them to attempt to resolve the problems causing water quality impairments. Developing TMDLs is a process that calculates the total amount of pollutant(s) (load) that may be discharged into a water body to ensure that water quality standards are met. NFRWQPA displays the 303(d) and M&E segments included in Regulation #93 for Larimer and Weld Counties online within the association’s GIS mapping options: https://data-nfrwqpa.hub.arcgis.com/app/0ac440bd9be24e6ca4131c9d9ec9005b. It consists of the segment identification number, a description of the section, the portion of that segment that is impaired, the parameter of concern for impairment, and the level of priority for TMDL development.

3.1 Water Bodies Requiring TMDLs or Identified for Monitoring & Evaluation

Only those segments where Clean Water Section 303(d) Impairment has been determined require TMDLs. For these segments, TMDLs are only necessary for those parameters that are identified as impairments. Those impairments within the Association’s 208 region may be obtained via the WQCD website or the Association's website: https://data-nfrwqpa.hub.arcgis.com/app/0ac440bd9be24e6ca4131c9d9ec9005b. In June of 2012, the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission adopted Regulation #85 “Nutrient Management Control Regulation” (Reg. 85). Reg. #85 requires individual more extensive wastewater treatment facilities to meet effluent limits for phosphorus and nitrogen-based on levels determined to be achievable with available technology. The regulation became effective in September of 2012 and required facilities with over 2.0 MGD capacity to meet effluent limits of 1.0 mg/l Phosphorus and 15 mg/l Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN). New systems would have to meet 0.7 mg/l Phosphorus and 7 mg/l TIN. Domestic facilities with < 1.0 mgd capacity are exempted from the regulation but must still monitor their effluent. Likewise, existing systems with <2.0 mgd capacity were given a 10-year deferral from meeting the nutrient standards. The WQCD will use the data collected from the Statewide sampling program to develop a database of nutrient levels in the State. This information will be of use in developing future standards.

DRAFT

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/water-quality-control-commission-regulations

https://data-nfrwqpa.hub.arcgis.com/app/0ac440bd9be24e6ca4131c9d9ec9005b



Regulation No 31 “The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water” will further lower these nutrient limits. The anticipated in-stream Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen values for warm water streams are 0.17 mg/L-phosphorus and 2.01 mg/L-Nitrogen for Regulation No. 31. Additionally, the division will continue to work with stakeholders to administer the voluntary nonpoint source provisions of Regulation #85 over the next ten years. The division also implemented the Voluntary Incentive Program https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/nutrients/nutrients-incentive-program which allows facilities to make nutrient reductions in exchange for an extended compliance schedule. The program also creates certainty regarding the year the facility will need to meet water quality-based effluent limits. The division continues to work with stakeholders regarding the adoption of revised temperature standards in the basin rulemaking hearings for Regulation #31. The division will continue to participate in a statewide temperature technical advisory committee to discuss data collection, future studies, and possible modifications to temperature standards. These modifications possibly include removing shoulder limits with bell curve limits to protect reproductive stages and other sensitive life periods of fish but may uncover where the criteria may be too stringent. Additional studies will be needed to determine if transition zones will require additional limits in individual stream segments. Upon review of the studies, the division may suggest changes to temperature criteria in Regulation #31 during the 2022 hearing based on the work done and all the data compiled in the temperature technical advisory committee and the basin site-specific hearings. These established standards and existing or potential impairments on stream segments become an essential part of the overall planning process for the Association. Entities must identify the stream segment they will be discharging to and the water quality standards and impairments associated with that segment. Through the plan, the Operating Agency not only identifies which segments they will discharge to but how the treatment facilities (both existing and proposed) will provide treatment sufficient to meet these standards or waste load allocations. Agencies should also work with the Division to determine TMDL wasteloads on current or future TMDLs and include those load estimates within Utility Plans. Operating Agencies are also required to consider the potential for more stringent water quality standards in the future and identify potential mechanisms for meeting those requirements.

3.2 NFRWQPA Region Water Quality Assessment Results Summary

Surface water quality standards have been established to be protective of all uses in WQCD’s Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Waterbodies may be assigned any of the five following categories of use classifications: aquatic life, recreation, water supply, wetlands, or agriculture. One goal of the Clean Water Act is that all classified waters of the state fully support "fishable" and "swimmable" use classifications. Each assigned classified use fits into one of the five reporting categories, as illustrated in Figure 3-1.

DRAFT

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/nutrients/nutrients-incentive-program

Figure 3-1 EPA Categories

A total of 2243 river miles and 5491 lake acres were assessed in the NFRWQPA region. For streams and rivers, 706 miles supported all classified uses, and 1,489 miles are impaired, requiring the development of a TMDL. Waterbody segments can change from year to year due to revisions of the 305(b) report. Table 3-2 presents the category summary for rivers and streams within the NFRWQPA region.

DRAFT

For the region’s lakes, 5491 acres were found impaired, requiring the development of a TMDL. Table 3-3 presents the category summary for lakes and reservoirs for the NFRWQPA 208 region.

3.3 South Platte River Basin Assessment Results Summary

A total of 97 river miles and 2304 lake acres were assessed. 72 miles were found to be impaired, requiring the development of a TMDL. Table 3-4 presents the category summary for rivers and streams of the South Platte River basin.

Table 3-1 NFRWQPA 208 Region rivers and streams category summary

Category Size (Miles) Percentage Number of Units

Category 1 706.3 32 2

Category 2 0 0 0

Category 3a 0 0 0

Category 3b 22.4 1 1

Category 4a 24.9 1 2

Category 4b 0 0 0

Category 4c 0 0 0

Category 5 1488.9 66 45

Table 3-2 NFRWQPA 208 Region lakes and reservoirs category summary

Category Size (Acres) Number of Units

Category 1 0 0 Category 2 0 0

Category 3a 0 0 Category 3b 0 0 Category 4a 0 0 Category 4b 0 0 Category 4c 0 0 Category 5 5490.5 6

DRAFT

For South Platte River basin lakes, 2304 acres were assessed, all were found to be impaired, requiring the development of a TMDL. Table 3-5 presents the category summary for lakes and reservoirs of the South Platte River basin.

3.4 Cache la Poudre River Basin Assessment Results Summary

A total of 1,458 river miles and 1929 lake acres were assessed. 808 miles were found to be impaired, requiring the development of a TMDL. Table 3-6 presents the category summary for rivers and streams of the Cache la Poudre River basin.

Table 3-3 South Platte River basin rivers and streams Category summary

Category Size (Miles) Number of Units Category 1 0 0 Category 2 0 0

Category 3a 0 0 Category 3b 0 0 Category 4a 24.9 2 Category 4b 0 0 Category 4c 0 0 Category 5 72.3 3

Table 3-4 South Platte River basin lakes and reservoirs Category summary

Category Size (Acres) Number of Units Category 1 0 0 Category 2 0 0


DRAFT

For the Cache la Poudre Basin lakes, 1930 acres were assessed, and all were impaired, requiring the development of a TMDL. Table 3-7 presents the category summary for lakes and reservoirs of the Cache la Poudre basin.

3.5 St. Vrain River Basin Assessment Results Summary

A total of 174 river miles were assessed in the St. Vrain River basin. The St. Vrain River basin does not have any listed lakes or reservoirs. 118 miles were found to be impaired, requiring the development of a TMDL. Table 3-8 presents the category summary for rivers and streams for the St. Vrain River basin.

Table 3-5 Cache la Poudre River basin rivers and streams Category summary



Table 3-6 Cache la Poudre River basin lakes and reservoirs category summary



DRAFT

3.6 Big & Little Thompson River Basin Assessment Results Summary

A total of 509 river miles and 1257 lake acres were assessed in the Big and Little Thompson river basin. 486 miles were found to be impaired, requiring the development of a TMDL. Table 3-9 presents the category summary for rivers and streams for the Big and Little Thompson river basin.

A total of 1257 acres were assessed and found to be impaired, requiring the development of a TMDL. Table 3-10 presents the category summary for lakes and reservoirs for the Big Thompson river basin.

Table 3-7 St. Vrain River basin rivers and streams category summary

Category Size (Miles) Number of Units Category 1 55.3 1 Category 2 0 0


Table 3-8 Big and Little Thompson basin rivers and streams category summary


Category 3a 0 0 Category 3b 22.4 1 Category 4a 0 0 Category 4b 0 0 Category 4c 0 0 Category 5 486.1 13

DRAFT

3.7 Big Dry Creek River Basin Assessment Results Summary

A total of 4 river miles were assessed for the Big Dry Creek river basin. The St. Vrain River basin does not have any listed lakes or reservoirs. All 4 miles were found to be impaired, requiring the development of a TMDL. Table 3-11 presents the category summary for rivers and streams for the Big Dry Creek river basin.

3.8 Regional Impairment Summary

The most common causes of impairments in the 2020 listing cycle were compared to the 2018 listing cycle. The most common causes of impairments are arsenic, E. coli, dissolved manganese, temperature, and dissolved copper. No impairments of the agricultural use were reported for the 2020 listing cycle. Impairments, as segments, can change from year to year as water quality standards within regulations are updated, adding or removing parameters. Those common impairments are listed in Table 3-12.

Table 3-9 Big and Little Thompson basin lakes and reservoirs Category summary


Category 3a 0 0 Category 3b 0 0 Category 4a 0 0 Category 4b 0 0 Category 4c 0 0 Category 5 1257 2

Table 3-10 Big Dry Creek basin rivers and streams Category summary


Category 3a 0 0 Category 3b 0 0 Category 4a 0 0 Category 4b 0 0 Category 4c 0 0 Category 5 4 1

DRAFT

Table 3-11 Regional Impairment Summary

NFRWQPA Impairments 2018 2020 2018-EPA IR Category Total % Total %

1 Arsenic Total 23 22% 24 22%

2 Copper Dissolved 8 8% 10 9%

3 Cadmium Dissolved 2 2% 3 3%

4 Selenium Dissolved 3 3% 7 6%

5 Lead Dissolved 3 3% 3 3%

6 Silver Dissolved 4 4% 3 3%

7 Iron Dissolved 2 2% 2 2%

8 Iron Total 1 1% 2 2%

9 Zinc Dissolved 0 1 1%

10 Ammonia 2 2% 1 1%

11 Sulfate 2 2% 1 1%

12 Fish (Mercury) 2 2% 1 1%

13 Mercury Total 0 8 7%

14 Manganese Dissolved 10 10% 8 7%

15 pH 6 6% 5 5%

16 Temperature 9 9% 8 7%

17 Dissolved Oxygen 2 2% 2 2%

18 Macroinvertebrates 7 7% 5 5%

19 E. Coli 17 17% 16 15%

Total 103 100% 110 100%

3.9 Classifications Amortized Assessment Results Summary

Amortizing the data paints a very different picture of water quality and the advances that have been made in the region, rather than defaulting a segment to the lowest obtained classification as required by the EPA. The worst-case scenario. Amortizing the data will allow the watershed to track and trend advancements in water quality. Assessing the region in this manner, 60% of river miles support all classified uses. 72 miles out of the same 2242 miles evaluated in Section 3.2 were found to be impaired, requiring the development of a TMDL. By the standards of the EPA Section 3.2, found 1489 miles impaired defaulted to category 5. Table 3-13 presents the category summary for rivers and streams within the NFRWQPA region amortized.

DRAFT

Table 3-12 NFRWQPA region rivers and streams category summary amortized

Category Size (miles) % Aquatic Life Use

Recreation Agriculture Water Supply

Category-1 6099.5 60 1465.3 1607.6 2242.1 784.5 Category-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Category-3a 32.3 0.3 0 32.3 0 0 Category-3b 501.7 5 127.9 336.9 0 36.9 Category-4a 0 0 0 0 0 0 Category-4b 18.9 0.2 18.9 0 0 0 Category-4c 0 0 0 0 0 0 Category-5 72 1 41.2 30.8 0 0 Not Supported 2035.6 20 542.2 234.5 0 1258.9 Not Assessed 1341 13 294.8 294.8 294.8 456.6 Assessing the region in this manner, 54% of lake and reservoir acres support all classified uses. Whereas 100% for the region's lakes and reservoirs were found to be impaired before, only 38% are not supporting uses by amortizing the data. Regionally, basins should take credit for meeting classified uses as milestones tracking water quality in this manner. Table 3-14 presents the category summary for lakes and reservoirs within the NFRWQPA region amortized. Table 3-13 NFRWQPA region lakes and reservoirs category summary amortized

Category Size (acres) % Aquatic Life Use

Recreation Agriculture Water Supply

Category-1 11941.8 54 0 5490.5 5490.5 960.8 Category-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Category-3a 32.3 0.1 32.3 0 0 0 Category-3b 0 0 0 0 0 0 Category-4a 0 0 0 0 0 0 Category-4b 0 0 0 0 0 0 Category-4c 0 0 0 0 0 0 Category-5 1601.8 7 542.2 234.5 0 1258.9 Not Supported 8418.4 38 294.8 294.8 294.8 456.6 Not Assessed 0 0 0 0 0 0

DRAFT

3.10 Regional Nutrients Assessment Results Summary

Colorado State University’s Center for Comprehensive, optimal and Effective Abatement of Nutrients (CLEAN Center) dashboard can retrieve nutrient loading for both point (WWTPs) and nonpoint sources given a defined region. CLEAN can be accessed here: http://onewatersolutions.com/our-software/tools/nutrient-control/. By utilizing CLEAN the Association can assess each basin nutrient loading and establish sustainable solutions for reductions of nutrient pollution for either point or nonpoint pollution sources. Nonpoint source assessments do not include permitted nonpoint sources such as MS4s or CAFOs, etc. The CLEAN database was also constructed to assess nutrients within the parameters of Regulation No. 85, therefore agencies or discharge permits <1 MGD are not included. The CLEAN regional nutrients assessment establishes 5,907,101 lbs/yr. Nitrogen and 918,959 lbs/yr. Phosphorus between Agriculture, Stormwater, Wastewater facilities, and various background for the entire NFRWQPA region as illustrated in Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3.

Figure 3-2 Total Nitrogen Regional Assessment

Figure 3-3 Total Phosphorus Regional Assessment

DRAFT

http://onewatersolutions.com/our-software/tools/nutrient-control/

3.11 Cache la Poudre River Basin Nutrients Assessment

The Cache la Poudre River basin nutrients assessment illustrates WWTFs are the main contributors for Nitrogen and Phosphorus loadings in the basin as shown in Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5.

Figure 3-4 Cache la Poudre Total Nitrogen Assessment

Figure 3-5 Cache la Poudre Total Phosphorus Assessment

DRAFT

The main Total Nitrogen WWTFs contributors in the Cache la Poudre River basin as show in Figure 3-6 as the City of Greeley at 34.8% or 316,301 lbs/yr. and City of Fort Collins-Drake Facility at 42.8% or 389,123 lbs/yr. The main Total Phosphorus WWTFs contributors in the Cache la Poudre River basin as show in Figure 3-7 as the City of Greeley at 30.6% or 99,450 lbs/yr. and Leprino Foods at 35.1% or 114,160 lbs/yr.

Figure 3-6 Cache la Poudre WWTFs Total Nitrogen

Figure 3-7 Cache la Poudre WWTFs Total Phosphorus

The main Total Nitrogen stormwater contributors in the Cache la Poudre River basin as show in Figure 3-8 are Permitted MS4s at 74.1% or 201,816 lbs/yr. and other unidentified contributors. The main Total Phosphorus stormwater contributors in the Cache la Poudre River basin as show in Figure 3-9 are Permitted MS4s at 75.6% or 23,432 lbs/yr. and other unidentified contributors.

DRAFT

Figure 3-8 Cache la Poudre Stormwater Total Nitrogen

Figure 3-9 Cache la Poudre Stormwater Total Phosphorus

3.12 South Platte River Basin Nutrients Assessment

The South Platte River basin nutrients assessment illustrates WWTFs are the main contributors for Nitrogen and Phosphorus loadings in the basin as shown in Figure 3-10 and Figure 3-11. Metro Wastewater Reclamation District is not included in the analysis of the South Platte as its effluent outfall is located in Adams County.

DRAFT

Figure 3-10 South Platte River Basin Total Nitrogen

Figure 3-11 South Platte River Basin Total Phosphorus

The main Total Nitrogen WWTF contributor in the South Platte River basin as show in Figure 3-12 is the Lone Tree Facility at 72.3% or 195,621 lbs/yr. The main Total Phosphorus WWTFs contributors in the South Platte River basin as show in Figure 3-13 is the Lone Tree Facility at 90.3% or 201,541 lbs/yr.

DRAFT

Figure 3-12 South Platte WWTFs Total Nitrogen

Figure 3-13 South Platte WWTFs Total Phosphorus

The main Total Nitrogen stormwater contributors in the South Platte River basin as show in Figure 3-14 are Permitted MS4s at 26.2% or 31,983 lbs/yr. and other unidentified contributors. The main Total Phosphorus stormwater contributors in the South Platte River basin as show in Figure 3-15 are Permitted MS4s at 28.5% or 3,772 lbs/yr. and other unidentified contributors.

DRAFT

Figure 3-14 South Platte Stormwater Total Nitrogen

Figure 3-15 South Platte Stormwater Total Phosphorus

3.13 Big & Little Thompson River Basin Nutrients Assessment

The Big and Little Thompson River basin nutrients assessment illustrates WWTFs are the main contributors for Nitrogen and Phosphorus loadings in the basin as shown in Figure 3-16 and Figure 3-17.

DRAFT

Figure 3-16 Big & Little Thompson Total Nitrogen

Figure 3-17 Big & Little Thompson Total Phosphorus

The main Total Nitrogen WWTF contributor in the Big and Little Thompson River basin as show in Figure 3-18 is the City of Loveland at 80.5% or 370,921 lbs/yr.; noting the City of Loveland just started a new plant in 2019 so these numbers should decrease dramatically. The main Total Phosphorus WWTFs contributors in the Big and Little Thompson River basin as show in Figure 3-19 is the City of Loveland at 78.8% or 67,355 lbs/yr.; noting the City of Loveland just started a new plant in 2019 so these numbers should decrease dramatically.

DRAFT

Figure 3-18 Big & Little Thompson WWTFs Total Nitrogen

Figure 3-19 Big & Little Thompson WWTFs Total Phosphorus

The main Total Nitrogen stormwater contributors in the Big and Little Thompson River basin as show in Figure 3-20 are Permitted MS4s at 68.8% or 83,910 lbs/yr. and other unidentified contributors. The main Total Phosphorus stormwater contributors in the Big and Little Thomspon River basin as show in Figure 3-21 are Permitted MS4s at 70.3% or 9,797 lbs/yr. and other unidentified contributors.

DRAFT

Figure 3-20 Big & Little Thompson Stormwater Total Nitrogen

Figure 3-21 Big & Little Thompson Stormwater Total Phosphorus

3.14 Saint Vrain River Basin Nutrients Assessment

The Saint Vrain River basin nutrients assessment illustrates background accounts as the main contributor for Nitrogen and WWTFs account as the main contributors for Phosphorus loadings in the basin as shown in Figure 3-22 and Figure 3-23.

DRAFT

Figure 3-22 St. Vrain River Basin Total Nitrogen

Figure 3-23 St. Vrain River Basin Total Phosphorus

The main Total Nitrogen WWTF contributor in the Saint Vrain River basin as show in Figure 3-24 is the St. Vrain Sanitation District at 73.0% or 149,759 lbs/yr. and the City of Erie’s North Reclamation facility at 27.0% or 55,319 lbs/yr.

DRAFT

The main Total Phosphorus WWTFs contributors in the Saint Vrain River basin as show in Figure 3-25 is the St. Vrain Sanitation District at 97.7% or 25,471 lbs/yr and the City of Erie’s North Reclamation facility at 2.1% or 547 lbs/yr.

Figure 3-24 St. Vrain WWTFs Total Nitrogen

Figure 3-25 St. Vrain WWTFs Total Phosphorus

The main Total Nitrogen stormwater contributors in the Saint Vrain River basin as show in Figure 3-26 are Permitted MS4s at 48.6% or 23,399 lbs/yr. and other unidentified contributors.

DRAFT

The main Total Phosphorus stormwater contributors in the Saint Vrain River basin as show in Figure 3-27 are Permitted MS4s at 52.1% or 2,915 lbs/yr. and other unidentified contributors.

Figure 3-26 St. Vrain Stormwater Total Nitrogen

Figure 3-27 St. Vrain Stormwater Total Phosphorus

DRAFT

3.15 Nutrients Assessment Summary

Although initially WWTFs were shown to be major contributors of total nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients the analysis has shown MS4 permitted nutrient contributions are significant. In fact, MS4 permitted discharges for stormwater nonpoint sources were greater than the management/operation agencies within each river basin. Industrial dischargers were also shown to have significant contributions; however, the Association only has oversight over domestic wastewater dischargers. Significant WWTFs identified above have approved Utility Plans with Capital Improvement Projects identified to mitigate nutrients as required by Regulation No. 85 and eventually Regulation No. 31.

3.16 Watershed Rapid Assessment Program (WRAP)

The Watershed Rapid Assessment Program (WRAP) is a summary tool by CSU’s One Water Solutions that extracts, organizes, and analyzes data and information at various watershed scales, including watersheds or other defined areas of interest. Utilizing the extracted data, the WRAP tool calculates a number of watershed health indicators to create an overall summary of the watershed condition including stream flow, water quality, segments, and nonpoint source data. WRAP allows users to conduct a variety of analyses ranging from simple watershed summaries to more complex analyses such as TMDL planning and implementation. WRAP is now required to be included in all Utility Plans. The tool may be accessed here: http://onewatersolutions.com/our-software/tools/colorado/watershed-assessment/.

DRAFT

http://onewatersolutions.com/our-software/tools/colorado/watershed-assessment/

Agency Regional Financial Summary

The technical and economic feasibility of implementing permit regulation standards and future standards, such as Regulation No. 85, and eventually Regulation No. 31, followed by TENORM and PFAS, all come at a cost. Below is a summary of expenses documented with agency Utility Plans for ten years. Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) may be self-funded, funded by Grants, or State Revolving Loans, and or a combination thereof.

4.1 NFRWQPA Agency Capital Improvement Projects Financial Summary

CIP costs can include plant upgrades, collection system upgrades, including lift stations and interceptors, and nonpoint source projects included in agency Utility Plans. CIPs also result from new regulations and new water quality-based limits within current regulatory standards. The region agencies are investing heavily in improving water quality to meet water quality standards, investing $879,390,371 over ten years, nearly 1 Billion dollars. Noting annually the average cost of CIP increases overtime. Table 4-1 illustrates the summary of CIP costs. Table 4-1 Regional CIP Summary

All Capital Improvement Projects may be viewed in Agency Utility Plans at: https://nfrwqpa.stg.colorado.gov/approved-utility-plans

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Ault $ - $ - $ - $ 3,000,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Berthoud Estates $ - $ 1,065,600.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Berthoud $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,265,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Boxelder $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $32,000,000.00 $ - $ - CSU Mtn. Campus $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,500,000.00 $ - Eaton $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Eden Valley Inst. $ - $ - $ 478,346.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Erie $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Estes Park S.D. $ - $ 1,970,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 975,000.00 $ - $ - Evans $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 33,202,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Ft. Collins $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 24,933,605.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Ft. Lupton $ - $ - $ - $ 5,040,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fox Acres $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 610,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Galeton $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $1,139,612.00 $ - $ - $ - Greeley $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 195,476,000.00 Grover $ - $ 1,038,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Hudson $ - $ 6,350,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Johnstown $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Keenesburg $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,310,000.00 $ - $ - Loveland $ - $ 4,840,560.00 $4,579,380.00 $ 3,449,410.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Mead $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Metro WW District $ - $ - $ - $ - $473,000,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Milliken $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Northglenn $ - $ 754,201.00 $ 703,000.00 $ 1,080,000.00 $ 2,933,500.00 $ 4,398,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - Platteville $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,531,200.00 Prairie RE-11 $ - $ 60,100.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Saddler Ridge M.D. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Salvation Army-H.P. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - St. Vrain San. Dist. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,354,500.00 $ 9,800,000.00 Severance/Saddler R. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - S. Ft. Collins S.D. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $38,300,000.00 $ - Sunrise Ranch $ - $ - $ - $ 727,962.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Upper Thompson S.D. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Wellington $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Windsor $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,024,895.00 $ 1,500,000.00 Annual Total $ - $ 15,012,861.00 $5,760,726.00 $ 19,362,972.00 $539,944,105.00 $ 4,398,500.00 $1,139,612.00 $34,285,000.00 $47,179,395.00 $ 212,307,200.00 Average $ 857,877.77 $ 329,184.34 $ 1,075,720.67 $ 29,996,894.72 $ 244,361.11 $ 63,311.78 $ 1,904,722.22 $ 2,621,077.50 $ 11,794,844.44 Average % Increase 5253%Total $ 879,390,371.00

DRAFT



4.2 NFRWQPA Agency Site Location & Design Applications Projects Financial Summary

All CIP projects essentially turn into Site Location and Design Applications for agencies, again including projects for plant upgrades, collection system upgrades, including lift stations and interceptors. Site Application project costs are pushing $220M within the last five years and ever-increasing from year to year. The following Table 4-2 summarizes those Site Applications. Table 4-2 Site Location and Design Application Summary

All Site Application may be viewed online at: https://nfrwqpa.stg.colorado.gov/approved-site-applications-agency

4.3 NFRWQPA Agency User Rates Summary

For agencies to be able to afford those CIP and Site Application projects as a result of new standards and regulations, agency user rates increase over time. Below is a summary of the increase of user rates documented with agency Utility Plans overtime. Affordable utilities are an essential aspect of a 208-planning concerning the region's social-economic feasibility to provide sewer services. User Rates have increased over the last ten years, 6.6% on average. Table 4-3 illustrates the summary of User Rates the association was able to document.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 ReasonAultBerthoud EstatesBerthoud $ 4,500,000.00 $ - New Facility Boxelder $ 4,250,000.00 Expansion/Lift Station City & Cty Broomfield $13,800,000.00 Interceptor CSU Mtn. Campus $ 4,300,000.00 Upgrades EatonEden Valley Inst. ErieEstes Park S.D.Evans $ 7,401,000.00 $ - Lift Station/Interceptor Ft. CollinsFt. Lupton $ 25,000,000.00 Expansion Fox AcresGaleton $ 1,139,612.00 Upgrades Gilcrest $ 1,191,000.00 Upgrades Greeley $27,600,000.00 Reg 85/31 GroverHudsonJohnstown $ 395,000.00 Upgrades Keenesburg $ 1,200,000.00 Interceptor Loveland $ 10,000,000.00 $12,000,000.00 Reg 85/31 Mead $ 370,000.00 Lift Station Metro WW DistrictMilliken $ 286,000.00 Interceptor Northglenn $ 23,700,000.00 Lift Station/Interceptor PlattevillePrairie RE-11Saddler Ridge M.D.Salvation Army-H.P. $ 2,700,000.00 Reg 85/31 St. Vrain San. Dist. $28,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 Upgrades/Interceptor Severance/Saddler R. $ 150,000.00 Upgrades/Interceptor Severance Shores $ 250,000.00 Lift Station Shambhala Mtn. Ctr. S. Ft. Collins S.D. $ 38,600,000.00 Expansion/Lift Station Sunrise RanchUpper Thompson S.D.WellingtonWindsor $ 9,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 Lift Station/Interceptor Annual Total $ 23,342,000.00 $ 286,000.00 $26,939,612.00 $ 54,700,000.00 $61,470,000.00 $ 53,095,000.00 Average $ 7,780,666.67 $ 286,000.00 $13,469,806.00 $ 18,233,333.33 $20,490,000.00 $ 13,273,750.00 Average % Increase 1177%Total $ 219,832,612.00

DRAFT

https://nfrwqpa.stg.colorado.gov/approved-site-applications-agency

Table 4-3 Regional User Rates Summary

4.4 NFRWQPA Agency Plant Investment Fees Summary

Along with User Rates, agencies generate revenue by Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) generated from new sewer taps. Below is a summary of the increase of PIFs documented with agency Utility Plans for over ten years. PIFs have increased over the last ten years 2.1% on average. Table 4-4 illustrates the summary of plant investment fees the association was able to document.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 RateAult $ 39.50 $ 40.49 $ 41.50 $ 42.54 $ 43.60 2.1%Berthoud Estates $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 40.00 $ 43.00 $ 45.00 $ 46.00 $ 48.00 $ 49.00 9.6%Berthoud $ 27.06 $ 27.06 $ 27.06 $ 27.06 $ 27.06 $ 27.06 $ 27.06 0.0%Boxelder $ 55.00 $ 56.00 0.9%CSU Mtn. CampusEaton $ 14.00 $ 14.00 $ 22.00 $ 22.00 $ 22.00 $ 22.00 $ 22.00 $ 22.00 $ 22.00 $ 22.00 5.7%Eden Valley Inst. Erie $ 65.00 $ 65.00 $ 65.00 $ 65.00 $ 65.00 $ 65.00 $ 65.00 $ 65.00 $ 65.00 $ 65.00 0.0%Estes Park S.D. $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.40 $ 16.81 $ 17.23 $ 17.66 $ 18.10 $ 18.56 $ 19.02 $ 19.49 2.2%Evans $ 10.75 $ 10.75 $ 11.15 $ 15.73 $ 15.73 $ 21.23 $ 35.67 $ 37.66 $ 38.41 $ 39.18 26.4%Ft. Collins $ 24.54 $ 24.54 $ 42.20 24.0%Ft. Lupton $ 33.34 $ 33.34 $ 33.34 $ 33.34 $ 33.34 $ 33.34 $ 33.34 $ 33.34 $ 33.34 $ 33.34 0.0%Fox Acres $ 33.33 $ 33.33 $ 33.33 $ 33.33 $ 33.33 $ 33.33 $ 33.33 $ 33.33 $ 33.33 $ 33.33 0.0%Galeton $ 34.00 $ 34.00 $ 34.00 $ 34.00 $ 34.00 $ 34.00 $ 34.00 $115.00 $115.00 $115.00 23.8%Greeley $ 11.55 $ 11.55 $ 11.55 $ 11.55 $ 11.55 $ 11.55 $ 11.55 $ 11.55 $ 11.55 $ 11.55 0.0%Grover $ 19.80 $ 19.80 $ 19.80 $ 19.80 $ 19.80 $ 19.80 $ 19.80 $ 19.80 $ 19.80 $ 19.80 0.0%Hudson $ 19.25 $ 19.25 $ 19.25 $ 19.25 $ 19.25 $ 19.25 $ 19.25 $ 19.25 $ 19.25 $ 19.25 0.0%Johnstown $ 18.50 $ 18.50 $ 18.50 $ 18.50 $ 18.50 $ 25.95 $ 25.95 $ 25.95 $ 25.95 $ 25.95 4.0%Keenesburg $ 33.00 $ 33.00 $ 33.00 0.0%Loveland $ 32.67 0.0%Mead $ 38.74 0.0%Metro WW DistrictMilliken $ 33.00 $ 33.99 $ 35.01 $ 36.06 $ 37.14 $ 38.26 2.7%Northglenn $ 10.68 $ 10.68 $ 10.68 $ 10.68 $ 10.68 $ 10.68 $ 10.68 $ 10.68 $ 10.68 $ 10.68 0.0%Platteville $ 37.00 $ 57.00 $ 65.00 25.2%Prairie RE-11 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Saddler Ridge M.D.Salvation Army-H.P. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - St. Vrain San. Dist. $ 30.00 $ 32.00 3.3%Severance/Saddler R.S. Ft. Collins S.D. $ 20.00 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 0.0%Sunrise Ranch $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Upper Thompson S.D. $ 48.58 0.0%Wellington $ 17.81 $ 18.81 $ 19.81 $ 20.81 $ 21.81 $ 22.81 $ 23.81 $ 24.81 4.9%Windsor $ 19.00 $ 19.00 0.0%Average $ 19.76 $ 19.76 $ 19.88 $ 21.52 $ 22.89 $ 23.82 $ 24.77 $ 30.53 $ 30.57 $ 32.77 6.6%

DRAFT

Table 4-4 Regional Plant Investment Fees Summary

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 RateAult $ 5,500.00 $ 5,638.00 $ 5,778.00 $ 5,923.00 $ 6,071.00 2.1%Berthoud Estates $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Berthoud $ 6,255.00 $ 6,255.00 $ 6,255.00 $ 6,255.00 $ 6,255.00 $ 6,255.00 $ 6,255.00 0.0%Boxelder $12,000.00 $12,360.00 $ 12,730.80 2.0%CSU Mtn. Campus $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Eaton $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 0.0%Eden Valley Inst. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Erie $ 4,290.00 $ 4,290.00 $ 4,290.00 $ 4,290.00 $ 4,290.00 $ 4,290.00 $ 4,290.00 $ 4,290.00 $ 4,290.00 $ 4,290.00 0.0%Estes Park S.D. $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 0.0%Evans $ 3,636.50 $ 3,636.50 $ 3,636.50 $ 3,636.50 $ 3,636.50 $ 3,636.50 $ 3,636.50 $ 3,636.50 $ 3,636.50 $ 3,636.50 0.0%Ft. CollinsFt. Lupton $ 3,041.00 $ 3,041.00 $ 3,041.00 $ 3,041.00 $ 3,041.00 $ 3,041.00 $ 3,041.00 $ 3,041.00 $ 3,041.00 $ 3,041.00 0.0%Fox Acres $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 0.0%Galeton $ 4,658.00 $ 4,665.00 $ 4,672.00 $ 4,678.00 $ 4,685.00 $ 4,692.00 0.1%Greeley $ 2,850.00 $ 2,850.00 0.0%Grover $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 0.0%Hudson $ 2,580.17 $ 2,580.17 $ 2,580.17 0.0%Johnstown $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 0.0%Keenesburg $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500.00 0.0%Loveland $ 2,880.00 0.0%Mead $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 0.0%Metro WW DistrictMillikenNorthglennPlattevillePrairie RE-11 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Saddler Ridge M.D. $ 6,716.00 $ 6,716.00 0.0%Salvation Army-H.P. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - St. Vrain San. Dist. $ 5,650.00 $ 5,650.00 0.0%Severance/Saddler R. $13,306.00 $13,306.00 $ 13,306.00 $ 13,306.00 $13,306.00 $13,306.00 $ 13,306.00 $13,306.00 $13,306.00 $ 13,306.00 0.0%S. Ft. Collins S.D. $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 0.0%Sunrise Ranch $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Upper Thompson S.D.Wellington $ 5,200.00 $ 5,200.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 4.4%Windsor $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 0.0%Average Increase $ 3,434.48 $ 3,434.48 $ 3,382.82 $ 3,620.40 $ 3,673.84 $ 3,680.52 $ 3,687.43 $ 4,094.31 $ 4,044.37 $ 4,015.24 2.1%DRAFT

Chapter 5 RIVER BASIN POPULATION AND LOADING PROJECTIONS

Regionally 208 planning considers population projections and relates them to each basin’s wastewater design capacity while tracking current loadings. The next sections illustrate the region’s population projections, flow design capacity, loading, as well as planned expansions and loadings. Figure 5-1 shows the NFRWQPA’s region projections. Region projections show the area is adequately preparing for the expected population over the next 20-year planning period. The regions’ agencies have adequate wastewater design and loading capacity for the predicted population and resulting flow and organic loadings from expected urban development.

Figure 5-1NFRWQPA Regional Planning Projections

5.1 CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER BASIN

The Cache la Poudre River drains a significant portion of northern Larimer County and the northwest portion of Weld County. Municipal discharges in the basin include Ault, Eaton, Ft. Collins, Fox Acres, Greeley, Severance, Wellington, Windsor, Boxelder Sanitation District, and South Ft. Collins Sanitation District. The Cache la Poudre River Basin map following this section highlights the basin and identifies the wastewater treatment facilities (WWTF) located within it. Table 5-1 also lists the agencies with Cache la Poudre River basin. Some agencies with the basin have static population and loadings and are not included in the predictions. Figure 5-2 shows the Cache la Poudre River basin planning projections. Cache la Poudre River basin projections show the area is adequately preparing for the expected population over the next 20-year planning period. The Cache la Poudre basin agencies have adequate wastewater design and loading capacity for the predicted population and resulting flow and organic loadings.

DRAFT

Figure 5-2 Cache la Poudre Planning Projections

Table 5-1 Cache la Poudre River Basin Agencies

Cache la Poudre River Basin Agencies Ault, Town of South Fort Collins Sanitation District Fort Lupton, Town of Timnath, Town of Boxelder Sanitation District Wellington, Town of Eaton, Town of Windsor, Town of Fort Collins, City of Abbey of St. Walburga Greeley, City of Ben Delatour Boy Scout Ranch Severance, Town of Buckhorn United Methodist Camp Crystal Lakes Water & Sewer Association Davies Mobile Home Park Fox Acres Glacier View Meadows Laramie River Guest Ranch High County Estates Pine Lake Village CSU Mountain Campus Shambhala Mountain Center Magic Sky Ranch Lutheran Camp INDUSTRIAL In-Bev-Anheuser-Busch Carestream Colorado Parks and Wildlife-Bellvue Hatchery Colorado Parks and Wildlife-Poudre Hatchery Colorado Parks and Wildlife-Watson Hatchery Front Range Energy Leprino Foods

All Agency Point Source Data Sheets may be viewed online at: https://nfrwqpa.stg.colorado.gov/agency-point-source-data-inventory

DRAFT

https://nfrwqpa.stg.colorado.gov/agency-point-source-data-inventory


Figure 5-3 CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER BASIN

DRAFT

5.2 BIG & LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER BASIN

The headwaters of the Big Thompson River are in Rocky Mountain National Park between the Town of Estes Park and the Continental Divide. After leaving the Big Thompson Canyon, the river flows by Loveland, Johnstown, and Milliken before joining into the South Platte River near La Salle. The Little Thompson River, a major tributary, converges with the Big Thompson at Milliken. Municipal discharges in the basin include Estes Park and Upper Thompson Sanitation Districts, Loveland, Johnstown, and Milliken to the Big Thompson River, as well as Berthoud and Johnstown to the Little Thompson River.

Figure 5-4 Big & Little Thompson Planning Projections

The Big and Little Thompson River Basin map following this section highlights the basins and identifies the wastewater treatment facilities located within them. Figure 5-4 shows the Big and Little Thompson River basin planning projections. Big and Little Thompson River basin projections show the area is undersized for hydraulic capacity, but adequality sized for organic capacity for the population projections. Table 5-2 lists the agencies within the Big and Little Thompson River basin. Some agencies within the river basin have static population and loadings and are not included in the projections.

DRAFT

Table 5-2 Big & Little Thompson River Basin Agencies

Big & Little Thompson River Basin Agencies Berthoud, Town of Berthoud Estates Estes Park Sanitation District Johnstown, Town of Loveland, City of Milliken, Town of Upper Thompson Sanitation District Bonnell West Homeowners Association Best Western Coach House Inn Hidden View Estates Eden Valley Institute Sunrise Ranch – Emissaries of Devine Light Yogi Bear’s Jellystone Park Annunciation Heights Camp & Retreat Center


DRAFT



Figure 5-5 BIG & LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER BASIN

DRAFT

5.3 ST. VRAIN RIVER BASIN

The portion of the St. Vrain River Basin, which lies within Weld County, is in the NFRWQPA planning area. The entities in this basin have service area boundaries that are in close proximity to each other. Consolidation or regionalization of services should be considered when expanded services or treatment is planned. The St. Vrain River basin projections show the area is adequately preparing for the expected population over the next 20-year planning period.

Figure 5-6 St. Vrain River Basin Planning Projections

The St. Vrain River basin agencies have adequate wastewater design and loading capacity for the predicted population and resulting flow and organic loadings. The St. Vrain River Basin map following this section highlights the basin and identifies the wastewater treatment facilities located within it. Figure 5-6 shows the St. Vrain River basin planning projections, and Table 5-3 list the agencies within the basin. Table 5-3 St. Vrain River Basin Agencies

St. Vrain River Basin Agencies Erie, Town of Longmont, City of Mead, Town of St. Vrain Sanitation District Dao House B & B Mobile Home & RV Park


DRAFT



Figure 5-7 ST. VRAIN RIVER BASIN

DRAFT

5.4 SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN

The South Platte River is the major drainage through Weld County, entering from the south and flowing into Morgan County on the east. In addition to the Cache la Poudre River, Big Thompson River, and St. Vrain Creek, its other significant tributaries are Big Dry Creek, Crow Creek, and Lone Tree Creek. Municipal dischargers in this lowest basin of the region include Ft. Lupton, Gilcrest, Hudson, Lochbuie, Platteville, La Salle, Evans, Pierce, Kersey, Keenesburg, and Grover. South Platte River basin projections show the area is undersized for hydraulic capacity for a period of time, but adequality sized for organic capacity for the population projections throughout the planning period. Figure 5-8 shows the South Platte River basin planning projections, and Table 5-4 list the agencies within the basin. Some agencies within the river basin have static population and loadings and are not included in the projections.

Figure 5-8 South Platte River Basin Planning Projections

Table 5-4 South Platte River Basin Agencies

South Platte River Basin Agencies Brighton, City of Evans, City of Fort Lupton, Town of Gilcrest, Town of Hudson, Town of Keenesburg, Town of Kersey, Town of La Salle, Town of Lochbuie, Town of Metro Wastewater Reclamation District Pierce, Town of Platteville, Town of Resource Colorado Water & Sanitation Metro District Galeton Water and Sanitation District Grover, Town of Hemingway Lodge at Eagles Nest Prairie School District New Vision Mobile Home Community


DRAFT



Figure 5-9 SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN

DRAFT

5.5 BIG DRY CREEK RIVER BASIN

Big Dry Creek flows north from the Broomfield area into Weld County and into the South Platte River just south of Ft. Lupton. The only municipal treatment plant in the Weld County portion of this basin is that of Northglenn. The South Platte River / Big Dry Creek Basin map following this section highlights both basins and identifies the wastewater treatment facilities located within each. Given that, a very small portion of the Big Dry Creek River basin resides within the NFRWQPA 208 planning area projections were not constructed. Table 5-5 Big Dry Creek River Basin Agencies

Big Dry Creek River Basin Agencies City and County of Broomfield Northglenn, City of Portions of: St. Vrain Sanitation District Fort Lupton, City of


DRAFT



Figure 5-10 BIG DRY CREEK BASIN

DRAFT

Section 208 Planning Requirements

The WQCD of CDPHE, under the authority of federal and Colorado statutes, administers state programs implementing two major federal statutes: The Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Federal Clean Water Act activities protect the quality of Colorado’s ambient water bodies – its rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, and groundwaters. To assist agencies, the division created A Guide to Colorado Programs for Water Quality Management and Safe Drinking Water (Guide) to describe how the objectives of these related. Still, separate statutes are implemented in Colorado. Also, the Guide is intended to help satisfy the requirements in Section 303(e) of the federal Clean Water Act—that Colorado is to maintain a water quality “continuing planning process.” Section 208 of the federal Clean Water Act provides that the governor of a state must identify areas of the state which, as a result of urban or industrial concentration or other significant factors, have substantial water quality problems. Section 208 requires the preparation of “areawide waste treatment management plans,” which are now more commonly referred to as “regional areawide water quality management plans.” For the plans to remain useful, it is necessary that specific plan components be amended periodically. Amendments to plans recommended by planning agencies must be made per the Federal Clean Water Act and the Colorado Water Quality Control Act. The regional water-quality management plan elements that need to be kept current through updates and amendments are as follows in Table 6-1. The table also includes the action NFRWQPA takes or intends to take to fulfill the requirement. Table 6-1 WQCD Policy 98-2 Section 208 Planning Requirements

Regional Planning Elements That Need to Be Kept Current

Elements Updated

The identification of treatment works necessary to meet the anticipated municipal and industrial waste treatment needs of the area over a twenty-year period,

Management & Operation Agencies Data Inventory Sheets

necessary wastewater collection and urban stormwater runoff systems,

Utility Plans, & Capital Improvement Projects

necessary financial arrangements,


land acquisition needs, and recreational use considerations associated with these treatment works;


The establishment of construction priorities for such treatment works and time schedules for the initiation and completion of all treatment works;

Utility Plans-Capital Improvement Projects, & Management & Operation Agencies Data Inventory Sheets

The identification of regulatory programs to manage waste treatment, including applicable pretreatment requirements and the location, modification, and construction of any facilities that may result in any discharge in an area;


The identification of those agencies necessary to construct, operate, and maintain all facilities required by the plan and otherwise to carry out the plan;

Management & Operation Agencies

The identification of the measures those agencies deem necessary to carry out the plan, the period of time necessary to carry out the plan, and the costs of carrying out the plan within such time;


DRAFT

Processes to identify nonpoint source pollution (including from agricultural, silvicultural and unregulated mining activities), control the disposition of all residual waste generated in an area which could affect water quality and control the disposal of pollutants on land or in subsurface excavations within an area to protect ground and surface water quality.

eRAMS incorporated into Utility Plans, & nonpoint source river basin data

DRAFT

NFRWQPA 208 AWQMP RECOMENDATIONS

7.1 Issue Identification

Present information on watershed management and health issues in the basin; and provide a forum for people to voice their concerns over water issues directly to the membership. The issues identified then form the basis for the goals in the 208 AWQMP.

7.2 Gather and Transfer Information

Through the mechanisms of Utility Plans and the 208 AWQMP, membership may gather the necessary information to assess issues identified. Utility Plans rely on a variety of experts and individuals involved in water management, as outlined in the Utility Plan Guidance document and the 208 AWQMP. Adaptive management strategies, action plans, and decision matrices vary and are highly scientific day-to-day practical water management and decision-making trees. Association membership also can ask questions of the experts and explore topics related to the projects being proposed for consideration. This transfer of technical, scientific, and policy information provides a foundation for the Association’s recommendations in the site location approval process.

7.3 Agency Utility Plan Development

To initiate the process of approving recommendations proposed in Utility Plans that are adopted into the 208 AWQMP, the Association provides a framework to the membership for considering alternatives for recommendations; NFRWQPA identified a set of criteria to screen options: ■ Is it technically feasible? ■ Is it financially feasible? ■ Is public support documented? ■ Is it constructible? ■ Does the management agency have the approval to implement? ■ Does the management agency have regional support from local referral agencies? ■ Is it following the Site Location and Design approval process of Regulation No. 22? The Utility Plan Guidance Document was updated in 2019 to include assessments of nonpoint sources and recommend BMPs as actions for membership agencies. Utility Plans now also require CSU’s WRAP tool to be included as an assessment of an agency’s watershed health. The most current Utility Plan Guidance Document can be found online at: https://nfrwqpa.stg.colorado.gov/utility-plan-guidance.

7.4 208 AWQMP Recommendations Development

Maintaining and restoring the water quality uses at a basin and segment level can be accomplished at a local level within the NFRWQPA membership. NFRWQPA can manage water quality problems at the regional watershed level with stakeholder education and decisions that are long-term and economically feasible. By using scientific-based models to support decisions that maintain and restore the watershed basins and segment protective uses locally, NFRWQPA can maintain if not improve the local quality of life. Using Utility Plans supporting information and data wastewater treatment plant and utility service area(s), long-term planning can be a local collaborative process at the local level. Modeling new or treatment facility amendments in the region will guide the association and management agencies in identifying the best treatment options for a geographical area. As the NFRWQPA region populates and develops, wastewater treatment plants’ load increases. At the same time, the facilities' applicable effluent standards remain constant for some parameters, whereas other parameter limits decrease, and still, new parameters can present challenges. As local and new household water-saving measures are implemented, and wastewater treatment technology improves, facilities are experiencing flat-lined hydraulic loads with increasing organic loads. Constant hydraulic loads with increasing organic loads may produce the same amount of effluent discharge. However, the water quality of the effluent may

DRAFT

https://nfrwqpa.stg.colorado.gov/utility-plan-guidance

be degrading due to the organic load increase. These types of problems will require periodic regional evaluations of wastewater facilities to determine long-term planning solutions. Modeling consolidation of service areas and facilities gives the association as well as the management and operation agencies the ability to make educated decisions based on accepted science practices.

Local planning department decisions should make decisions on future development, knowing the effects of growth and development beyond the 20-year planning horizon can have on water quality and, ultimately, the quality of life. Planning departments and commissions should collaborate regionally to protect nonpoint water quality uses, rather than focus on the local economy based on future development forecasts ensuring to maintain if not improve the quality of life locally. Being able to construct stormwater BMPs during development rather than after the fact that a water quality problem exists is key.

7.5 208 AWQMP Recommendations and Actions

NFRWQPA recommends the following actions as responsibilities of the association and management / operating agencies of the association.

1. Model the assimilative capacity of water quality-based standards and classifications of water bodies.

2. Calculate the percentage of water quality classified uses and beneficial uses

attaining standards for each basin.

3. Construct graphs presenting water quality classified use trends over time.

4. Construct models presenting current wasteload allocations.

5. Construct models of nonpoint source pollution and best management practices recommendations.

6. Using model information and data, to recommend wastewater treatment

works and service area consolidation through the 20-year planning horizon, and beyond (20-50 years).

To foster actions of the CWP, the EPA, and WQCD Policy 98-2 planning requirements, NFRWQPA developed three priorities and respective measurable outcomes.

1. Continue as the South Platte River Basin’s 208 Planning Agency. a. Further, develop the success of Utility Plans implemented in the past several

years. b. Encourage more BMPs for nonpoint source pollution in service areas as

guidelines for land use management agencies. c. Enhance the transfer of information for membership to measure water quality

effects.

2. Enhance the Association’s 208 AWQMP to demonstrate the watersheds water quality value. a. Watershed Classifications Segment Assessments b. River Basin Classifications Segment Assessments c. Maintaining, enhancing, or managing the water quality for all use classifications d. Watershed flow and load Assessments

DRAFT

3. Develop more partnerships for collaboration, transfer of information, and construction funding. a. Watershed and River Associations b. Wastewater Associations c. Stormwater Associations d. Water Associations e. Conservatory and Conservation Districts f. Nonprofit Environmental Foundations and Organizations g. Educational Organizations h. Government Organizations i. State Agencies j. Green Industry k. Construction Industry l. Roundtables

7.5 208 Plan Summary

Within this Master Plan are guiding principles for NFRWQPA operations provided by the Colorado Water Plan, the Colorado Water Quality Control Act 208 Section requirements, and the EPA’s nine elements for nonpoint source watershed plans. NFRWQPA can fulfill its South Platte watershed Section 208 planning responsibilities, within Weld and Larimer counties, by performing the actions listed within this Master Plan. Activities within the Master Plan converge to protect, maintain, or restore water quality in the NFRWQPA region through thoughtful land-use management planning concerning both point and nonpoint sources that degrade water quality and quantity. Thoughtful land-use management planning is provided by membership Utility Plans that consider both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The information gathered in membership Utility Plans is then transferred into the Association’s 208 AWQMP as recommendations for local land-use management planning. The 208 AWQMP then becomes a resource for the entire region to manage the effects of urbanization concerning water quality and quantity.

DRAFT

Works Cited

(2015). Colorado's Water Plan. Denver.

CWQCD. (2018). A Guide to Colorado Programs for Water Quality Management and Safe Drinking Water. Denver: CWQCC.

EPA. (2012). The Economic Benefits of Protecting Healthy Watersheds. EPA.

EPA. (2016). Integrating Watershed Assessment and Protection across EPA. Washington: EPA.

WQCD. (2018). 2018 Intergrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Colorado Water Quality Control Division.

DRAFT

for larimer and weld county (region 2) (tbd) the update … · 2020. 4. 20. · 208 areawide water...

Documents