Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8 - Update on the Water Quality Strategic Plan CITY OF BOLILDER WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: January 12, 2009 AGENDA TITLE: Update and feedback on the Water Quality Strategic Plan PRESENTERS: Necl Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality Coordinator Donna Scott, Stormwater Quality Specialist EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Water Quality Strategic Plan (WQSP) is being developed by Utilities staff in coordination with the Planning departments.. The purpose of the WQSP is to define the city's goals for water quality and develop strategies to achieve these goals. The WQSP will be implemented by the Water Quality and Environmental Services (WQES} Group, within the Utilities Division. This memo provides an overview of the draft WQSP and responds to comments received from WRAB members during the meeting on July 21, 2048. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS: Economic: Implementation of the WQSP includes updating relevant city master plans and city policies to incorporate water quality goals outlined in the plan to protect environmental and public health. It is unknown at this time what impact this may have on the business community. Environmental: The WQSP outlines existing city of Boulder water quality programs and outlines analysis to incorporate water quality goals into other city planning and policy documents for long-term water quality protection and enhancement. These efforts should offer environmental benefits from improved water quality. The WQSP also supports the intent of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and its current recommendation to develop a Water Quality Social:_ The WQSP offers social benefits to the community through improved water quality and protection of public and environmental health, which provide improved quality of life. OTHER IMPACTS: Fiscal: The t~'QSP was evaluated based on three funding levels -Fiscally Constrained, Action, and Vision. The most significant challenge the WQES Group faces in implementing the WQSP is anticipating and preparing for new water quality regulations. This strategic plan identifies funding shortages in the group's Fiscally Constrained Plan and identifies strategies in the Action AGENDA ITEM # 8 PAGE 1 Plan that are needed to meet this challenge. The Action Plan im~estment program would include a $50,000 one-time budget request, and an adjustment to base of $57,000. The Action Plan also identifies an additional 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff member OTHER BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK: A WQSP update was provided to the tVRAB at the July 21, 2008 meeting. An overview of the new structure and status of the WQSP were discussed with WRAB members and feedback was solicited. WRAB generally approved of the new approach and water quality goals presented. Some minor comments and questions from WRAB members included: clarify how water conservation relates to water quality; and, change the wording in the goals from "control" to "manage", These comments and questions have been addressed and are represented in the revised, current version of the WASP. PUBLIC' FEEDBACK: None to date. Future public process will include WRAB meetings and possible City Council meetings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is looking for WRAB feedback on the draft WQSP. The next step is for staff to present a final draft to WRAB, tentatively scheduled for March, 2009. ANALYSIS: Purpose of the ~~'ater Quality Strategic Plan The Water Quality Strategic Plan (WQSP) is the first comprehensive planning effort to address water quality policies and priorities for the city of Boulder. The purpose of the WQSP is to develop clear and concise water quality goals, develop strategies and performance measures to achieve these goals and provide a process to address current and future water quality challenges. The WQSP is an on-going plan with afive-year update. The objective of the plan is to: • Clearly defining the city's water quality goals • Coordinating water quality-related planning and program services • Creating a way to assess success in meeting water quality goals • Providing a framework to effectively manage water quality programs • Anticipating and planning for new and increasingly complex water quality regulations and issues • Performance measures? The t~'QSP supports many of the principals and policies of the Boulder V alley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). This strategic plan is designed to fit within the broader framework of the BVCP, which provides the overall policy direction for planning decisions within the Boulder Valley. AGENDA ITEM # 8 PAGE 2 The BVCP also outlines the city's communitywide goals and provides a general statement on the community's desires for dej~elopment and preservation in the Boulder Valley, including protection of water resources. Water Quality Goals The city of Boulder is committed to profecfing water qualify far public drinking water supplies, for protection of aquatic and other wildlife, and for aesthetic and recreational use within the Boulder Creek Watershed. (BoulderVa!!ey Comprehensive Ptan 2006) The first step in developing water quality goals for the city was to complete a comprehensive inventory of existing water quality goal statements found in the city's master plans, policies, and regulations, starting with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. WRAB reviewed the inventory in July 2007. From this exercise, five goal statements were developed and include: WATER QUALITY GOALS 1. Provide safe and high quality drit~kuig water. 2. Manage pollutants from waste~z~ater and other point-sources. 3. Manage pollutants from stormwater and other non-point sources. 4. Pzotect, preserve and restore natural water systems. 5. Conserve water resources. Meeting these five water quality goals will provide water quality protection, which means clean water to drink, clean streams and lakes to swim in, and healthy waterways that support fish and other wildlife. Recommendations The recommendations developed for the WQSP are based primarily on the objective of adopting city-wide water quality goals, and integrating these goals into planning and policy instruments. In addition, the recommendations address strategies to meet an unprecedented number of new or proposed federal and state water quality regulations. Recommendation 1: Adopt the strategic plan's water quality goals into the Boulder F~alley CampreT~ensive Plan. WQSP «~ater quality protection goals will be adopted by the city and incorporated into the BVCP 2010 update, which determines policy for city and county planning decisions. Recommendation 2: Incorporate water quality goals into citywide planning efforts and city regulations, policies, and procedures. The WQES Group will be responsible for reviewing relevant planning and policy documents, such as master plans, design and construction standards, and the Boulder Revised Code, to ensure that the city complies with all state and federal laws and regulations on water quality and environmental protection Recommendation 3: Develop annual work plans and water quality reports. AGENDA ITEM # 8 PAGE 3 Each year the WQES Group will develop work plans which will identify and outline priorities related to the city's water quality goals. At the end of the year an annual report will document monitoring results, community involvement activities, watershed management efforts, and regulatory compliance. Annual work plans and reports will be developed for each of WQES's eight programs (i.e. Stormwater Quality, Water Quality Education, t~'ater Conservation Industrial Pretreatment, Drinking Water Quality, and Laboratory Services) .Staff will use the work plans to direct program activities specific to the V4~QSP goals. Recommendation 4: Prepare far future water quality regulations. Vt~ater Quality Regulations Trends The city will anticipate and prepare for future water quality regulations, ensure regulatory compliance, and incorporate capital improvement requirements in the city's budget planning process. In the past few years there have been a number of proposed water quality regulations. For example, there have been 8 new regulations in the past 9 years for drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act alone. Together, the city is faced with twenty-three (23) new or proposed water quality regulations. In addition to the quantity of regulations, the new regulations trends include; • More complex regulatory requirements and compliance standards which make it more difficult to determine compliance • More sophisticated (and sometimes costly) treatment required to address pollutants being regulated • More complicated and more costly chemical and biological analytical and sampling methods • Lower detection limits required in laboratory analysis • Higher frequency of sample collection often required • Greater number of water treatment and natural systems affected • overlap of treatment systems and potentially conflicting needs (for example wastewater regulations may impact drinking water standards) • Ratcheting down of current discharge limits and stream standards Facing these new regulatory challenges will require a concerted, significant response. The following outlines a summary of four of the proposed or new regulations. A more detailed description of water quality issues is located in Appendix 3 of the WQSP. 1. Wastewater related regulations include: temperature and the presence of mercury, ammonia, and emerging pollutants such as endocrine disrupting compounds, or chemicals derived from industrial, agricultural, and domestic processes, including those used in the manufacture of plastics, detergents, pesticides, and flame retardants, that have the ability to disrupt normal hormonal actions in humans and wildlife. 2. Drinking water regulations include: lead, copper, arsenic, and disinfection by products and emerging pollutants such as endocrine disrupting compounds. AGENDA ITEM # 8 PAGE 4 3. Stream standards and total maximum daily loads (T IYIDLs), o~ calculations of the ~rnc~xi~vnurn amount of~ollutants that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards, include: standards related to sediments, aquatic life, and nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as pathogens like E. coli bacteria. 4. Stormwater regulations include: airborne contaminants, pathogens, and sediments. Investment Program The WQSP is an on-going plan with five-year updates that will be implemented primarily by the WQES Croup. The investment program is based on annual operating budgets for the WQES Group programs and does not include capital improvement projects. The most significant challenge the WQES Group faces is anticipating and preparing for new ~~~ater quality regulations. This strategic plan identifies funding shortages in the group's Fiscally Constrained Plan and identifies strategies in the Action Plan that are needed to meet this challenge. Table A outlines the fiscal impact. AGENDA ITEM # 8 PAGE 5 TABLE A KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF RECOMMENDATIONS BY FUNDING LEVEL Fiscall Constrained Plan Based on current staffmg and funding level Recommendations 1 through 3: The current WQES Group budget is adequate to implement all Recommendations 1-3, including incorporating water quality goals in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and master plans and other policy documents. There will be minimal policy rej~ie~~~ of city plans and policies and minimal work plan and annual report development. These activities will be implemented under afive-year schedule. Recommendation 4: Without additional funding or other resources, staff will not be able to anticipate and respond adequately to new and proposed regulations, which could cause regulatory non-compliance. Action Plan Requires funding and staft"mg beyond current levels. Includes: a $50,000 one-time budget, adjustment to base of $57,000 annually, and an additiona10.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff member Recommendation 1: Will be completed with Fiscally Constrained Plan funding. Recommendations 2 and 3: The focus will be on review of city plans and policies and on work plan and annual report development. These activities will be implemented under a more proactive three-year schedule. Recommendation 4: Key elements will be additional funding for staff and consultants to respond to new and proposed regulations. Vision Plan Requires new staffmg and fwiding levels. Includes: $90,000 one-time budget request, an adjustment to base of $104,000 amiually, and an additiona11.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff member. Recommendation 1 and 2: Will be completed with Fiscally Constrained Plan funding. Recommendations 3 and 4: This plan allows WQES to: • Develop focused, goal-oriented annual work plans; • Produce annual reports on the status of drinking water and wastewater treatment compliance and performance and on the quality of Boulder's water; and • Respond proactively to new- and proposed regulations to ensure cost-effective regulatory compliance, environmental preservation, and public health protection. Implementation ofthese programs will be completed within one year. Implementation of the WQSP will be based, in part, on the funding level. At every funding level, the WQSP calls for the city to commit to adopting the five water quality goals and the recommendations. The WQSP is an on-going plan with a five year update, the next being in 2013. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Water Quality Strategic Plan- Draft and Appendices AGENDA ITEM # 8 PAGE 6 ~j Attachment A D u City of Boulder D~ 2009 Water Quality Strategic Plan _ _ ~ , Y,~ 1 r ~ ~ ¦ wq+. ~ . .arm _ x. - ~ ~ ,N T Y t , r _ i A r- a .1 MS ~iNFOY, I__t~"1/ ~ r ~ ~ , .t% .yy`~7y1` My~>4`. i , i ~ Acknowledgements 2008 Water Resources Advisory Board Robin Byers William DeOreo Kelly DiNatale Susan Lott Bart Miller City of Boulder- Public Works Staff Robert Williams, Director of Public WorICS far Utilities Bret Linenfelser; Water Quality Coordinator Donna Scott, Stormwater- Quality Supervisor- Michelle Wind, Drin(cing Water Super-visor- Ridge Dorse}; Industrial Pretreatment Supervisor Curry Rosato, Watershed Education Coorclinatar Ed Mead, Laborator}~ Services Supervisor Betty Solek, Water Quality Planner Robert Harberg, Utilities Planning & Project Management Coordinator Carol Ellinghouse, Water Resources Coordinator Annie Noble, Utilities Project Manager Kim EI[cins, Water Resource Specialist )oe Taddeucci, Utilities Project Manager City of Boulder- Planning Staff Bev Johnson, Planning Chris Meschu[c, Planning Consultants Carol Aclams, StuclioTerra, lnc Kathleen McCormick, Fountainhead Communications, LLC Thanks fo city staff and board members who contributed significantly fo fhe plan. Special thanks to Sheila Murphy with the U. S. Geological Survey, author of "State of the 11/atershecl: Vl/ater Quality of 8aulcler Creek, Colaracla USGS Circular 12P4; 2110&. Table of Contents Executive Summarv ........................................................i 5~debars Introduction ..............................................................1 1Nhat is in the b'1/ SP? .............................1 The Boulder Creek `,Xatershed 3 Q ~ boulder City Council Environmental ~~rater Quality Trends and Challenges .........................................7 Goal ...............................................1 Boulder's ~X~ater Quality Goals 4 1\~atet` Quality and Em~ironrnentai Strate tc Plan Recommeudattons 11 g' Ser~~'rces Gt`oup ...............................2 Performance Measntes .....................................................15 ~\heasuring the Health of boulder Investment Program .......................................................16 Creek ...........................................5-6 Next 5teps ...............................................................18 1A~ater Quality and Commtrn'rty Values.....? Maps/Figures/Tables Pending or Proposed VVater Quality Fioure 1 -South Platte River Watershed 3 b Regulations ...................................12 Fib re 2 -Boulder Creek Watershed . ................................4 1~Vater Quality Regular"ronsTrends..........13 Fib re 3 -Biological Condition Gradient .............................................6 Proactive Management ..........................14 Summary of the Plaai's Purpose, Goals, Recommendations, and Performance Measures ......10 Aati,ard 1~'VhuringlA~ater Quality Table A -Investment Prob am .....................................................16 Education ......................................15 Funding Plans ..................................................................17 Fib re A-1 -Use designations ur the Boiilder Creek ~~%atershed ..........................A2 Recycled Content Paper Appendix :g Understanding ~1Vater Quality Regulations ES rlimual Work Plan Example C Eme being ~Sdater Quality Issues Executive Summary To be completed following WRAB input in January 2009. 2009 Drafr Water Quality Strategic Plan 12-22-08 Page i Introduction What is in the Water Quality The Water Quality Strategic Plan (WASP) is the first comprehensive plan- Strategic Plan? Wing effor°t to address water duality policies and priorities far the city of 'The WQSP contains the follor~~ing goulcfer (City). The WQSP is a five-year plan that will be initiated upon r-e- secfions: • '1"he Boulder Creek Watershed view by the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB). • Water Qualifi~ Trends and Chat- The purpose of the WQSP is to develop clear and concise water goal ity lenges goals, develop recommendations and performance measures to achieve • Boulder's 1~'afer Qualif~T Goals these goals, and provide a process to address curt°ent and future water dual- • Sfrate,;ic Plaid Recommendations • Performance I~2e.asures ity challenges. The success of the WQSP will be based on the following ac- • Tnvesfinenf Program tions: • Next Steps • Clearly defining the city's water duality goals N • Coordinating water duality-~°elated planning and progr°am services • Creating a way to assess success in meeting water duality goals Boulder City Council Providing a framework to effectively manage water dual ity programs I<nvironmental Goal: Anticipating and planning for new and increasingly complex water To enact and e.nhanee city policies That cause the Boulder community to duality regulations and issues become a nafionrvide en~~ironmental leader among communities. The Cit,r The WQSP supports many of the principals and policies of the Boulder Val- will l7e a role model of exemplary ley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). This strategic plan is designed to fit within environmental practices. the broader framework of the BVCP, which provides the overall policy direction for planning decisions within the Boulder Valley. The BVCP also outlines the city's communitywide goals and provides a general statement on the community's desires for development and preservation in the Boulder Valley, including protection of water resources. Protection and improvement of water duality is specifically discussed in Section 4 of the 2005 BVCP. In Section 426 the BVCP states: "The city and county will protect, maintain ancf improve water duality within the Boulder Creek basin and Boulder Val ley watersheds as a necessary component of existing ecosystems and as a critical resource for the human community." BVCP Section 4.27 states: "Water resource planning efforts will include such things as water duality master planning." The WQSP has been developed, ancf will be implemented by the City's Water Quality and Environmental Services (WQES) Group within the city of Boulder Public Works, Utilities Division. The WQES Group is funded through the city's Water, Wastewater; and Flood enterprise funds. 2009 Draft Water Qualify Strategic Plan 12-22-08 Page 1 The WQES Group supports the Utilities Division water services and comprises seven prograr-ns: • Stor°mwater Quality • Water Quality Education • Water Conservation • Industrial Pretreatment • Drinking Water Quality • Laboratory Services • Water Quality Planning The primary function of these programs is to protect water quality and en- sure compliance with state and federal water quality regulations, such as the federal Clean Water Act and Sate Drinking WaterAct. The WQES Group also provides water quality program manager-nent anc! serves as an in-house technical resource for the city's Utilities Division and other city depar°tments. Services include monitoring the performance of ~~~astewater treatment and drinking water treatment processes and monitoring the health of natural systems such as creeks and lakes. The WQES Group provides project management services to integrate water quality enhancement and compliance goals into planning efforts and city capital improvement projects. Water Quality and Environmental Services Group The 1~ater Quality and Environmental Services (1VQES) Group, throu¢h environmentally szzstainable principals and policies, supports the. Utility's Division's mission by complying ith reg~xlations and protecting Boulder's water quaIitJr and rehabilitat- ing its aquatic ecosystems and by innovative rislr management. Water QualitJr and Environmental Services staff have expertise in agrxatic eoolohF, water chemistry, biology, em~ironrnental engineering, linmology, Groundwater hydrogeology, statistical analysis, water conse.r~~ation, ern~ironmenfal education, and compliance with regulations and policy. The WQES Group's objectives are to develop and implement comprehensive, coordinated programs That respond to wafer quality isszzes and ensure rea clatory compliance, and to address present and future needs and issues. To achie~~e these objec- tives,l~'QES: • Operates an ambient monitoring network on major streams and lakes. Monitoring activities are conducted at over 50 sites, t~rhich are tested for more than 100 r~>ater quality variables. The aquatic communit)r also is assessed at more Phan 10 sites. Wafer chemistry and biological data assist in determining stream health and the impacts of pollution source-s. • Conducts issue-based, site-specific studies, usually I7y intensive sampling over a short period. Studies assess point and non- point source pollution impacts, and treatment process optimization for wastewater and treated water facilities. • Cooperates ~~~ith industry, regional government entities, and others to protect water quality from impaefs arising from sources such as agriczzlftzre, mining, forestry, and municipal and indzzstrial discharges. • Conducts and participates in scientific studies to better understand the impaefs of human disturbance on ecosystem struc- fizre and function. Sttzciy partners often include the U.S. Environmental Protection :lgenc~~, the U:S. Geological Survey, the Col- orado Division of Wildlife, the University of Colorado, Boulder, the Colorado School of Mines, and Bozzlder CozmtJr. • Develops and recommends water quality standards, policies, objectives, and guidelines fo protect BouIder's water quality. • Manages and operates high-qualify anal~~tical Iaborator~r services for the Utilities Division and manages water qualify data in a secure information system. Page 2 2t1©9 Draft Water Quality Strategic Plan 72-22-08 The Boulder Creek ~ITatershed ~ 6oulder Creek and its tributaries are vital for providing drinking water, agri- '~r - cultural irrigation water, aquatic (~abitat, recreation, and porwer generation. - ' k ~ tNater quality determines the suitability of rwater for most of tE-rese uses. a~',• - ~ t~iater quality in the Boulder Creek lAiatershed is affected by natural factors ~ , y` ~ such as ~eolo climate and h sio~ra h and human-caused factors such as wastewater effluent, runoff from roads and urbanized areas, agricul- ~ ~~g ~ - tural practices, atmospheric contaminants, and other sources. The relative - - ~~.r effect of these factors on water quality has changed over time and twill ~ _ continue to shift as population and urbanization increase and more 1.-,. "X";' ~ demands are placed on our water resources. . ~ ~.~~r Stream habitat atang South Bourrler Ciee{; Watershed Physical Feat~rres The Boulder Creek blfatershed has great diversity in geology, climate, and land cover. The 6oulder Creek Watershed is located in the larger South Platte River t~iatershed and is bordered by the St. Vrain River and Clear Creek watersheds (see Figure 1). Primary tributaries of 6oulder Creek include the North, fvtiiddle, and South 6oulder Creeks, Four ~~tile Creek, Coal Creek, and Rock Creek, along with several smaller streams. The Boulder Creek l~iatershed is approximately 447 square miles in area. It ranges in elevation from over 13,000 feet in the Silver Lake Watershed to approximately 5,000 feet at the mouth of Boulder Creek as it enters the St. Vrain River near Longmont, approximately 20 miles northeast of the city of 6oulder (see Figure 2). '~74y y~ ~ l r ~ ^ i~i4 1 If~j 11df.BRJISiIA ~ CALORADb l'' V~ tl Y¢ _ 0 40 KILOMETERS t ~ U Boulder Creek !~„~~c ~ ~ ~ Wotnrshed t South Platte River Watershed Figure T South Platte River Watershed 24D9 lar~ftYl~afer Quality Str<~fegic Pls~n 12-22-©8 f'abe 3 ~d~ •+Y 6a.~R~•i.~ee~W»mMl~br Mu.y~y nl a!IM.n ?:~7i _ _ ~ _i ~ Figure 2 Boulder Creek Watershed ~ .rii ~ Boulder Creek 1~1ear the Continental Divide The Boulder Creek Watershed can be divided into three general areas: 1 }the upper watershed from the Continental Divide to the foothills; 2) the urban watershed, or the transitional zone from the foothills to the plains, ' •-b'- includingthe city of Boulder; and, 3) the lower watershed, or the area ' - _ I i i , I f i below the city's wastewater treatment facility to the confluence writh the St. . , ! Vrain River. These three areas have great variation in land use, geography, ~ 4 - - ecosystem type, pollution sources, and stream channel characteristics. The upper watershed is mostly undeveloped, forested land located in the , Roosevelt National Forest. Potential water quality impacts include effluent _ .._fi from sewage treatment plants and septic systems, sedimentation from trans- ~ _ yl.. ~Y ~ - portation activities such as snow removal and road maintenance, ski area - activities and other recreational uses, development, and new and historic ~ - m l nl Rg OperatlOflS. Boulder Lreek x, ti,e Urban Corrrdor In the urban portion of the watershed, development increases impervious surfaces, which results in increased runoff and degradation of ~.vater quality from sediment and other pollutants, increased flood potential and stream bank erosion, and possible lowering of groundwater levels. The indirect impact of development on water quality is linked primarily to trans- portation infrastructure. The Center for Watershed Protection has estimated ~ ~.,,,,ar` that over 80 percent of imperviousness in urban areas is due to transporta- f ~ ~ ' ~ tion infrastructure such as roads and parking lots needed to support ~ ~ . development. In the lower watershed, water quality impacts are dominated by agricul- ~ ,k' . tore and rural and estate residential development. The city of boulder's ~ '-4 N 75th Street wastewater treatment facility (\NVVTF) also discharges to ~ b &~ul der Creek in tine /~lgricu/tur~; Ke:~ci, 1 Be/nvv the City Page 4 2tI09 Draft W~3ter Quality Strategic Plan 12-22-08 Boulder Creek and during most months of the year is a primary source of r , water in Boulder Creek. The WWTF is required to meet multiple state and federal regulations to control pollutants entering Boulder Creek. Wafsr Qualify Regulations r . The federal Clean Water Act requires states to establish water quality Ral~bow Trour (salmo ga~rd~ero standards for surface waters. In Colorado, the state agency with responsibil- ity for establishing stream standards to protect water quality is the Colorado ~ Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). The standards are < , ~ y' _ ~ enforced through the Water Quality Control Division and Water Quality ~6 ~ Control Commission. Standards have three minimum components: . designated use classifications; water quality criteria; and policies to protect ~ against degradation of water quality. These standards are outlined in ` ~ Appendix A. I+ J Mayfly Nymph Measuring the Health of Boulder Creek Water Quality: Water quality in the Boulder Creek watershed varies substantially as water moves from the upper, more pristine sections of the watershed through the urbanized area of Boulder and on to the plains east of the city. In general, the quality of water is better in the high-elevation headwaters, where human activity is limited, or restricted, and there are few contaminant sources. Water quality tends to decline downstream as diversions remove water from Boulder Creek and its tribu- taries. Downstream water quality declines also with increases in population density and in the number of potential contami- nant sources, including point and nonpoint sources. A comprehensive evaluation of the water quality and funcfion of the Boulder Creek Watershed is documented in the 2006 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report State of the Watershed: Water Quality of Boulder Creek, Colorado (USGS Circular 1284). This document can be found at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1284 Fish Species: Approximately 50 fish species, of which about 18 are nonnative, inhabit the South Platte River Watershed (Fausch and Bestgen, 1996). Introduced species usually fare best in manmade reservoirs; but in streams they generally are not successful, because they must compete with species adapted to the watershed (Bluestein and Hendricks, 1974) and fluctuating hydrologic conditions. Nonnative trout are an exception. Rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri), brown trout (Salmo trutEa), and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) were stocked in Boulder Creek soon after settlement and are now the principal fish species in the upper portion of the watershed and within the city of Boulder (Thorne Ecological Institute, 1972). In lower Boulder Creek, native white suckers (Catostomus commersoni) and fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas), along with nonnative common carp (Cyprinus carpio), are the most abundant species downstream from the city's N 75th Street Wastewater Treatment Facility (W W1'F) (Windell and Rink, 1987). These fish tolerate extreme variations of temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and flow. Studies of Coal Creek found that native creek chub (Semofilus atromaculatus) and fathead minnow were most abundant (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1981). Measurements of Aquatic Ecosystem Health: The aquatic ecosystem is complex, dynamic, and often difficult to evalu- ate. However, the health of aquatic ecosystems generally can be evaluated using biological, chemical, physical indicators of in- tegrity. Biological Indicators: The term "biological integrity" first appeared in the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA sought to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters." The term was later de- fined as "the capability of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a com- position and diversity comparable to that of the natural habitats of the region." In other words, biological integrity can be used to measure the health of the aquatic community. 2009 Draft Water Quality Strategic Plan 12-22-OS Page 5 Measuring the Health of Boulder Creek, contsntred The city of Boulder has been collecting data on the biological aquatic communities in Boulder Creek since 1939. 'The purpose of the data collection is to evaluate the impact of urbanization, and ~~=aste~vater discharges, and fio define baseline conditions. The data is composed of benthic rnacroinvertebrafies (insects) collected during biannual surve}=s. Strearm insects, such as mayFlies and stonefilies, make good indicators of watershed healfih because they. • live in fihe r~Tafier for all or most of their life Biolol;ical Contliti~?n Gradient • stay in areas suifiable for their su~.°vival I l 1 H.a,Ir soncmrn. McnolriL arO rarananrc mreyrny rs prlsavM • are easy to collect ` SV71Cawt IAO Mtlrorr fa01Y/ b IMICaI orovwMy wM LOrIM aaananar • differ in their tolerance fio the amount and types of pollu- 2 axasaomaas: no or rrevarmr,moaun4s: urslrr. na?n.ee tsramq a preaewC oeoayrhm evd nrcNanr re ~M mrrwrn~a Lion a, a !warn cnarrgra m wuc~rr! se to rors asomr /a! noK • often live for more than one year g 3 r..,: „rrornRrwl.a.r~r~l:KO.nrlmrra~I~:ary • have limited rmobility naanma.,a~ory~rrabmeanr.mmrneawor!"~` ~ haoOMif! MaruJla In Sinrebo! dn! b nepYetnrm ~ 4 a xrrsre'r! uaqureous ura A' nnlr toavsn rr.; Bioassessmenfi data is collected alon Boulder Creek at seven ~a °"`"i0a1inc'dm'"'°r~°'a'°!."`r"'°`°_ g {.1 ecoaystvrr Merlons brpey mYnYrnlC. sites. One site is above the city and one is at Soufih Boulder Creek. g+ ~~r, ~,o,l. slpm Mpnyflobpk~U Sanarore auamarhatly manrsnea: 5 aoess: lcosysrmr Mann mows nr0ocad Tllfse tll=tJ srfies make tl'p a `'r'efF.renCe" reach since tlle)= are vela- O corrspa:uany rnpWnesO OWIrDrAbn of cm+Dk+M ann rrdono~rrcy; rnalaaN m /riYDl Yrcwpa hom pafs~ecard; arpnrsnr Oaad Ypolgwrt o/unrnM nraarlWR five!}- not impacted by urban and other development. 'Tlze a°emain- lRreme UaYgtl rn awnur. wrrdH.le clwrgea m anonraala my G! plgrarpC lrlg Sample slfies ar£ loCafied within file City of Boulder, and One 1S u.anonrc~onroosroon:lmrrR.navaeronsnow lcosysavnnrr~uonzara~ normal awamea: organ/snr conarana b: olArn poor: lxrea<y Nlsad. below the urbanized area. In 2005, to evaluate the impact an rile - stream from ~~Tasfewater dischaz~es, fine study was broadened to - Level of Stressors HicH include three additional sites above and belo~a* the city= of Boulder Fi~ur~ ~ ~iologica! Condition Gr3drkrrt ur~~~rP. Generally, as pollutants or ofiller "sfiressors" increase in a stream or ovafier s~=stern, biological integritl= decreases. 'I1ze U.S. En~=irom~nerrtal Protection Agency (Bl developed a Biological Condition Gradient as a general system fio evaluate impairment of stream s~~tems using biological data (see Fl'gure Chemical Indicators. blrater chernisizy is the mosfi comrnonl}= measured indicator of water body lzealfih and is also used fio measure compliance witl2 state and federal water quality standards. ibtonitoring file cllemisfiry of surface ~iTaters can be sim- plistic, focusing on standard field rrleasurements for constituents such as ph, temperature, specific conductance, and dissolved ox?S~en. More complex monitoring requires water samples ib be collected and analyzed by a laboratory. Some of the common paranlef~:rs a~lalyzed in stu face waters include ammonia and other forms of nitrogen, various forms of phosphorus, multiple forms of bacteria, alkalinity; hardness, and multiple metals. The city of Boulder implements a cornprehe.nsive surface water quality monitoring progra.rn within the Boulder Creek bl~a- tershed to support both regulatory and nonregulafioa~= programs. These programs include compliance monitoring for state and federal re.~,ulatians and suppo~-t for protecting the city's drinking water supplies.'The city= monitors water quality at JO loca- tions along Boulder Creek and its fiributaries and at point: source locations such as rvaste~vafier fireatrnenfi plant discharges. Monitoring is conducfed nlonfilll~; ~vifill over 80 parameters either measured in the field or anal}-zed in file laborator~T Physical Indicators: Yhfsical indicators measure the quality of habifiat in an aquatic ecosystem. habitat quality has pro- found influences on the aquatic community in a stream and ca.n limit the health of fihe ecos~=s~m even if the chermistry of the water indicates good water quality. To measure fhe habitat value and fine llabifiat quality of a stream s~>,tem fine city uses fine U.S. EPA's Itapid Bioassessrnent Protocols for L7se in Streams and bVadeable hivers (EPA 841-8-33-U02). 'The e~=aluation im=Dives a quaaltitative meastue of ph}~ical parameters fi11at make up a riparian habitat. These measures include a summa~~=of riparian! vegetation features, in- streamparameters (including ~vidtll, depth, flow, and substrate), and stream type and origin. The parameters are ratr.d and placed into condition categories that range from "opfiirnal" to "poor." 'The purpose of the habitat assessment is to evaluate the physical characteristic of Boulder's riparian areas. The city com- pleted habitat assessments on Boulder Creek and its major fiributaries using fihe EYA rnefihod in 1390, 1395, and 2001. The habitat information most recently vas used fio make reconu~lendations in the city's Creemvays i~iaster Ylan which identify and prioritize stream restoration projects. Page b 2QQ3 Draff bYafer Qualify Sfrateaic Flan 72-22-Q3 Water Quality Trends and Challenges Water Quality and Since the passage of the Safe Drinking tA~ater Act anci the Clean Water Actin Community Values the '1 ~70s, there have been tremendous strides in cleaning up our nation's BOtilder has a lung histvc~yvf rivers and Iakes.These improvements came largely from controlling pollu- preserving its local eYn=ironment and natczral resources. For water c~lalit~; tams from factories and wastewater treatment plants. In the 7 ~90s, the Clean this goes beyond regulatory compli- Water Act was amended to include control of nonpoint source pollutants ance. tine example is the preserl=ativn from urban stormwater runoff, which lead to further water quality improve- of Boulder Creek. It1 1894 BoulLler gents. However, despite these regulations, 40 percent of the nation`s rivers experienced aloo-yeas flovd,~~~hich in a recent EPA study ~~vere still too polluted for fishing or swimming. damaged a large pot'tivn of the do~u•n- to~aYn area. In T969 Boulder again ©ne explanation for the shortFall in reaching the "drinkable, svvimma- experienced amajor flood. After these ble, fishable" goal in the Clean t~'1~ater Act is the complex nature of water taro events, there ~uas a great deal of quality. Water pollutants come from very diverse sources, such as air pressure to protect the cit~r from pollutants from the burning of fossil fuels, or from urban and agricultural flooding. An engineered solution that was a land uses, whicE-t are difficult to control or regulate. Tf•ris makes it ever more standard practice at the time would important to manage source ~~vaters to provide safe dri n~i ng water, to control have confined Boulder Creek in a pollutants from our urban areas, and to remove pol lutants in our wastewater. concrete channel as it traveled thrattgh town. Ho~aYever, the city made Locally, the USGS report titled State of the lAiatershed: Water acvnscious decision tv use nonstruc- Quality of Boulder Creek, Colorado, outlined <<vter quality changes since rural methods--rvvrki?ig ta~ith nature the early settlement of the Boulder Creek basin. These changes were attrib- ratherthan a:~ainst it. Bypreset~=ing uted to a combination of natural factors, such as geology and climate, and the natural creek corriL~vr and limit- ing or remv~=ing development in human caused factors, such as wastewater effluent, stor~•,~~~vater runoff, flood-prone areas, Boulder main- agricultural practices, and atmospheric contamination. The report suggested rained the creek's nat<zral systems and that a clear knowledge of ~~vater quality and effective water resource and high ~a~ater clualit~t Borzlder creek land use planning is needed to face future water quality challenges. today is celebrated as a classic trout fishery and a camrnunit~= asset for recreation and beaut,=. The city intends to continue this environmen- tally protective tradition of preserving cornmt.~nit~=-valued resources. 4:.1 r~ _ _ ~I~I~ 4L~t?1 amt~lili: at ~:11F:?1 1~?~?1~ui1 24D9 Draft Yl~afer Quality Strafegic Plan 12-22-©8 Page 7 Boulder's Water Quality Goals The Boulder Valle}~ Comprehensive Plan outlines the city's environmental goals. When the BVCP was adopted in 2005, Boulder Cit}~ Council established a goal of becoming a national environmental leader. City Council's water-related environmental priorities included promoting water conservation. City Council also aimed to strengthen v,~ater quality improvement efforts by protecting biodiversity and native ecosystems, by managing the city's water sources through a larger v,~atershed apllr-oach, and by reducing pollution sources. The city must establish strong but achieveable water qualit}~ goals to protect the environment and public health, and to address future water quality challenges. The WQES Group developed goals for city adoption by first completing a comprehensive im~entory of existing water quality goal statements found in the city's master plans, policies, and regulations, starting with the BVCP. The group also reviewed v,~ater quality regulatory compliance objectives. The goals support the city of Boulder; Utilities Divison Mission Statement: Our ibtission is to provide quality water services, as desired b}~ the community, in a manner 4vhicl~ emphasizes efficient management of fiscal and natural resources, and Isrotects human and em~ironmental health. The WQES Group developed the following five goals and supporting statements, which were presented to the cif}~'s Vl~ater Resources Advisory Board (WRAB1 in July 2008: Goad 7. Provide safe and high-ciuaiity drinking water. The city is required to provide drinking water that meets all state and federal re- quirements. Drinking ~~~ater safety cannot be taken for granted. A number of po- ~ tential threats to drinking water exist within the raw source ~•vater and within the Unsafe bacteria levels in Boulder Creek may occur r treated ~•vater distribution system. Improperly disl:rosed of chemicals, animal and anytime. Therefore be advis human wastes, pesticides, natural)}~-occurring substances such as bacteria; and not to dr7nk the water. an improperly maintained distribution system all can contaminate drinking NOTICIA IMPORTANT ks lul tl b C.te Ii lad BoWd .B rdc~C~o water and pose a health risk. To ensure the quality of drinking water, protection I • ~ strategies r~uist be implemented frot~~ ''source to tap." ' ~ _ Goal 2. Manage pollutants from wastewater and other paint sources. A t•~:ar,7irr.? ~i~n not?d un Bc,u,'d?r C;??f; The cit}~ is responsible for operating the N 75th Street Waste~•vaterTreatment Facility (WWTF) and meeting Colorado Discharge Permit System {CDPSj permit requirements. Adequate wastewater treatment is critical in protecting public health and the environment. Currently, the Wb1/TF treats an average of 1b million gallons of ~~~astewater per day and discharges treated wastewater into Boulder Creek. A number of smaller wastewater treatment systems; as well as individual septic systems, also discharge into the Boulder Creek Vl~atershed. !'age 8 2044 Draft 14~afer Quality Strafegic Ptah TZ-22-48 These include the Town of Nederland ~~castewater treatr~~ent plant, which dis- charges into Barker Resen~oir, a source of drinking water for the city of Boulder. 'F' - ~ ~ Goal 3. Manage pollutants from stormwater and other nonpoint sources. ~ The cite is required to impler~~ent programs required under the State of Colorado Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System {r1~tS4) discharge pen~it to protect the quality of stormti~~•atei; which is discharged into water bodies such as streams. In ' urban areas, stream and water quality degradation generally are related to de- velopment.Adding impervious areas such as roads, parking lots, and buildings to land that once had natural cover increases surface runoff and reduces groundwater infiltration, which damages natural stream hydrology and aquatic H2o/oeandFlo- systems. Urban and agricultural runoff containing sediment, fertilizers, and pes- ihemascot ofthe Boulder and Keep it Clean's partnership water quality education program ticides also can pose a threat to water quality. Protecting water quality means managing pollutants from these diverse sources. Goal 4. Protect, presence, and restore natural water systems. Natural water syster~~s include riparian and wetlands habitat as ~•vell as stream flow. Intact riparian ecosystems provide ecological benefits, which play an important role in maintaining water quality, protecting aquatic life, and preserving the aesthetic, recreational, and economical value of the cif~~'s waterways. Goal 5. Conserve water resources. Consen~ing water is integral to protecting water qualif~~. Water conservation practices can improve water quality by increasing the amount of water flowing in streams and reducing the amount of treated wastewater discharges. Water conservation also dir~~inishes the need to find or construct new water sources. Water conserving landscaping can minimize irrigation runoff, reducing impacts to local streams. Meefing fhese five ?vafer qualif}~ goals ?vill provide ?vafer gtralif}~ profecfion, ?tihich means clean water to drink, clean streams and lakes fo swim in, and healfh}~ wafenva}~s fhaf support fish and other wildlife. 2©D4 Draft btrater Qualii}' Strafegic PJan 12-22-©8 loge 9 Wafer {duality Strategic Plan Purpose, Goals, Recommendations, and Performance Measures Strategic Plan Purpose The purpose of the WASP is to develop clear and concise wafter quality goals, develop recommendations and performance measures to achieve these goals, and provide a process to address current and future water quality challenges. Strategic Plan Goals I .Provide safe and high_quality drinking v~rater. 2. il~anage pollutants :From wastewater and other point sources. 3. I1~anage pollutants from stormwater and other nonpoint so~zrces. 4. Protect, preserve and restore- natural water systems. 5. Conserve water resources. Recommendations and Performance Measures Recommendation 1: Adopt the strategic plan's water quality goals into the Boulder Va11ey Comprehensive Plan. Performance Measure: Adoption of the five ~nrater qualitygnals into the Boulder Vall.,y Cvznprehensive Plan. Recommendation 2: Incorporate water quality goals into citywide planning efforts and city regulations, policies, and procedures. P~rfarmance Measures: Nurrzber of formal polic~r and rrraster plans retnernrUd and updated to incvr~orate Y~vater quali~~- goals; de~rclopn~cnt of a rnatr°rx of water qualityindic:ators andvaluation of plan re~nc~n~ 1~as~d an criteria. Recommendation 3: Develop annual work plans and water glzality reports. Perfar^mance tYicasure: Nurn1?er of pro~~r~Yn ~n~nrk pla~~s and an~zual r^upnrts developed Recommendation 4: Prepare for future water quality regulations. Performance ll~ieasure: Success in in~plemer~ting a. program to conduct special studies, track r~e~n~ az~d proposed regulations, and participate in z^ule~~naking activities. Summary of the Man's ~cmpose, goals, rea7mrnerx]ations aid perfi~rmance measures Page 10 2t1©9 Draft Water Quality Strategic Plan 72-22-tt8 Strategic Plan Recommendations The WQES Group developed four recommendations thatwill allow the city to meet its water quality goals: °~M' Recommendation 1: Adopt the strategic plan's water quality goals into the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. - _ _~y _ WASP water quality protection goals wil I be adopted by the city and incorpo- rated into the BVCP 2010 update, which determines policy for city and county planning decisions. . R~ ~ 1~' ~ t.r 1 ~ Recommendation 2: Incor orate water ualit oats into cit wide tannin ef- P 9 Y g Y P g W ~ ~ forts and city regulations, policies, and procedures. The WQES Group wit I be responsible for reviewing relevant planning and pol- ciry of8oulder's wastewaterrreatment icy documents, such as master plans, design and construction standards, and Facility the Boulder Revised Code, to ensure that the city complies with al I state and federal laws and regulations on water quality and environmental protection. Specific water quality objectives, criteria, and perFormance measures will be de- veloped for each of the documents reviewed to address water quality goals and strategies outlined in the WQSP. A list of plans and policies to be analyzed on a priority basis, using a scoring matrix, will then be developed. The matrix will be based on the number of goals the policy or plan affects, and the degree to which the plan addresses critical water quality problems. The list will generate two review categories, priority and secondary items. Priority Items: Priority items are "high leverage" documents that include multiple water quality goals, affect the city's compliance with state or fed- eral regulations, impact critical water quality issues, and address problems that pose imminent threats to human health or the environment. These plans or policies wit I be reviewed first, with actions to bring the city into compliance occurring as soon as possible. The review of priority items will proceed regardless of any planned updates to the policy or plan in ques- tion. An example of a priority item could be: When new state regulations require that municipalities have regulations in place that prohibit certain discharges into storm sewer systems, staff wit I review and update existing code to comply with the new regulations. Secondary Items: Secondary items are policies or plans that meet one or more goals, and address less critical water quality problems. These plans will be reviewed and recommendations developed following scheduled or planned updates. An example of a secondary item could be: The city's cur- rent Greenways Master Plan, which addresses a number of water quality goals, is adequate to meet most of the goals, so review wit I occur with the next update to the master plan. 2009 Draft Water Quality Strategic Plan 12-22-08 Page 11 Criteria for evaluating city policies and procedures: Recommendation 2 will Pending or Proposed Water implemented by WQES staff using a systematic approach to plan anc! policy Quality Regulations analysis. In the past, review of plans and policies was relatively unstructured. Wasterrrater related regulations Recommendations were based on input from one or two WQES staff members. include temperature and the presence of mercury, ammonia, Recommendations were limited in scope anc! adclressec! same water duality is- and emergingpollutants such a~s sues but excludec! others. This was not intentional, but rather the result of using endocrine disrzzpting compounds, an "ac! hoc" approach. This strategic plan proposes the following steps to acl- or chemicals derived front izidus- dress Recommendation 2 and integrate water- quality pr-atection using the exam- trial, agricultural, and domestic pie of the upcoming Boulder Reservoir Master- Plan: processes, including those used in the marnzfactlzre of plastics, deter- gents, pesticides, and flame retar- Step 1: Asseml~rle an interdepartmental review team. Staff r-epresenta- I dants, rti~llich have the. abilifJT to fives from affected city departments ar agencies, including the WQES disz~zpt normal hormonal actions Drinking Water Program (the reservoir is a drinking water source), the in humans and wildlife. Parks and Recreation pepartment, which manages the r-eser-voir's recre_ L?rinlzing water regulations include those for lead, copper, arsenic, and ational facilities, anc! others such as Boulder County anc! the Northern disinfection byproducts and Colorado Water- Conservancy District, wi I I meet to review the Bou Icier emerging pollutants such as Reservoir Master Plan. endocrine disrupting compounds. Step 2: Develop specific water quality ol~rjectives. The team roil I c!e- Stream standards and total velap objectives for the $oulder Reservoir Master Plan based on the five maximum daily loads ('1"MULs), or water duality goals outlined in the WASP Objectives will address the calerzlations of the nl~ximzzrn amounf of pollutants that a potential impact of recreational uses on drinking water duality, the r~-aterbody can receive. and still management of wetlands areas to provide habitat and water duality safeh~ meet water qualih~ protection, anc! other issues. standards, include standards Step 3: Develop performance measures. Performance measures wil I be related to sediments, aquatic life, used to assess have rn~el I the city has suet water quality goals and the and nzztrients such as nitrv<;en and phosphoz~ts, as well a~s pathogens specific water quality objectives clevelopec! in Step 2. This assessment Iile 11. colt bacteria. could be usec! to track impacts of Baulcler Reservoir Master Plan recom- Stormrvater regulations inchzde mendations and to make recommendations far- additional or future airborne contaminants, pathogens, changes. These might include "number of beach closure days;' which and sediments. tvauld help determine the effectiveness of recommendations ar objet- ~ inns°~ detRrlect`descz^rptinn of ~vater~ quarity issues is loe.~te~ in 9ppendix fives to control bacterial contamination at Boulder Reservoir. Recommendation 3: Develop annual work plans and water quality reports. Each year the WQES Gr-aup will identify ant! outline priorities to achieve the city's rn~ater quality goals ant! to document monitoring, community involvement, and watershed management efforts ant! regulatory compliance. The WQES Group ti~ill develop annual work plans for each of its eight pr-agrams. Staff rn~ill use the work plans to direct program activities specific to the WQSP goals. An overall WQES annual work plan summary will be developed regarding major work plan components, planning tasks, anc! annual operating anc! C1P budget recommendations. This recommendation also calls for the development of an annual repast detailing progress on meeting water- quality goals. The annual report will be Page 12 2t1©9 Draft Water Quality Strategic Plan 72-22-08 Water Quality based on specific objectives and water quality indicators, and will presentrvater Regulations Trends quality data collected by the WQES Group. The data also can be used by other The city r~rill anticipate and prepare Utility Division groups and city departments. An example of a WQES annual for futxire water quality regulations, ensxxre rea clatory comL?Iiance, and in- r^'ork plan and annual report is provided in Appendix corporate capital improvement re- quirements in the city's budget Recommendation 4: Prepare for future water quality regulations. planning f?rocess. The city will anticipate and prepare for future water- quality regulations, ensure The eitJr has had to respond fo an regulatory compliance, and incorporate capital improvement requirements in unprecedented number of proposed the city's budget planning process. The foundation of water quality planning is wafer gxxalify regtxlafions in recent years. to the past nine years, for ex- forecasting future water quality criteria and permitting issues related to emerging ample, there have been eight new reg- water quality issues and new regulations. These issues often surface first on the ulafioris for drinking wafer under The national level and must be evaluated in terms of their potential impact on state Safe Drinking \>ti'ater:~et. The city regulatory programs, the city's water quality programs, and regulatory r-equire- faces 23 ner~~ or proposed r~rater quaI- meats that apply to city facilities, such as the wastewater and water- treatment fa- ity regulations. Tn addition to an in- creasing numbers, regulations trends crlities. include: The majority of new water contaminants currently are not regulated, and • More complex regulatory re- many of these unregulated contaminants can pose risks to public or environ- quirements and compliance sfan- mental health. Some contaminants are now being recognizes! as "emerging pal- dards, which make it more lutants." These can include old and new chemicals that are releases! into the difficult fo determine compliance • ~'~~Iore sophisticated (anti some- environment with unknown consequences. The impact of many emerging pollu- times costly) treatment required fonts is just beginning to be understood and regulated. Many emerging pallu- to address polIutanfs being re;u- fonts are present in very law concentrations and, with recent improvements in Iated measuring methods, are being identified in waters across the nation and the • More complicated and more world. costly chemical and biological an- al~rtical and sampling methods ' Emerging water quality issues present a significant management challenge • Lor~~er detection limits required in with potentially costly consequences, including: laboratory analysis increased drinking water and wastewater treatment facility costs, • Hither frequency of sample eo1~ more stringent land-use controls, and Iection often required costly stormwater treatment ant! other pollutant prevention strategies. • Crreafer number of wafer Treat- ment and natural systems affected • Overlap of Treatment systems and flenaenfs of Reconamendatiora 4 potentially conflicting needs (for To meet these challenges the city must develop a systematic approach to track example waster~rater regulations and plan for- emerging water quality issues. This approach represents a new pro- may impact drinking water stan- gram initiative far the WQES Group and would inr.lude the fallowing activities: lords) • Ratcheting down of current dis- charge Limits and stream sfan- A. Research and development, including tracking federal and state regula- dards tions and evaluating how these regulations impact the city operations. These new regulatory challenges r~nTl To determine possible impacts, special studies, water quality modeling, require a concerted, significant re- and passible bench testing will be conducted with environmental con- sponse.'1'he following oxxtlines a sum- suiting services or through further development of staff and resources. mar^~r of some of the proposed or clew regulations. A mot^e detailed descl°ip- tion of watez° qu~rlity issues is located in Appendix C. 2(1119 Draft Water Qualify Strategic Plan 12-22-08 Page 13 B. Partnerships, including forging partnerships Gvith institutions anc! ~ Proactive Management agencies such as USGS, CU, I=PA, and CDPH~. These partnerships Protecting water quality often entails would research emerging water quality issues anc! potential local an overreliance on regulator~r structures and compliance r~ionitor- impacts. The city would seek funding from partner institutions and ing. ~ls a result, rnanagingwater agencies to conduct research. quality becomes rea~efive, in response to monitoring that reveals inadequate C. Regulatory sta[ceholder involvement, including federal and state water qualih~. T~eactive rnanaernent regulators, in developing water quality policies and regulations. can address existing problems but is Regulatory stakeholders might include other entities in the Boulder rarely successful in anticipating new cllalleri~es. I"or -water qualit>~ and Creek Basin, Colorado Water Quality Control Division and Commis- natLiral resource management to be Sion, Denver Regional Counci I of Governments, and other committees, successful, the cif~T must manage. commissions, and work groups. water resources proactively, rather than reactively. Qne example of a proactive approach was the city's management of the ammonia standards for waste- water treatment discharges. fn the early I980s, the state proposed more stringent ammonia disc-harge limits for the cif~T's t~rastewater facilitJ~. to response, the. citJ~ partnered with CU and other municipalities that discharge tti~aste~ti~ater in the region to conduct an extensive st~rdv of ammonia IeveIs in stream segments below wastewater facilities. '1"his proactive collaboration enabled a necessary time frame (two N 75th Street 1~'1~'Tl CDPS permit cycles) while the city collected site-specific data and created an effective plan for additional ammonia removal measures a~t the facility. Page 14 2t1©9 Draft Water Quality Strategic Plan 72-22-08 Award Winning Water Quality Education Performance Measures One of the most effective ways to protect water quality is pollution prevention. '1'o i~uild an active, Is the city's water safe to drink? engaged community, the city provides a number of environmental steward- Can people swim in Boulder's streams and reservoirs? ship and education programs. The ~ Does the city adequately treat wastewater? education program t~ras initiated in I99'~ with a few do~e.n elementar^~r To assess how well the city of Boulder is meeting its water quality goals, the students. Today, the program is core- city needs to evaluate the existing water quality of Bou Ider-'s streams and its ducted regionally through the Keep tt CIean Partnership, ~~'hieh reaches compliance with water quality regulations. The city also needs to take a more than 4,00 students each year. comprehensive look at the programs and policies currently in place and A number of programs have been determine hoGV tn~ell they are ~n~or[cing to protect water quality. adopted state.~~'ide. The WQES Group is proud of its performance in providing water quality School-Based Education: programs and supporting the Uti I ities Division in the mission to protect the Collaborating with teachers and school district administration, the cit)r city's water quality and the environment. With appropriate funding and support, developed an engaging "Get to Know the WQES Group is committed to maintaining and improving its per-fonnance Your H2O" curriculum for K-I2 levels. The success of the WQES Group in implementing the recommendations students in the Boulder Valley and St. in the strategic plan tn'ill be evaluated using the following performance Vrain Valley school districts. The measures: program includes teacher training to ma~~imize the number of shzdents reached. Tt also includes take-home Recommendation 1: Adapt the strategic plan's water quality goals into the materials so the message does not stop Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. at the school-house door. The Performance Measure: Adoption of the five wafer qualify goals into the Boulder program reaches a large. number of 1/alley Comprehensive Plan. students through teacher and staff- led programs and at the annual Children's Water Festival. Recommendation 2: Incorporate water quality goals into citywide planning Community Outreach: A limited efforts and city regulations, policies, and procedures. budget for marketing efforts requires Performance Measures: Number of fa~mal policy and master plans reviewed innovation in implementing the water and updated fo incorporate wafer qualify goals; development of a matrix of quality outreach programs. The wafer qualify indicators and evaluation of plan revievv based ors criteria. community is asked to help protect water gzzality through a wide range of materials, programs, and events. Recommendation 3: Develop annual work plans and water quality reports. Websites, brochures, and stream Perfa~mance Measure: L~evelopmenf of a number of program work plans and tributarJ~ signs convey the i~roader annual reports. message of water quality protection, while prograrzis such as Stream Teams Recommendation 4: Prepare for future water quality regulations. and Neighborhood Stewardship ask for action and commitment from Perfa~mance Measure: Success in implementing a program fo conduct special individuals and smaller ,groups. studies, (rack new and proposed regulations, and participate in rule-making aC t!V! t1P5. 2(1119 Draft Water Qualify Strategic Plan 12-22-08 Page 15 Investment Program The WQSP is a five-year plan that will be implemented primarily by the WQES Group. The investment program is based on annual operating budgets far the WQES Group programs and does not include capital improvement projects. A summary of the recommendations for funding levels is presentee! in Table A. Implementation options are provided at three funding levels, according to the Fiscally Constrained, Action, and Vision plans which are clefinec! as: • Fiscally Constrained Plan (Current Funding} - is a prioritized, refocused service plan within existing budget targets. • Action Plan -the next step of service expansion or- restoration that should be taken when funding is available either within current revenue sources or if nev,~ sources are approved (should became availablej. • Vision Plan -the complete set of services and facilities desired by the community and aligned with values and policies, with alternative proposals to fund them. Fiscally Constrained Action Plan Vision Plan Plan Requires a $611,000 one-time Fiscally constrained implementa- Requires a $60,000 one-time budget increase, a $104,000 op- tion is based on the current fund- budget increase, a $6 ; ,000 on- going adjustment to base, and an ing level of the annual 1~rS~S going adjustment to base, and an additional I.0 full time equiva- operaions budgzt and staff. additiona10.6 full time ~uiva- lent staff member (E"TEI. Recommendation lent staff member (L-r'E). I . Adopt the strategic This recommendation v,%ill be This recommendation will be This recommendation urill be plan's Water quality fully implemented in the next fully implemented in the next fully implemented in the next goals lI]tD the BVCP. BVCP update (in either 2009 or BVCP update (in either 2009 or BVCP update (in either 2009 or 2010). 2010). 2010). 2. Incorporate Water Five-year Implementation Three-year Implementation One-year Implementation Quality goals into Staffing restraints will limit im- Flzll implementeztinnwitl be Full implementation uriLl be Citywide planning ef- plementation. Only plans orpoli- achie~red i~rithin three years a*ith achieved ti~~ithin one year ti~~ith an forts and Clty regula- vies with updates initiated by an additional $10,000 per additional one-time fee of tions, polices and other city departments urill be year for three years of con-- $40,000 for consulting services. analyzed, suiting services. procedures. 3. Develop annual work Five-year Implementation Three-year Implementation One-year Implementation plans and water flmlual work plans will be fully L~0.L implementation ~nn11 be F1zLL implementation wiLLbe quality reports. implemented vritl2in five year°s. achieved within three years with achieved v,%ithin one year vaifli an Under ~-~zrrent fvndingcondi- an additional one-time Fee additional one time fee of tions, the development of annual of 520,000 for consulting 550,000 for consulting szr~nces water quality reports will be an ser,~ ices to develop an amiual to develop a template and draft optional urork product for each report template. of 'the first annual report. of the 4l'QES programs. 4. Prepare for future New Program Initiative New Program Initiative New Program Initiative water quality Activiites urill be limited to avail- Partial implements ion ti~~ill be E1z11 implementation urill be regulations. able resources and dependent on achieved urith an additional achieved with an additional workload and budget constraints. 0.5 FTE and $10,000 per 1.0 FTE and $10,000 per year Cor laboratory= and consult- year for laboratory and consult- ing seances. [t requires an irtg seances. It require an annual adjustment to base annual adjustment to base of $47,000 for the 0.6 FI'E of 594,000 for the 0.5 FIE jd~7jB A - 1Ptb'BStl77el71 P!'ObP~177 annual salary and benefits. annual salary and benefits. Page 16 2t1©9 Draft Water Quality Strategic Plan 72-22-08 FUNDING PLANS Key Accomplishments of Recommendations by Funding Level $~20,00o Fiscall Constrained Plan $100,00 Recommendations 7 through 3: The currentbVQES Group bcrd6et is adequate to implet7~ent al I three reco~timendations, inr_ludi'n6 incorporating water quality Goals hi the BoulderVal- ley Comprehensn~e Plan and mas7el° grans and other poli~c~,~ $b0,000 documents. There will be minimal policy review of city plans and policies and minimal ~a~ork plan and annual report devel- opment. These activities ~w'rll be implemented under a f'rve- year schedule. $60,000 ~ Recommendation 4: Without additional funding or other re- C sourr_es, staff wHl not be able to anticipate and respor7d ade- ~ u quately~to new and proposed regulations, vvhich could caase m ~ regulator°y nonr_ompliance. $~i0,000 c O ~ ~ O Action Plan $20,000 1° ~ ' ~ w ~ Recommendation l: Will be completed with Fiscally Q Constrained Plan funding. $0 Recommendations 2 and 3: The focus ~-vill be on rov"revv of r_ity~ Fiscally Action Vision Plan plans and policies and on work plan and annual report Constrained Plan development. These activities will be implemented antler a more proactive three-year schedule. Plan Recommendation 4: Key elements vvill be additional funding for staff and consultants to respond to neNr and proposed regulations. LEGEND Fiscally Constrained Plan Funding VI510n Plan None Action Plan Funding Recommendation 1 and 2: Wi11 be r_ompleted with Fisr_ally Constrained Plan funding. One-time Costs Ad ustment to Base Recommendations 3 and 4: This plan allows 1NQES to: ? 1 Develop focused, goal-oriented annual uwork plans; • Produce annual reports on the status of drinking; water Vision Plan Fundin and waste~watei° treatment compliance and pei~ormance ~ and on the quality of Boulder's water; a'nd ? One-time Costs Respond proar_tively to near and proposed regulations to ensure r_ost-etter_tn~e regulatory r_omplranr_e, Ad]ustment to Base environmental preservation; and public health protection. h-nplernentation of these programs ~wil I be completed within one year. 2(1119 Draft Water Qualify Strategic Plan 12-22-t}8 Page 17 Next Steps The most significant challenge the WQ)=S Graup faces is anticipating and preparing for new water duality regulations. This strategic plan identities funding shortages in the group's Fiscally Constrained Plan and identifies strategies in the Action Plan that are needed to meet this challenge. Implementation of the WQSP will be based, in part, on the funding level. At every funding level, the WASP calls for- the city to commit to adopting the five water quality goals and the recommendations. The WQSP is a five year plan and will be updated in 2013. Page 18 2t1©9 Draft Water Quality Strategic Plan 72-22-08 Appendix A ~ Understanding Water Quality Regulations The Colorado Water Quality Control Division regulates the clischar-ge of pollutants into the state's surface and ground waters and enforces the Colaraclo Primary Drinking Water- Regulations. The Colorado Water- Quality Control Division is the administrative agency responsible far developing specific state water duality policies related to those specified in the Colorado Water Quality Control Act. The Commission adapts ~n~ater duality classifications and standards for surface and ground waters of the state, as well as various regulations aimed at achieving compliance with those clas- sifications and standards. Standards have three components: designated use classification, water duality criteria, anc! anti--degradation policies. The fallowing outlines each of these components: Designated Uses. Designated uses are human and ecological uses that are officially recognized and protected. Col- orado's designated use categories are: Recreation: Class 1 - Pr-imar-y Contact: Waters suitable for recreational activities when ingestion of water is likely, such as swimming, kayaking and tubing. There are two subcategories: Class 1A (existing use} and Class 1 B (potential use). Class 2 - Secondary Contact: Waters not suitable far primary contact, but suitable for recreational uses such as wading and fishing. Agriculture: Waters suitable tar- crop irrigation and for livestock watering. Aquatic Life: Class 1: Waters capable of sustaining a wide variety of aduatic life, including sensitive species. There are two subcategories: Cold Water and Warm Water Class 2: Waters not capable of sustaining a Gvide variety of cold water aduatic life, including sensitive species, due to physical habitat, ~n~ater flati~s, ar uncorrectable water duality conditions. There ar-e two subcategories: Cold Water- and Warm Water Domestic Water Supply: Surface waters suitable for drinking water supplies. After- standard treatment, these waters will meet Col- orado drinking water- regulations. Surface waters within a watershed are clividec! into segments, which are then assigned designates! uses based on how the water is currently uses! and what uses are desired far the future. Several designated uses have been applied to waters in the Boulder Creek watershed. All of the waters have been classified for Recreation 1 A and agricultural use, and all except for parts of Coal Creek have been classified far domestic water supply. Aquatic life use classifications vary depending on water temperature and flow. Current use designations are shown on Figure A-1 on the next page. 2009 Draft Water Qualify Strategic Plan 12-22-08 Page Al rw~tal~t~ 1i~e1 R~1F ~~n~ ~or~¦,•~ u~ I~lMd1C LR1~n 1 Ji0lY0~ ~ ~0 L LR1M~/~1 r 1~~11 LR ~d~ll 7X 11VRiHlilPRlr ? ~ ¦ meatus ¦ ~oiere~~ ,~aus~aurss~s ~ ~ r~s ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ - _ o io ~al~aaeteb~ ~igureA-7 Use flPSignations in the 6oulcler CreekVl/atershecl Water Quality Criteria. Water quality criteria ar-e descriptions of the chemical, physical, and biological condi- tions necessary to achieve and protect a water body's designated uses. For waters with multiple designations, the criteria must support the most sensitive use (CDPHE, 2005). There are both narrative and numeric criteria. Narra- tive criteria describe wafer quality goals anc! provide protection against contaminants that do not have specific numeric standards. Numeric criteria set an acceptable concentration of a specific contaminant in a surface water or groundwater. Anti-degradation Policies. Anti--degradation policies are used to protect water quality. The Colorado Water Qual- ity Control Division's guidance on anti--degradation identifies three levels of r.lassification: 1) outstanding waters, far which no degradation is allowed; 2} use-protected ~n~aters, ~n~here degradation is allowed as long as water quality criteria are met; and 3) reviewable ~n~aters, where limited degradation is allowed if na reasonable alterna- tives are available anc! water quality standards are still met. In the Boulder Creek ~n~atershed, all of the tributaries within the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area are designated as outstanding waters. In general, Boulder Creek and other tributaries in the mountains ar-e reviewable waters, where segments on the plains ar-e mostly use-protected. Segment 9 of Boulder Creek, which is the reach of Boulder Creek that receives treated effluent from the N 75th Street WWTF, is a reviern~able rn~ater anc! requires more stringent effluent limits far some constituents. Compliance with Water Quality Criteria. States are required by section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act to assess and report on the quality of the state`s waters to Congress through the U.S EPA. The state's current (2006) 305(b) report describes the ways the state measures water quality, the quality of water bodies, anc! pollution control pro- grams. The State of Colorado 305(b) r-epor-t, titled Status of Water Quality in Colorado, is available from Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, at the follo~n~ing link: http://tn~ww.cdphe.state.ca.us/ap/wgcc/Re- sourtes/waterstatus_305_b/3 05 b U pdate08. pdf Page A2 2t1©9 Draft Water Quality Strategic Plan 72-22-08 In addition to the 305(b) Report, Section 303(d) of the Clean Water~,ct requires states to develop a list of im- paired water bodies, called the 303 (d} list. When credible data indicate that a water quality standard is not met, the state is required to propose that the stream segment be placed on the 303(d} list with information pertaining to the constituent(s) that do not meet water quality standards and an assessment of what is causing the impairment. In Calaraclo, the Colorado Water Quality Control Division develops the 303 (d} list every two years anc! submits the list to the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission for a public hearing. Once the 303 (d) list is approved, it is provided to US >=PA Region 8 for- review anc! approval. !n the Boulder Creek Watershed, segments of Boulder Creek and Coal Creek have been listed as impaired far ammonia and/or E. call, requiring the development of a total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessment. Ammonia lmpairrnent. In the late 1980s, the Colorado Department of Public Health and )=nviranment identified Segment 9 of Boulder Creek, which receives treated effluent from the N 75th Street WWTF, as being impaired for exceeding the ammonia water quality standard. The city of Boulder embarked on extensive tn~ater quality evalua- tions and a Boulder Creek enhancement project to address degraded stream habitat and reduce water tempera- ture and pH, which reduces the toxicity of ammonia. The city also completed substantial N 75th Street WWTF improvements to add ammonia removal capabilities atthe N 75th StreetWWTF. Segment 9 of Boulder G~eek was listed as impairec! for ammonia on the 1998 303(d) list because it continues! to exceed the ammonia ~n~ater qualit}~ standard. Under the Gear Water Act, a TNfDL assessment is required to be completes! to characterize the tn~ater quality impact, identify the cause of impairment, anc! determine tivhat level of reduction, for the constituent(s)of concern, needs to be made. !n 2003, an amman is TMDL was completed for- the St. Vrain Creek Basin, which includes Boulder Creek. [WHO?] recommended further reductions in ammonia dis- charges fi-om the N 75th Street WWTF. New, lower ammonia effluent limits, based on the TMDL, were imple- mented in the permit for the N 75th Street WWTF 2002 Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS), with the new ammonia limits becoming effective in January 2008. E. soli Impairment. !n 2006, the segment of Boulder G~eek through the city of Boulder was listed as impairec! far exceeding the water quality standard for- >=scherichia soli (E. soli) bacteria, which are found in the intestines of tn~ann-blooded animals. E. soli are associated with fecal waste and are monitored as an indicator of the presence of disease-causing microbes. The source of the E. soli contamination in Boulder Creek cun-ently is unknown, but is suspected to be from wi Idl ife (raccoons), domestic pets (clogs}, and human waste products that enterer! Bau Ider Creek through the city's storm sewer system. In 2006, city staff initiated a comprehensive soli monitoring program to evaluate potential sources of E. tali. ]n addition, the city began to screen far- optical brighteners (OB}, or dyes used in laundry detergents. OBs are ubiquitous in sanitary waste sources, indicating the presence of laundry effluents. OBs also could be used to indicate potential r.rass connections in wasterwater discharges. Additional parameters also are being monitored to help identify ~n~hether the l=. col i are from human sources or from other warm blooded animals. The city intends to draft an l=. soli TMDL in 2009 and may include additional monitoring or control requirements. 2009 Draft Water Qualify Strategic Plan 12-22-08 Page A3 Appendix B ~ Annual Work Plan Example Example: Water Quality Oi~jectives and lndicatar This matrix is an example of a tool that wil I be used to develop annual work plans for the WQ~S work group. The indicators will be used to develop an annual report on the status of water quality and to inform future activities. PROGRAM AREA: Boulder Creek Water Quality bjecYives Issues Paramefers [ndicafors v~Fare~~ c~~a1~ty Goal Characterize trends and Impacts from pollutants Flow, DO, water chemistry, sed"rment Pollutant loading (predictive model based 1,2 identify areas of concern. aesthetics, land ase on land use), vvater ualit index Habitat Quality Agcratic, riparian, and terrestrial Hab'rtatvalue GI5 Map: number of miles 4 habrtatvalue scores with high, rned'rum, low habitat values Public Health Bacteria levels Stream standard andfiMDl compliance 1,2,3 Hydrologic modification Groundwater and surface water flows, Meet minimum stream flow, 4 and flovv irrigation water balance Restcire stream and Riparian habitat and iA-piles of hnpair°ed stream segment's i1-M1iles of improved stream se6ments d rwetlands ftmr_tio'n. channel restoration proiects Ensure regulatory Chemical and b'ralog'rcal Chemical parametersw'rth applicable Stream standard (beneficial rise attainment), 1,2,3 compliance. monitoring stream standard TMDL and discharge permit compliance Involve the public. Recreation Park use; boating,' k~ayakit~g/tubing User san~eys 4 activities Stewardship and Education and outreach programs Program participants, surveys 2,x,5 perception Cify Water Quality Goals: (7) Provide safe and high-quality drinking water.; (2) Manage point source pollutants from wastewater and other sources; f3) Manage pollutants from stormwafer and other nonpoint sources; (4) Protect, preserve, and restore natural water systems; (5) Conserve wafer resources. 2(1119 Draft Water Qualify Strategic Plan 12-22-08 Page S 1 Appendix C ~ Emerging Water Quality Issues To prepare far future water quality regulations, the Water Quality ant! Environmental Services (WQES) Group within the city of $aulder Public Works Department, Utilities Division (Division), clevelaped the following synapsis of emerging water quality issues faced by $aulder and other municipalities throughout Colar-ado: Pending ar Proposed Water Quality Regulations • Wastewater: temperature and the presence of mercury, ammonia, nitrogen, phosphorus nonylphenol, and emerging contaminants, such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and endocrine disrupting com- pounds • Drinking Water: lead. copper; fatal colifonns, invasive species, disinfection byproducts, and emerging c~n- taminants such as pharmaceuticals and personal care products and endocrine disrupting compounds • Stream Standards and Total Maximwn Daily Loads (TMDL): standards changes including sediment criteria, nutrient criteria, aquatic life criteria, and pathogens (E. coli), plus TMDLs, or calculations of the maximum amount of pollutants that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet tivater quality standards, for E. coli.. • Stormwater: airborne contaminants, pathogen (E. soli) TMDLs, and sediment criteria • Other: climate change impacts WASTEWATER ISSUES Emerging Contaminants. "Emerging contaminants" can be broadly defined as any synthetic or naturally occurring chemical or any microorganism that is not commonly monitored in the environment but has the potential to enter the environment and cause known ar suspected adverse ecological and(or) human health effects. Release to the environ- ment of emerging chemical or- microbial contaminants likely has occurred for a tang time, but these contaminants were not recognized until new methods of analysis anc! lower-level detection were developed. 1n other cases, synthe- sis of new chemicals or- changes in use anc! disposal of existing chemicals has created new sources of emerging con- taminants. (USGS, Toxic Substance Hydrology Program, 2001) Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDCs). EDCs are natural anc! synthetic molecules that can interfere with hormone systems in the bodies of animals. EDCs such as estrogenic pesticides and pharmaceuticals (xenoestragens) can have adverse impacts on wildlife, domestic animals, anc! humans. $aulder recently receivec! national attention related to EDCs detectec! during research on $aulder Creek by the Uni- versityaf Colorado (CU), $oulder; and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The research is evaluating la~n~-level con- taminants that act as endocrine disruptors and have led to a predominance of female fish in the study area. Although research focused on $oulder Creek, primarily do~nmstream of the city's N 75th Street ~n~astewater treatment facility (WWTF}, $oulder is not alone in dealing with the effects of these chemicals on the environment. Little is know about the removal of EDCs in the drinking water anc! wastewater treatment processes, or the impact these chemicals may have on human health. $oulder, in conjunction with the USGS and CU, has initiated monitoring to evaluate the level of treatment required for specific emerging contaminants at the N 75th Street WWTF anc! to measure the effects of these contaminants on $oulder Q-eek. Evaluation of the effectiveness of treatment at the WWTF anc! the impacts on $oulder Creek should continue through cooperation v\~ith the USGS and CU. These cooperative efforts could be expanded to assess potential emerging contaminant impacts on the city's raw and treated drinking water. 2009 Draft Wafer Quality Strategic Plan 12-20-08 Page Cl i ~ c ' - kd ~ '~L Fish fxpostrre ~i1e F~,f~ b~;~, ~crr rlrAgcran+a Research J:i1 rr cr~ro` ~;y CU to evaluate impacts Aquaria msio`e the eseard~ trailer useo` by CU to evaluate of Endocrine Ciisrupting Compounds. impacts of Endocrine Disrupting Compounds. Prevention measures will be a key component of any control strategy. In 2008, the city completed cone-day pharmaceuti- cal take-back program with the Boulder Count} Health Department. The program attracted approximately 300 county resi- dents, who turned in approximately 300 pounds of pharmaceuticals. These efforts help prevent pharmaceuticals front entering the city's wastewater treatmentfacilitythrough the sanitary sewer system and also eliminate improper disposal or use of excess or expired pharmaceuticals. Temperature Standard: In 2006, the Colorado bVater Quality Control Division (Division) Department of Public Health and Ern~ironment {CDPHE) proposed changes to statewide water temperature standards. A more restrictive and complex set of temperature standards were adopted in the Colorado Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water. The Division will evaluate receiving water temperature data and determine whether discharges, such as treated effluent from wastewater treatment facilities, should have a lower effluent temperature to protect aquatic life (recognizing that tem- peraturevariations result from natural conditions and irreversible human impacts). Possible implications for Boulder in- cludethe need for cooling towers or refrigerated chillers to cool effluent from the N 75th Street Lti~~VT'F. Mercury Standard: The current mercurywaterquality standards for the protection of aquatic life are 1.4 ug/L for acute conditions and 0.01 ug/L for chronic conditions, measured as a water column concentration. The N 75th StreetUVUUTF ef- fl cent l im it is set at 0.012 ug/L. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently has focused on revisions to the mercury criteria to better ad- dress the bioaccumulation of mercury in fish tissue. EPA is revising criteria for the protection of human health from a form of mercury called methylmercury. Other criteria being developed by EP,4 is the study of the relationship betUVeen fish tis- sue mercury accumulation and water column concentrations. This relationship is important in determining ho~v corrtpli- ancewith mercury levels uvill be measured. The Division has included mercury criteria in the list of constituents to be addressed through the Standards Frame- workWork Group process. The Work Group meets bimonthly and the cit}~ of Boulder will remain a member of the Work Group through the 2010 Basic Standards Hearing. Pane C2 2QQ3 Draff tNafer Qualify Sfrafearc Flan 72-22-Q3 Ammonia Standard. r~s parrt of the N 75th Street WWTF Colorado Discharge Permit System (COPS) permit renewal process in 2002, the Division required an ammoniaTMDL be completed for Boulder G-eek and the St. Vrain Cl-eek basin to address excesses of ammonia. TheTMDLwas completed in 2003, and ammonia effluent limits were incorporated into the COPS discharge permit. 1n 2007 the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (Commission) acloptec! more restrictive ammonia vvater quality standards anc! implemented a ne~n~ model to calculate WWTF effluent limits for ammonia. Substantial improve- ments at the N 75th Street WWTF were implemented to prepare for the nets ammonia stanclarcl, anc! the possible imple- mentation of nitrate and nutrient standards. Additional Boulder Creek ammonia and nitrogen evaluations were completes! in 2008 and submitted to the Division. Prelirninar-y results of the modeling indicate that monthly ammonia effluent limits are substantially lower far- specific months and require enhanced nitrogen removal at the N 75th Street WWTF )mplementation of lower ammonia effluent limits will be part of the COPS permit renewal process, which is expectec! to occur in 2009. Boulder will need to evaluate further the technical basis used to calculate the low ammonia limits to ensure they are accurate. Nonylphenal Standard. In 2006, EPA published final aquatic-life chronic cr-iter-ia for- nonylphenol, an organic compound that is a product of industrial synthesis, particularly in making detergents. The EPA freshwater cr-iter-ia specified 6.6 ug/L anc! an acute criteria of 28 uglL. As part of the 2007 Commission hearing on Consideration of Revisions to Statewide Or- ganic Chemical Standards in the Basic Standards anc! Ntethodologies for Surface Water, Regulation #31 anc! in the Basic Standards for Groundwater, Regulation #i41, as Well as Other Proposes! Revisions to Regulation #41, the Colorado Water Quality Cantr-ol Commission adopted the EPA nonylphenol criteria. As part of the Commission hearing process, meeting these standards was deferred through 2009 to allow dischargers time to evaluate the fol lowing: appr-ovable analytical procedures for measuring non lyphenol and its parent compounds; sources of nonylphenol; the ability to limit nonylphenol sources; and, measures of the level of nonylphenol in WWTF ef- fluent to determine the ability to comply with the adopted criteria. The city of Boulder is in the process of collecting data on nonylphenol and its parent compounds to characterize sources. The city has been an active participant with other dischargers on developing an approval analytical method for nynylphenol. These efforts wi II need to continue through 2009. Nutrient Standards. In 2002 the Division released their Nutrient Criteria Development Plan for the development and im- plementation of nutrient criteria in Colorado. Over the past six }ears the Division has been working towards developing nutrient criteria for nitrogen, phosphorus and chlorophyll a. ,algae, measured as chlorophyll a, has been identified as the primary indicator for evaluating the health of lakes and reservoirs. The Division is also evaluating the relationship be- tween chlorophyll a and nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations. if impairment due to elevated chlorophyll a levels is identified same level of control for nitrogen and/or phosphorus contributions, from point anc! non-paint sources, will be r-equir-ed by the Division. Far streams and rivers, the Division is focusing on controlling nitrogen and/or phosphorus con- tributions based on the health of the aquatic community, specifically macroinvertebrates. This process looks at the rela- tionship between nutrient concentrations and macr-ainvertebrate populations and diversity. The Division wi II propose state-wide nutrient criteria to the Water- Quality Control Commission at the 2010 Basic Standards Hearing. Nutrient criteria development Work Group meetings wi II continue through 2009 anc! into early 2010 in preparation for the Hearing. The city of Boulder is actively participating in the Work Group meetings and will need to deckle in late 2009 whether there is a need to testify at the 20.10 Basic Standards Hearing. 2(1119 Draft Water Qualify Strategic Plan 12-22-08 Page C3 Aquatic Life Standards. The Division initiated the Aquatic Life Work Group in 2000 as part of their process of developing aquatic life water quality standards, which are expressed as biocriteria. The primary function of biocriteria is to describe the biological condition that is necessary to support the designated use of the water body, including lakes, reservoirs, rivers and streams. Bioassessment tools ar-e being developed to quantity the biolagical condition of an aquatic commu- nity. The primary intent of biocriteria is not to set a regulatory standard, but will be used to detect impairment in aquatic life and identifying probable causes of the impairment. To date, the approach to developing biocriteria has focused on using macroinvertebrate population data, habitat as- sessments (physical features} and fish population data. One of the main challenges in clevelaping biocriteria is cleter-mining "expected conditions". The expected condition will reflect a range of biolagical char-acteristicstbat are considered "nor- mal" or "healthy" for a waterbody. ]mpair-ment of a waterbody will be based on the comparison of the expected condi- tion to the actual condition, based on collected data. To date, the city of Boulder has not been an active participant in the Aquatic Life Work Group due to limited resources. STORMWATER ISSUES Urbanization. As Boulder becomes mare urban, much of the land surface becomes covered by buildings and pavement. These impervious surfaces do not allow rain and snawmelt to soak into the grauncl. Instead, stormwater runoff is carries! into nearby waterways. The stormwater runoff may can-y pollutants such as oil, dirt, chemicals, and lawn fertilizers into streams and rivers, impacting water quality. Additional impacts from runoff in urban areas include: • Stream bank erosion and increased sedimentation • Loss or degradation of riparian habitat • Pollution fi-om runoff, including from nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogens, toxic metals, and pesticides • Loss of aquatic and riparian dependant species • }Zecluction in groundwater recharge The city of Boulder- aclch-esses a number of urban water quality impacts through the stormwater quality management program .Program elements include runoff control and prevention strategies. The city's Greenways anc! Wetlands protec- tion programs provide for the protection anc! restoration of wetlands anc! riparian areas, which help to mitigate the effects of ina-eased runoff in urban areas. The city's stormwater and associates! programs address basic problems associated with urban runoff, such as runoff volume control and pollution prevention. However, a number of emerging stormwater- issues will make it more difficult to meet the city's water quality goals in the future. These issues include; Air-born contaminants: The US. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment program included the first com- prehensive evaluation of waterways in the U.S. The study identified air-born contaminants as a source of hydr-ocarban pollutants in a surface water, stormwater, anc! groundwater. These contaminants were likely formed by the burning of fossil fuels. EPA has indicates! that these contaminants will be regulated in the future. Pathogens: Biologic Pathogens are another type of pollutant regulated to improve water- quality and protect public health. Qrn-ently, E. Coli is used as an indicator of contamination by pathogens. Boulder Creek has been listed as impaired be- cause of level of E. coll. This is discusses! in further details in the TMDL section belotiv. Page C4 2t1©9 Draft Water Quality Strategic Plan 72-22-tt8 Sediment: The CDPHE has adopted guidance concerning sediment deposition impacts to aquatic life in streams and rivers. The guidance document, Provisional Implementation Gu iclance for Determining Sediment Depasitian Impacts to Aquatic Life in Streams and Rivers" focuses on the application of "expected conditions" with respect to aquatic life classi- fication, nutrient a-iteria, and narrative sediment standarc! issues. The Water Quality Control Commission (INQCC) is cur- rentlydeveloping sediment regulations, which are expectec! to be completes! by 2011. TMDL Requirements. The Clean Water Act requires that states develop streams standards for waterways within their juris- dictions. These stream standards ar-e based on "beneficial uses" of stream segments anc! include recreation, drinking water, agricultural anc! aquatic life standards. New stream standards are often developed to provide additional or improved water quality protection. The Division is proposing several new stream standards, including those on nutrients, sediment, aquatic life, and temperature. These standards can affect the N 75th Street WWTF by requiring additional treatment and the city's stormwater quality program by requiring additional best management practices (BMPs). States also are required to assess water- quality to determine compliance with al I water- quality standar-cls. The Clean Water- Act requires states to develop a list of impaired waters, commonly referred to as the "303(d) list." A water hotly is consid- er-ec! impaired if: a) the current water quality does not meet the numeric or narrative stream stanclar-c!; or; b} the designates! use that is not being achieved. Once a waterbody is listed, the state must work with dischargers to those stream segments to develop a TMDL analysis. Pathogen (E. tali) TMDL. In 2006, some segments of Boulder Creek were listed on the state's 303(d) list as impaired clue to exceeding the E. soli stream standards. Escherichia soli soli) is a bacteria used as indicators of the possible pres- ence of pathogenic (disease-causing} bacteria, viruses, and protozoa from sewage contamination. Since it is difficult, time- consuming, and expensive to test directly for the presence of a large variety of pathogens, water is tested for E. soli instead. However, recent studies have indicated that soli may not be a good indicator of pathogens, because anumber- of strains thrive in the environment of sails and natural waterways, unlike the pathogens they indicate. Monitoring by the city has shown high concentrations of E. soli in some segments of Boulder- Q-eek. The city is work- ingwith the state to identity the sources of E. soli anc! other indicators to determine the relative health risk in Boulder Creek. DRINKING WATER ISSUES The Drinking Water Program addresses water quality issues fi-om the source water through the distribution system. The source water management programs typically ar-e invaluable in understanding water quality for treatment and protecting the city water supplies, rather than in meeting specific r-egulatary r-epar-ting requirements. This includes tracking emerging water quality issues, of which water customers are increasingly mare aware. Treatment and distr-ibutian system monitoring typically is more focused on regulatory reporting but also provides information on water quality after it leaves the treat- mentfacilities and ~n~hen it reaches the city's customers. Changes to drinking water regulations will continue to affect the city through monitoring, treatment, reporting, and cus- tomer- awareness. The EPA must revisit drinking water regulations to address new developments in research related to human health effects and analytical methods. The trends in drinking water- regulations include more complex rules, more emphasis on treatment techniques, anc! more complex methods for determining compliance. There also may be changes in horn regulations are determined, such as health endpoints and acute and chronic health effects. In the past two years, the Division has adopted revisions to 2009 Draft Water Qualify Strategic Plan 12-22-08 Page C5 significant drinking water regulations related to federal Long-Term 2)=nhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and Stage 2 DisinfectantslDisinfection By-Products Rule, and the Groundwater Rule. In the coming year, the Division also will be re- quired to adopt the Lead and Copper- Rule revisions. The fallowing provides a summary of current and developing changes in drinking water quality management issues: Backflow Prevention. The Division will be considering revisions to Article 12 of the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2009. Article 12 governs the installation, maintenance, anc! annual testing of backflow prevention assem- blies. Potential changes that could affect the r.ity include: 1) greater inclusion of backflaw prevention requirements during a Sanitary Surve}; 2} increased tracking and reporting by the Backflow Prevention Program, 3} inclusion of an educational component to the Backflow Prevention Program, and 4) more accountability far annual testing/compliance and reporting. Lead and Copper Rule. The Division will adapt short-term revisions in the rule-making process starting in 2009. Recent re- visions to the Lead and Copper Rule enhance implementation of monitoring, treatrrrent, and customer awareness. Par-ticu- larchanges could also require additional reporting requirements. The city is participating in the rule-making process. Total Caliform Rule. This rule aims to detect anc! eliminate microbial contamination throughout the distribution system. Proposed regulatory changes are expectec! in 2010 and include a treatment technique approach that requires an assess- ment and correction of sanitary defects in distribution s}stems triggerec! by monitoring results. Long-term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. This rule targets additional protection from disease-causing mi- croorganisms and contaminants that can form during the drinking water treatment process. $ased on monitoring, the city will be classified in one of four treatment categories for bins). The bin classification determines whether treatment changes may be needed to further reduce Cryptosporidium, aprotozoan that can cause gastro-intestinal illness with diarrhea in hu- mans. The city is currently responding to a Division request for additional information and will be submitting a bin classifi- cation in 2008. Stage 2 Disinfection/Disinfectant Byproduct Rule. This rule requires systems to identify the locations with high disinfec- tion byproduct cancentratians that~n~ill then be uses! for compliance monitor-ing. The city is developing its Initial Distribu- tion System evaluation report, due December 31, 2008. There will also be increases! reporting requirements when compliance is effective in 20"12. Contaminant Candidate List and Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rules. These r-u les are a foundation far EPA's regu- latory development process and are developed an a five-year cycle. The city will be conducting Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 2009. Presence of Invasive Species in Carter Lake Watershed. In 2008, Quagga anc! Zebra Mussels were detected in Colorado r-eservairs, including Carter Lake, upstream of Boulder Reservoir. The state of Colaraclo initiated an extensive monitoring and education program related to the invasive species. The city's Uti I ities and Parks and Open Space clepar-tments have been developing responses to minimize the introduction of the species into Boulder Reservoir. The city also has as begun planning efforts to respond to potential impacts to infrastructure. Page C6 2t1©9 Draft Water Quality Strategic Plan 72-22-tt8 Emerging Contaminants. A 2Q08 Associated Press investigation, reporting that same major water providers across the country have found trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in their water supplies heightened public interest ant! raised the question of what the city is doing to monitor- pharmaceuticals in the drinking water. Increasing sensitivity of chemical ana- lytical technologies has revealec! previously unmeasurable microconstituents in the city's water. Sometimes referred to as emerging contaminants of concern O=CCs}, these microconstituents include endocrine dis- rupting campouncls O=DCs), and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs). FCCs represent a variety of com- pounds including prescription anc! over-the-counter veterinary and human medicines, household and industrial cleaning products, herbicides and pesticides, and intermediary manufacturing chemicals. ECCs can be synthetic ar- natural, such as estrogenic compounds produced by plants like say. Recognizing the need to address potential health and environmental concerns, the r.ity's WQES staff has dare re- search anc! followed developments in this ne~n~ discipline. Boulder participates in the Consortium for Research and Educa- tion an Emerging Contaminants (CREEL), an interagency organization. The city recently joined the American Water- Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARE) to take a more active role in research that will enable utilities to characterize potential public health risks of ECCs and address them proactively. Over the past six years, the city has been involved in a joint effort with CU and USGS in evaluating EDCs in Boulder- Q-eek below the N 75th Street wastewater- treatment facility. The location of this work is downstream of the city`s drinking water- sources. CLIMATE CHANGE One of the biggest factors impacting water quality is the modification of stream flav~~s and groundwater levels. These macli- ficationsare due in a large part to increased runoff from urban areas and to diversions and return flows from agricultural and municipal water demands. This hydrologic modification of the natural stream system leaves little water- in the creek to provide dilution of pollutants, or to maintain habitat and the natural stream channel. These hydrologic conditions may be further affected by climate change. !n a recent study completed by University of Colorado for the city of Boulder's Water Resources Warkgroup, re- searcher predict dryer winters, wetter springs with an earlier mountain snow runoff period. These conditions could lead to depleted stream flows in the winter, threatening aquatic life; and more frequent and severe flooding in the spring, which could lead to accelerated stream bank erosion and degradation of aquatic and riparian habitat. Both conditions could lead to degraded water quality. 2009 Draft Water Qualify Strategic Plan 12-22-08 Page C7