5 Colo. Code Regs. § 1002-33.10
These stream classifications and water quality standards for state waters in Eagle, Grand, Jackson, Pitkin, Routt, and Summit Counties implement requirements of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, C.R.S. 1973, 25-8-101 et seq. They also represent the implementation for Planning Region 12 of the Commission's Regulations Establishing Basic Standards and an Antidegradation Standard and Establishing a System for Classifying State Waters, for Assigning Standards, and for Granting Temporary Modifications (the "basic standards").
The basic regulations establish a system for the classification of state waters according to the beneficial uses for which they are suitable or are to become suitable, and for assigning specific numerical water quality standards according to such classifications. Because these stream classifications and standards implement the basic regulations, that statement of basis and purpose (Section 3.1.16) must be referred to for a complete understanding of the underlying basis and purpose of the regulations adopted herein; therefore, that statement of basis and purpose is addressed to the scientific and technological rationale for the specific classifications and standards developed from information in the record established in the administrative process. Public participation was a significant factor in the development of these regulations. A lengthy record has been built through public hearings, and this record establishes a substantial basis for the specific classifications and standards adopted. Public hearings were commenced on August 20, 1979, to receive a testimony, and were continued on September 5, October 9, October 10, and November 5, 1979. A total of twenty-two persons requested and were granted party status by the Commission in accordance with C.R.S. 1973, 24-4-101 et seq.
The "goal" qualifier (Section 3.1.13 , basic regulations) has been used in specific cases where waters are presently not fully suitable for the classified use, but are intended to become so. In all such cases, water quality standards have been assigned to protect the classified uses and temporary modifications have been granted for specific parameters.
The Commission has considered appending the "interrupted flow" qualifier to numerous stream segments in accordance with Section 3.1.13 8 of the basic regulations; however, numerous questions have arisen as to its meaning and applicability. The intention of the provision is to allow the Commission to classify certain stream segments according to their water quality, despite the existence of flow problems. It has not been included in order to eliminate confusion as to its applicability to diminished, as opposed to interrupted, flows. It has also been eliminated in order to avoid any misimpression regarding benefits to dischargers. This qualifier is essentially a statement of the obvious, particularly in view of the provision regarding low flow exceptions (Section 3.1.9(1), basic regulations).
In addition, where flow characteristics permanently impair the suitability of the stream segment to provide a habitat for a wide variety of aquatic life, the "Class 2 - Cold Water Aquatic Life" classification has been assigned.
In addition to the significant distinction between "Recreation - Class 1 and Recreation -Class 2" as defined in Section 3.1.13 of the basic regulations, the difference between the two classifications in terms of water quality standards is the fecal coliform parameter. "Recreation - Class 1" generally results in a standard of 200 fecal coliforms per 100 ml; "Recreation - Class 2" generally results in a standard of 2000 fecal coliforms per 100 ml.
The Commission has heard considerable testimony on the issue of applying these classifications and has deliberated on it at length. The Commission has decided to classify as "Recreation - Class 2" those stream segments where primary contact recreation does not exist and cannot be reasonably expected to exist in the future, and where municipal discharges are present which may be unnecessarily affected by the "Recreation - Class 1" classification, to their detriment and that of the aquatic life in the stream segment. The Commission has decided to classify as "Recreation - Class 1" those stream segments where primary contact recreation exists, or where the fecal coliform standard of 200 per 100 ml. is being met and no point source discharges exist, despite the absence of the primary contact use. The reasons for these decisions are as follows:
It is the decision of the Commission to assign these standards as basic standards for Region 12 even though their presence is not generally suspected. Also, these numbers are not detectable using routine methodology, and there is some concern regarding the potential for monitoring requirements. This concern should be alleviated by Section 3.1.14 of the basic regulations, but there is uncertainty regarding the interpretation of those numbers by other entities. Regardless of these concerns, because these parameters are highly toxic, there is a need for regulating their presence in state waters. Because the Commission has determined that they have uniform applicability here, their inclusion as basic standards for the region accomplishes this purpose.
Consistent with the basic regulations, the Commission has not assumed that the table values have presumptive validity or applicability in Region 12. This accounts for the extensive data in the record of ambient water quality; however, the Commission has found that the table values are generally sufficient to protect the use classifications. They have, therefore, been applied in the situations outlined in the preceding paragraph, as well as in those cases where there is insufficient data in the record to justify the establishment of different standards. The documentary evidence forming the basis for the table values is included in the record.
Cases in which water quality standards reflect these instream values usually involve the metal parameters. On many stream segments, elevated levels of metals are present due to natural or unknown causes, as well as mine seepage from inactive or abandoned mines. These sources are difficult to identify and impractical or impossible to control. The classified aquatic life uses may be impacted and/or may have acclimated to the condition. In either case, the water quality standards are deemed sufficient to protect the uses that are present.
Levels that were determined to be below the detectable limits of the sampling methodology employed were averaged in as zero rather than at the detectable limit. This moves the mean down; but since zero is also used when calculating wasteload allocations, this method is not unfair to dischargers. A number of different statistical methods could have been used. All of them have pros and cons and the approach used is reasonable.
Metals present in water samples may be tied up in turbidity when the water is present in the stream. In this form they are not "available" to fish and may not be detrimental to aquatic life. Because the data of record does not distinguish as to availability, some deviation from table values, as well as the use of (x[BAR] + s) is further justified, because it is unlikely that the total value in the samples analyzed is in available form.
Section 3.1.14 of the basic regulations states that "dischargers will not be required to regularly monitor for any parameters that are not identified by the division as being of concern". Generally, there is not requirement for monitoring unless a parameter is in the effluent guidelines for the relevant industry.
Except as indicated above and below, the Commission accepts and incorporates herein the rationale for specific stream segments of the Water Quality Control Division developed in conjunction with the proposed classifications and standards, and made part of the record as Water Quality Control Division Exhibits 2 and 3 at the hearing on October 4, 1979. In order to properly correlate these documents with the proposals themselves, the Division's revised proposals must be consulted. This is Water Quality Control Division Exhibit 3 of the hearing on October 4, 1979 (23 pages).
In some instances not discussed below, the regulations adopted by the Commission include changes from the Division's proposals. In some of these cases, the alternative proposals of parties were adopted and the rationale therefor endorsed. In other cases, typographical and other errors, or further review of data in the record by the Division, resulted in changes adopted by the Commission. The record should be consulted for the rationales regarding the action taken by the Commission on those specific stream segments where the record discloses significant controversy regarding classifications and standards and/or the rationale for the Commission's action deviates in some respects from that outlined above.
This segment was originally proposed for a "High Quality - Class 2" classification and has been classified for specific beneficial uses. In addition to the reasons given below, those found at Section (4)(f) above apply.
This is the only stream segment in this region where primary contact recreation is known to exist; however, the standard for fecal coliform that is necessary to protect the "Recreation - Class 1" use is not being met consistently. The segment has been classified "Recreation - Class 1" and the appropriate standard for fecal coliform has been assigned, but a temporary modification for this parameter has also been assigned.
Because of significant fecal coliform and nutrient problems in this area, the segment is not of such consistently high quality to justify a "High Quality" classification. There is a high level of human activity including existing point source discharges in this area, and it is a changing situation deserving of additional study, in view of continuing land and water resource development.
Downstream data indicates that the water quality is generally sufficient to support the use classifications. It is extremely important in this area to adopt water quality standards sufficient to protect these uses, and therefore, table values are assigned. A"High Quality" classification would not provide for this kind of protection at this time, since high quality waters are not being assigned specific numeric standards, in the absence of more complete data.
The mainstem of the Blue River has been broken down into two segments because of current problems associated with the Breckenridge treatment plant. The Commission endorses the rationale of the staff located at pages 10 and 11 of the Water Quality Control Division Exhibit 2, except as to fecal coliform and ammonia. The change as to fecal coliform conforms to the reasoning outlined above.
The evidence is compelling regarding the need for a temporary modification for ammonia. The standard for unionized ammonia of 0.02 mg/l may be met now, but not consistently. Because of growth pressures in the area, more consistent violations of the standard in the near future are imminent.
A new plant is coming on line in the fall of 1981 or the winter of 1982. Significant questions presently exist regarding the location of the discharge and the kind of treatment that will be installed to meet the ammonia standard. Pending the completion of the new facility, a temporary modification is appropriate. The Breckenridge Sanitation District has recommended a temporary modification to 0.05 mg/l NH3 on the basis that phosphorus removal is presently capable of reducing the ammonia to this level. The Commission accepts this alternative proposal.
Because of the importance of this segment as a spawning area, close monitoring of these waters is necessary, and the Commission may have to re-examine this decision in the near future.
At the very least, the Commission recognizes its obligation to re-examine its decision with regard to the temporary modification within three years.
The reasoning contained in Water Quality Control Division Exhibit 2 on this stream segment is generally acceptable. Instream values in this segment are deemed sufficient to protect the classified uses. In assigning instream values, the staff used its own data plus that of the Division of Wildlife and Amax, Inc. Although the Climax discharge was not factored entirely, high numbers from samples taken during periods of bypass and high runoff were thrown out as being unrepresentative of ambient conditions. In stream values calculated without these high numbers are sufficient to protect the uses, and bypasses cannot be anticipated in the future.
The staff has recommended standards based on instream values and "goals" based on the "pilot plant data" i.e., data accumulated during the first six months of operation of the new treatment plant, while it was operating at the 50 percent of rated capacity. The staff's opinion is that these "goals" should be met with operation of the new plant. If the Commission were to adopt this approach, it would use the recommended "goals" as the standards, and set the recommended standards as temporary modifications (for copper, lead, and zinc); however, this approach was not taken because the data with respect to the new plant is not wholly adequate in determining what it will produce. This is an important concern since a significant portion of the flow of the stream goes through the plant. Therefore, instream values sufficient to protect the uses have been established and no temporary modifications have been granted.
The standards for metals are based on a hardness of less than 100 derived from the water quality data measured downstream. Basing the standards on a hardness of 400 which derives from effluent data would be unreasonable since ambient water quality for purposes of these standards is not to be measured at the point of discharge.
The water supply classification has been removed because there is not water supply use, and standards have been assigned from table values in accordance with the appropriate classifications, except in the metals categories.
The reasoning contained in the Water Quality Control Division Exhibit 2 on this stream segment is generally acceptable.
The water supply classification has been included because water quality is sufficient to protect this use.
The standards reflect instream water quality. Only cadmium and zinc represent values higher than the table values.
The Commission takes the same approach here with respect to the possibility of improved water quality as it does for the upper segment of Tenmile Creek.
This segment has been separated from the upper mainstem because instream monitoring indicates decidedly poorer water quality below Belden, although the uses are the same.
Although there is conflict in the evidence before the Commission regarding the "Aquatic Life - Class 1 - Cold" use, the Commission finds that the evidence is sufficient to show the presence of a variety of cold water aquatic life, although their numbers may be impacted. In addition, flow and streambed characteristics indicate that a variety of aquatic life can be supported and that the "Class 1" category is appropriate.
The "Water Supply" classification has been included because even though such use is not present within this segment, the classification is necessary to protect the Eagle-Vail water supply downstream, immediately below Gore Creek.
Inactive mines are at least partially responsible for water quality degradation in this segment. Some of these sites are of undermined ownership, and therefore, control of these sources cannot be predicted with any certainty. The control of some sources of pollution on this segment and the planned removal of the Cross Creek discharge by the New Jersey Zinc Company is expected but the extent of favorable impact of these efforts on water quality is unknown. Under no circumstances is water quality expected to improve beyond upstream quality, and therefore, some standard reflect those values (cadmium, copper, lead and zinc), and temporary modifications are not assigned.
Manganese and iron levels are set to protect the downstream water supply, and reflect table values.
The manganese problem on the Eagle River originates upstream of Gore Creek. For the reasons indicated above, the standard reflects the value necessary to protect the water supply use. That standard is not currently being met; however, control measures by the New Jersey Zinc Company are deemed sufficient to allow the standard to be met in the future. Therefore, a temporary modification has been granted. Standards for the other metals reflect instream values.
The record shows a conflict in the evidence concerning the data on ambient water quality which is the basis for the standards here. New Jersey Zinc Company presently discharges into Cross Creek, although an NPDES permit application is currently pending to move the discharge point to the Eagle River. The company's data indicates higher instream values than found by the Division. The Commission has adopted the Division's recommended standards because its analysis includes the most recent data, which was not used by the company. Also, difference sampling methods currently in use are found to be more accurate and they indicate lower values.
Although there is a conflict in the evidence regarding the existence of aquatic life downstream of th Snowmass Sanitation District discharge, the record supports the finding that a fishery is present. However, because the discharge sometimes constitutes the entire flow of the stream in the summer months, it is considered intermittent and assigned an "Aquatic Life - Class 2" classification. Nevertheless, standards have been assigned to protect the existing fishery.
The Snowmass Sanitation District has been funded for tertiary treatment but the technology is untested; therefore, a temporary modification has been assigned for ammonia.
Otherwise, ambient water quality data indicates that the table values are bing met and standards have been assigned accordingly.
Although the "Aquatic Life - Class 1 - Cold" classification is appropriate, there is a limited variety of aquatic life below Oak Creek Drain. Because of this and because of the short distance between the Oak Creek discharge and the Oak Creek Drain, it is inappropriate to establish an ammonia standard at this time.
F I S C A L S T A T E M E N T
Stream Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the Upper Colorado River, the headwaters of the North Platte River, and the Upper Yampa River (Essentially those streams and water bodies in Eagle, Grand, Jackson, Pitkin, Routt and Summit Counties)
The Water Quality Control Commission is charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, and improve the quality of state waters pursuant to C.R.S. 1973, 25-8-101et seq.
The Commission is further charged to classify all waters of the State and to promulgate standards for any measurable characteristic of the water. (25-8-203 and 25-8-204). The above-titled document assigns use classifications and standards for the state waters in the listed areas in accordance with the "basic regulations" adopted May 22, 1979.
The measurable fiscal impacts which may be caused by these regulation are as follows:
- Cost of construction of increased capacity of municipal waste treatment facilities;
- Cost of construction of increased capacity of industrial waste treatment facilities;
- Cost of Operation & Maintenance of municipal enlargements;
- Cost of Operation & Maintenance of industrial enlargements; and
- Cost of instream monitoring and lab analysis for new parameters added by the standards.
Dischargers will not be required to do stream monitoring. Only those parameters which are limited by a discharge permit will be monitored. The state, federal, and local agencies now doing instream monitoring will have some increased cost; however, any additional frequency should be done to improve state surveillance and would be needed regardless of standard changes.
The Division has reviewed these regulations and determined that the following municipalities may need to construct additional facilities because of more stringent water quality standard and may have additional annual operation costs in the amounts shown:
MUNICIPALITIES | NEEDED FACILITY | ESTIMATED COST (1980 Dollars) | ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS |
Copper Mountain | Dechlorination and Ammonia Conversion | $900,000 | $7,000 Total |
Town of Frisco | Ammonia Conversion | $1,000,000 | $8,500 Total |
Snowmass | Dechlorination | $45,000 | $5,000 Total |
The following industries or commercial establishments may have to construct and operate additional facilities to meet more stringent water quality standards and the additional costs are shown below:
INDUSTRY OR COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT | NEEDED FACILITY | ESTIMATED COST | ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS |
A-Basin Ski Area | Dechlorination and Ammonia Conversion | $600,000 | $5,000 Total |
The stream classifications and standards adopted by the Commission will protect the water uses primarily through control of potential point source pollution. Nonpoint source pollution from precipitation runoff will be controlled primarily from management practices which are in existence or will be implemented in the future. Future management practices need careful consideration and will be the result of 208 area-wide wastewater management plans developed by regional planning agencies and being updated annually. These plans involve local general purpose governments with general assistance from state government. Some of the possible nonpoint source pollution may be controlled through "Control Regulations" yet to be promulgated by the Commission. These types of controls could involve runoff from construction, mining activities, and urban areas. It is not certain what controls are needed at this time and there is no way that possible costs can be identified at this time.
Persons who benefit from standards which will protect existing and future anticipated uses can be identified as all persons benefiting from recreation, municipal water supply, and agriculture. These benefits are directly economic for agriculture, industry and municipalities who health benefit costs are reduced by having clean water, and are both economic and nonquantifiable for some uses such as fishing, recreation, and the aesthetic value of clean waters. Furthermore, benefits will result from human health protection and lack of debilitating disease. Figures have been developed for a recreation/fishing day which can be applied to that aspect of a water use; however, figures which have been developed for total recreation/fishing day uses have been developed statewide and could not be applied region-by-region or stream-by-stream.
The uses of water in this region are adequately protected by these standards. Most municipal treatment facilities and industrial facilities are currently adequate, or are already being upgraded, in order to meet previous requirements. Any additional facilities or expansions in this region will generally be caused by increased capacity required because of pollution growths or industrial enlargement. Industries are required by federal statute to meet effluent limitations described as "best available technology" by 1983 or 1984. For all major industries in this region, the water quality standards should not require treatment beyond these limitations.
No attempt can be made to identify future development costs as this type of data is not readily available.
5 CCR 1002-33.10