Outline The Watershed Association Reservoirs and Watershed The - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Colorado Watershed Assembly, October 12 th , 2016 Laurie Rink, BMW Chair

Outline  The Watershed Association  Reservoirs and Watershed  The Nexus  The Issues  Watershed Management  Benefits of Collaboration

Stakeholders • Entities that utilize or have an effect on water quantity and quality in contributing watershed • Wastewater agencies, drinking water providers, raw water providers, cities/counties, regulatory agencies, recreational interests Collaboration • Identifying water quality issues • Developing mutually agreeable, sustainable solutions • Focus on meeting water quality standards that protect all uses – irrigation, livestock watering, municipal drinking water, recreation, fisheries/aquatic life

Barr Lake Owned by FRICO (Farmer’s Reservoir and Irrigation • Company) Uses – Drinking Water, Irrigation, Recreation, Aquatic Life • Recreation Lease to Colorado Parks and Wildlife – Barr Lake • State Park Filled during the winter and early spring • Releases during irrigation season (May – Sept) • Source water S. Platte at Burlington headgate • 30,071 AF volume • 1,833 surface acres •

Milton Reservoir Owned by FRICO • Uses – Drinking Water, Irrigation, Recreation, Aquatic • Filled winter/early spring, releases during irrigation season • Source water S. Platte at Platte Valley headgate and Beebe • Canal 24,029 AF volume • 2,082 surface acres •

Watershed • Population of 2.5 million (1 in 2 Coloradoans) • 850 sq. miles including 6 Front Range counties • 90% privately owned • 35% residential, industrial, and commercial • 49% agricultural • 500 miles of streams • 550 miles of canals

Creeks, Streams, and Reservoirs Milt lton on Res. s. Big Dry Creek Barr rr Lake 1 st st , 2 nd nd , & 3rd Creek Stand ndley ey Res. es. Clear r Creek Sand Creek Auror rora Res. s. S. Platte e River Cher erry ry Cree eek Bear ar Cr. Res. s. Bear Creek Mars rsto ton Lake Cherry rry Cr. Res. es. Chatfi tfield Res. s.

• South Platte River watershed forms the source water for Barr and Milton Reservoirs • Senior water rights can sweep the river • Meeting water quality standards in the reservoirs requires watershed management

Cultural Eutrophication Symptoms Problem Poor High pH Low Oxygen Clarity Excessive Algae Blooms Nutrients (Phosphorus Nitrogen) Taste/Odor Aesthetics Fish Kills Barr and Milton are classified as hypereutrophic

 2002 State 303(d) listing for pH impairment (both Barr and Milton) – exceedences above 9.0 pH units  2010 listing for dissolved oxygen  Require development of a Total Maximum Daily Load A TMDL is a calculation of Nonpoint/ the maximum amount of a Background pollutant that a water body Total Allowable Load Loads can receive and still meet Margin of water quality standards, Safety and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant's Point Source sources. Loads

 pH and DO O TM TMDL L ◦ Addresses hypereutrophic conditions ◦ Based on watershed and in-lake modeling ◦ Phased based upon number of uncertainties  Establi blishe shed d Wate ter r Qu Quality ity Goals ls ◦ Total phosphorus in-lake 100 µg/L ◦ Chlorophyll of 25 µg/L ◦ Alkalinity of 95 mg/L

• External Sources (Watershed) • Wastewater Point Sources • Storm Water Point Sources • Urban Non-Permitted Storm Water • Agricultural Nonpoint Sources • Internal Sources • In-Reservoir Recycled Nutrients >90% reduction in P needed to meet pH standard

Target Current % of Total Target Target In-Lake Source of Phosphorus to Load Load Current Load Reduction Rationale Load Concentration Barr Lake Reduction (kg/yr) Load (kg/yr) (ug/L) (%) Wasteloads Burlington Pump Works 26,075 37.1% Treatment upgrade: 2,800 ug/L to 100 ug/L 96.5% 913 100 Littleton-Englewood WWTP 33,893 48.2% Treatment upgrade: 2,900 ug/L to 100 ug/L 96.5% 1,186 100 Centennial WWTP 1,194 1.7% Treatment upgrade: 700 ug/L to 100 ug/L 85.5% 173 100 MS4 Regulated Areas 2,189 3.1% Some activity over last decade, plus more BMPs 20.0% 1,751 100 Wasteload Total 63,351 90.0% 93.6% 4,023 100 Loads Upstream background 3,025 4.3% Background load is targeted for a 75% reduction through in-canal treatment 75.0% 756 100 Benthic P Load from Barr 4,000 5.7% In-lake treatment to inactivate P in upper 10 cm of sediment 75.0% 1,000 100 Load Total 7,025 10.0% 75.0% 1,756 100 Calculated loading limit to achieve maximum target load of 5,900 kg/yr and target in- Total Load (all sources) 70,376 100.0% 91.8% 5,779 100 lake maximum concentration of 100 ug/L

 WWTP TP Point int Sources urces (reduc duce 58,89 ,890 0 kg/yr yr) ◦ Regulation 85 for nutrient controls (1.0 mg/L) ◦ Further reductions addressed in discharge permits  MS4 Poi oint nt Sou ourc rces es (reduce duce 438 38 kg/yr yr) ◦ Individual and General Permits  Background kground (reduce duce 2,2 ,269 69 kg/yr yr) ◦ In-canal phosphorus treatment

 Alum ◦ Been around for 3,000+ years ◦ Used in U.S. lakes since 1970 ◦ Common Drinking Water Technology ◦ Not a Herbicide, inactivates P ◦ Liquid Alum readily available

Inlet Treatment

Amount of P Removed before Barr Lake ◦ 2,500 kg/yr (upstream background) ◦ 14,500 kg/yr (background plus PS) ◦ 53,250 kg/yr (75% reduction of annual load) ◦ 68,160 kg/yr (96% reduction of annual load) Technique to Remove P ◦ Alum (coagulant) Where the P goes ◦ Settling pond ◦ Barr Lake ◦ Combination

 Off-line channel  Internal & External  Predictable  Reliable (90% removal)  Cost effective  Collaboration  Innovative

 Inter ternal nal Load ading ing (reduc duce 3,000 000 kg/yr yr) Dredging • Oxygenation • Artificial Circulation • Phosphorus Inactivation (Alum) • If watershed management continues and a phosphorus • inactivation system is built no action may be needed Hybrid Circulation and Inactivation System • least expensive way to meet water quality goals • can substitute for more expensive watershed • management techniques Biomanipulation •

Goal was to reduce bioturbation  and internal loading of phosphorus 1,180 – Carp removed  9,800 – Pounds composted  28.2 – Pounds of phosphorus removed 

 Comprehensive plan for nutrient control  Outside of normal point source control solutions  Incorporates adaptive management principles  Innovations may prove transferrable to other Colorado lakes systems  Selection of most effective solutions that meet regulatory requirements and consider both cost and the environment