5 Colo. Code Regs. § 1002-38.56

Current through Register Vol. 47, No. 11, June 10, 2024
Section 5 CCR 1002-38.56 - STATEMENT OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE; SEPTEMBER, 2000 RULEMAKING

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

BASIS AND PURPOSE

Background and Overview

This rulemaking hearing was originally noticed to consider proposals by the Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority (Cherry Creek Authority) for (1) revisions to the phosphorus standard for Cherry Creek Reservoir, (2) revisions to the Cherry Creek Reservoir Control Regulation, Regulation #72, and (3) approval of related amendments to the Denver Regional Council of Governments' (DRCOG) section 208 plan (Clean Water Plan). Prior to the hearing, because DRCOG did not approve and submit to the Commission proposed section 208 plan amendments, the Commission ruled that revisions to that plan would not be considered in this proceeding. If amendments to the section 208 plan are approved and submitted by DRCOG in the future, the Commission will consider them at that time.

As a result of the September, 2000 hearing, the Commission adopted revisions to the water quality standards for Cherry Creek Reservoir. Specifically, the Commission repealed the previous 35 ug/l phosphorus standard and adopted a seasonal mean chlorophyll a standard of 15 ug/l, measured in the upper three meters of the water column for the months of July through September, to apply annually, with an expected rate of compliance of nine years out of ten. As discussed further below, to implement this standard the Commission is also establishing a seasonal mean total phosphorus target of 40 ug/l.

Based on its initial deliberations following this hearing, the Commission decided not to adopt any revisions to the Cherry Creek Reservoir Control Regulation at this time. Rather, the Commission is continuing the portion of this rulemaking proceeding relating to potential revisions to the Control Regulation, to be considered further at the May, 2001 Commission meeting. In order to provide some guidance to the Water Quality Control Division (Division) staff, the Cherry Creek Authority, and other interested persons as efforts proceed to development appropriate Control Regulation revisions, this Basis and Purpose discussion provides the Commission's initial perspective on a number of the Control Regulation issues raised in this proceeding.

Chlorophyll a Standard and Total Phosphorus Target

As noted above, the Commission has repealed the previous 35 ug/l phosphorus standard and adopted a seasonal mean chlorophyll a standard of 15 ug/l, measured in the upper three meters of the water column for the months of July through September, to apply annually, with an expected rate of compliance of nine years out of ten. The Commission intends that the Division will develop a sampling methodology for implementation of this standard that is representative of overall reservoir quality.

In 1985, the Commission set a total phosphorus standard of 35 ug/l for Cherry Creek Reservoir, to limit chlorophyll a levels, thereby limiting eutrophication of the reservoir, and thus protecting the beneficial uses of the reservoir. The reservoir is classified for the following uses: Aquatic Life Warm 1, Recreation 1, Water Supply and Agriculture. The 35 ug/l total phosphorus standard was applied as a mean concentration during the growing season of July through September. In addition, a target of 15 ug/l chlorophyll a was established. The chlorophyll a target was also applied as a seasonal mean concentration. The Commission also adopted a full set of numeric standards to protect the uses of the reservoir. The phosphorus standard became effective May 30, 1985.

The statement of basis and purpose for the Commission's 1985 adoption of standards states that the intent of the total phosphorus standard was to limit chlorophyll a levels and thereby protect the classified beneficial uses of the reservoir. "The purpose for adopting the .035 mg/L P standard for Cherry Creek Reservoir is to maintain the chl a level in Cherry Creek Reservoir at no higher than .015 mg/L." The 1982 Clean Lakes study of the reservoir determined that a range of chlorophyll a concentrations of 10 to 20 ug/l was identified as protective of the aquatic life uses, while a narrower range of 10 to 15 ug/l was determined to be protective of swimming. The chlorophyll a goal of 15 ug/l was a compromise level to protect both recreational and aquatic life uses.

In this rulemaking, evidence was presented that during each year from 1992 through 1999, the seasonal means for total phosphorus have been significantly higher than the 35 ug/l total phosphorus standard. In addition, several seasonal mean chlorophyll a values have exceeded the 15 ug/l chlorophyll a goal, particularly in recent years.

In this action, the Commission has adopted a chlorophyll a standard with a total phosphorus target. The Commission has selected this approach because the chlorophyll a level more directly relates to the uses to be protected than does total phosphorus. Chlorophyll a is a direct measure of algal biomass and overall productivity of the reservoir. The concentration of chlorophyll a reflects the aesthetic acceptability of the reservoir for recreational purposes. High concentrations of algae reduce the transparency of the reservoir. Swimming may be more desirable in waters of high transparency and low nutrient content. Aesthetically, people prefer clear, less green water to swim in.

Although excess algae is perceived by some to be merely an aesthetic quality, algal blooms resulting from excess nutrients can have profound consequences on the chemistry and biology of the reservoir. For example, there can be a shift in the algal community resulting in dominance by blue-green algae, which can produce taste and odor problems in the reservoir. High algal biomass can result in oxygen depletion in the lower waters during the summer and autumn. The oxygen depletion can result in fish kills.

Total phosphorus is used as a target to control production of chlorophyll

a. There is uncertainty in the relationship between total phosphorus and chlorophyll a in Cherry Creek Reservoir, and the relationship could change in the future. Therefore, a 15 ug/l chlorophyll a standard with a total phosphorus target minimizes the need to revisit the standard in the future. The level of total phosphorus can be adjusted in the control regulation over time, if necessary, as more is learned about this relationship.

The Commission has determined that the chlorophyll a standard should apply annually. The Commission intends that the rate of compliance with the standard should be nine years out of ten on a rolling average. In other words, if for any ten-year period the seasonal mean chlorophyll a standard is met for at least nine of those years, the reservoir will be considered to be in attainment of the standard. Instantaneous exceedances are allowed in individual samples, so long as the seasonal mean for the standard is attained.

The total phosphorus target of 40 ug/l is based upon a regression model of seasonal mean total phosphorus versus seasonal mean chlorophyll a from 1992 to 1999 at Cherry Creek Reservoir. The Division used the 90% confidence intervals of the regression line to determine the target level of total phosphorus that would attain the 15 ug/l chlorophyll a standard. Therefore, it would be expected that for a given growing season, one would be 90 percent confident that a total phosphorus level of 40 ug/l would result in a chlorophyll a level at or below 15 ug/l.

Control Regulation Issues

As noted above, the Commission has chosen not to adopt any revisions to the Cherry Creek Reservoir Control Regulation, Regulation #72, at this time. Based upon the Commission's decision regarding adoption of the new chlorophyll a standard for the reservoir, the Commission believes that it would be beneficial for the Division, the Cherry Creek Authority and other interested persons to further examine appropriate revisions to the Control Regulation. In order to provide time for these discussions to occur, the portion of this proceeding relating to potential revisions to the Control Regulation is being continued to the May, 2001 Commission meeting. The Commission requests that prior to that time the Division work cooperatively with the Cherry Creek Authority and other interested persons to develop a new proposal for Control Regulation revisions.

In order to provide some guidance to the Division, the Cherry Creek Authority, and other interested persons as efforts proceed to develop appropriate Control Regulation revisions, the Commission offers the following initial perspective on a number of the Control Regulation issues raised in this proceeding:

1. Concern was expressed by the Division and several other participants in the hearing regarding potential in-lake phosphorus management by the application of alum. The Commission believes that control efforts should emphasize preventive, source control measures and that in-lake treatment options should be at the bottom of the priority list. Moreover, the Commission expressed concern regarding the potential negative impacts of in-lake treatment on aquatic life and water quality.
2. The Cherry Creek Authority proposed a methodology that accounts for the pounds of phosphorus delivered to the reservoir as an "in-stream delivery ratio" of what is actually released into the watershed. The Commission is not necessarily opposed to use of the in-stream delivery ratio concept, but is not yet persuaded of its viability. Concerns were expressed regarding whether this concept appropriately accounts for a long-term mass balance for phosphorus. The Commission believes that there is a need for more data and analysis to provide a strong rationale that this concept will work before it is implemented as a basis for the provisions of the Control Regulation.
3. The current Control Regulation authorizes a phosphorus trading program for the Cherry Creek watershed. In adopting the trading program in 1997, the Commission stated that "[t]he goal of the Trading Program is to allow those trades which will have a net water quality benefit in the Basin and maintain the inlake chlorophyll a level of 15 ug/l." Data that has become available subsequent to adoption of the trading program raises significant concerns regarding current attainment of this chlorophyll a level, which is now being established as a standard for the reservoir. Therefore, the Commission now has serious reservations about the suitability of the trading program until such time as the reservoir is in compliance with the chlorophyll a standard.
4. The Commission believes that an effective public education component should be included in the overall efforts to improve and subsequently maintain the quality of Cherry Creek Reservoir.
5. The Commission believes that there may be a need for strong stormwater discharge controls in the Cherry Creek Basin, as one component of overall control efforts. Development of a revised Control Regulation should carefully review the status of current stormwater controls and the possible need for additional measures.
6. For any revised Control Regulation, the Commission believes that there is a need for a comprehensive, ongoing overall monitoring program to demonstrate that the total maximum daily load established is being achieved.
7. The Commission does not believe that the need for or cost-effectiveness of reverse osmosis treatment has been demonstrated at this time.

In summary, the Commission believes that efforts to develop a revised Control Regulation should focus on identifying what source control efforts are feasible, particularly over the next three to six years, to move aggressively toward compliance with the 15 ug/l chlorophyll a standard. The Commission recognizes that at present there is still legitimate debate and disagreement regarding what level of water quality is attainable in the reservoir over the long run. However, the evidence demonstrates that there are a number of technically and financially feasible projects and other control efforts that have not yet been implemented.

The Commission has determined as a matter of policy that at this time it is appropriate to maintain a conservatively protective chlorophyll a standard and associated total phosphorus target as the basis for near-term control efforts. As those efforts are implemented over time and more information is developed regarding influences on and the attainability of identified levels of reservoir water quality, both the Control Regulation and the underlying standards can be revisited. Indeed, the statutory triennial review process requires that they be revisited at three-year intervals. In the meantime, the Commission urges all interested parties to work cooperatively to determine the most effective measures to implement in the next few years to move aggressively toward improvement of the quality of the water in Cherry Creek Reservoir.

PARTIES TO THE RULEMAKING

1. The Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority
2. The City of Greenwood Village
3. Roxborough Park Metropolitan District
4. Plum Creek Wastewater Authority
5. Colorado Division of Wildlife
6. Arapahoe County Water & Wastewater Authority
7. The City of Thornton
8. Denver Regional Council of Governments
9. Clean Water Action
10. United Citizens of Arapahoe Neighborhoods
11. Chatfield Watershed Authority
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII
13. The City of Westminster
15. Sierra Club
16. Warm Water Coalition
17. Cherry Creek State Park
18. Colorado Trout Unlimited

5 CCR 1002-38.56

38 CR 03, February 10, 2015, effective 6/30/2015
38 CR 17, September 10, 2015, effective 12/31/2015
39 CR 03, February 10, 2016, effective 3/1/2016
39 CR 03, February 10, 2016, effective 6/30/2016
39 CR 23, December 25, 2016, effective 12/30/2016
40 CR 03, February 10, 2017, effective 6/30/2017
40 CR 09, May 10, 2017, effective 6/30/2017
41 CR 01, January 10, 2018, effective 1/31/2018
41 CR 03, February 10, 2018, effective 6/30/2018
42 CR 04, February 25, 2019, effective 6/30/2019
43 CR 03, February 10, 2020, effective 6/30/2020
43 CR 17, September 10, 2020, effective 12/31/2020
44 CR 01, January 10, 2021, effective 2/14/2021
44 CR 05, March 10, 2021, effective 6/30/2021
44 CR 17, September 10, 2021, effective 12/31/2021
45 CR 17, September 10, 2022, effective 9/30/2022
45 CR 21, November 10, 2022, effective 11/30/2022
46 CR 10, May 25, 2023, effective 6/14/2023