Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/25/2017 - UTILITIES WATERSHED PROGRAM OVERVIEWDATE: STAFF: April 25, 2017 Jill Oropeza, Watershed Program Manager Carol Webb, Water Resources/Treatmnt Opns Mgr WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Utilities Watershed Program Overview. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to provide an overview of the Utilities Watershed Program, highlighting collaborative water quality monitoring programs, watershed protection activities and technical support for water quality-related projects. The Watershed Program provides internal support for the Utilities Drinking Water Production, Water Reclamation and Water Resources divisions. This program relies on numerous state, regional and local partnerships to deliver cost-effective water quality services and to promote cooperation around water quality issues. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Staff is not seeking direction from Council at this time regarding the specific work projects covered in the presentation but would appreciate input on the program, its focus and direction. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Watershed program was established in 2006 to meet water quality monitoring needs related to the protection of raw drinking water supplies in Horsetooth Reservoir and on the Upper Cache la Poudre River. The program directly supports priorities set forth in the Fort Collins Drinking Water Quality Policy, as well as the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy. On an annual basis, the Watershed Program spends, on average, $105,000 on collaborative source water quality monitoring programs (40% of total provided as in-kind services); $113,000 on watershed protection ($80,000 for risk reduction projects, $33,000 for Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed); and $10,000 on special studies. Utilities also funds $24,000 annually for collaborative lower Poudre water quality monitoring (67% of total provided as in-kind services). SOURCE WATERSHEDS The City receives its water supplies from two primary watersheds - the Cache la Poudre River watershed and the combined Big Thompson and Colorado River Watersheds, otherwise known as the Colorado-Big Thompson, or C-BT System. On an annual basis, the City receives about 50% of our supplies from each source. Combined, the watersheds encompass approximately1,600 square miles of primarily forested, mountainous terrain. Concentrated development is limited to the areas around Grand Lake and Estes Park. The lack of urban development supports clean, high quality source water supplies, but the large forested land area represents a unique management challenge for the City of Fort Collins. Unlike many other water Utilities, Fort Collins owns less than 1% of the land area in the watershed. Rather, it is owned and managed by a mix of federal, state, county and private landowners, and therefore, monitoring and managing risks to water supplies requires Fort Collins work collaboratively and in many instances across jurisdictional boundaries to implement watershed protection projects. April 25, 2017 Page 2 Water Quality Monitoring Programs Upper Cache la Poudre River Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program. Since 2007, Fort Collins Utilities, City of Greeley and the Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Authority (formerly named Tri-Districts) have partnered on a cooperative water quality monitoring program, designed to track trends in river water quality in order to anticipate future needs of the parties’ respective drinking water treatment operations. Such issues and needs would be identified through analysis of seasonal and long-term trends. For example, concentrations of total organic carbon, which can form regulated compounds during the chlorination phase of water treatment, showed a 10-year increasing trend, but have leveled off in the last 2-3 years, suggesting that investment in advanced treatment solutions is not currently warranted, but trends should continue to be monitored. Monitoring data also provided evidence that increases in many constituents observed following 2012 wildfires were short-lived and that water quality in the Poudre River has largely return to pre-fire condition. Utilities staff provide program management oversight and lead field sampling activities. Annual and 5-year water quality reports as well as seasonal updates are made available to the public via the Utilities website. Horsetooth Reservoir Water Quality Monitoring. Fort Collins Utilities maintains a 20+ year record of water quality in Horsetooth Reservoir. Beginning in 2015, Utilities moved from an in-house monitoring program to a cost-shared monitoring program with Northern Water. This partnership reduced redundancies in effort and offers significant cost-savings for Utilities. Under this agreement, Northern Water collects samples from Horsetooth Reservoir as part of their baseline water quality monitoring program and Fort Collins provides approximately $4000 each year through in-kind contribution of water quality analyses. Northern Water also provides the City all Horsetooth Reservoir water quality data and related reports. Big Thompson Watershed Forum (BTWF). The BTWF manages a water quality monitoring program on the Big Thompson River at key locations that influence water quality in Horsetooth Reservoir, as well as other locations on the Big Thompson River that are of interest to the funding partners. The City of Fort Collins, along with the Cities of Loveland and Greeley, Northern Water and Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Authority are major funders for the BTWF and retains a seat on the BTWF Board of Directors. The BTWF holds a joint-funding agreement with the USGS for the collection of all water quality sampling activities. Annual water quality reporting activities are managed by BTWF staff. Special Studies. As necessary, Fort Collins Utilities conduct monitoring and studies related to issues of concern including wildfire impacts on water quality, emerging contaminants, taste-and-odor events, and treatability of raw water sources as related to disinfection by-product formation. Over time, the City has partnered with University of Colorado-Boulder, Colorado State University, USGS, Northern Water and the Water Research Foundation, among many others, on these types of issues and studies. SOURCE WATER PROTECTION Fort Collins Source Water Protection Plan (SWPP). In 2016, Utilities Watershed Program in cooperation with the Colorado Rural Water Association and the Colorado Department of Health & Environment completed the City’s first Source Water Protection Plan. This planning document provides a roadmap for managing potential sources of contamination to the City’s raw drinking water supplies. Through this effort, the top risks to our water supplies were identified as (1) wildfires and (2) unverified historical/active mines. Watershed Restoration and Forest Fuels Management. Since 2013 the City has funded a reserved seat on the Board of Directors for the Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed (CPRW). This organization was formed after the 2012 wildfires as a means to coordinate response and recovery activities among community non-profits, water Utilities, private landowners and other community stakeholders. In 2016, CPRW produced a Poudre River Watershed Resiliency Plan, which identifies priority watershed areas currently at highest risk from wildfires as well as remaining post-High Park Fire restoration needs. Nearly 50,000 acres of the Poudre watershed burned in the 2012 wildfires, and the impacts on the City’s water quality, supply availability and water treatment operations were prolonged, severe and expensive. Currently, the remaining 260,000 unburned acres are considered “functioning at risk” with specific concerns related to “fire regime” and “forest health” conditions according to the USFS Watershed Condition Framework (2011). Similar April 25, 2017 Page 3 conditions exist widely across the Colorado-Big-Thompson watersheds that feed the City’s other water supply, Horsetooth Reservoir. In 2016, the City allocated $80,000 as a BFO enhancement for Utilities watershed protection, with the planned work focused primarily on forest fuels reduction (e.g. fuel breaks, canopy thinning, ladder fuels removal) for the purpose of mitigating wildfire risks in our source watersheds. This level of funding can provide approximately 50 acres of forest fuels reduction treatments per year, at an industry-standard rate of $1,600 per acre. By working with CPRW and other partners, City funds will be leveraged for greater impact, as they can be used as a match to secure additional funding for wildfire hazard mitigation projects. Starting in 2017, Watershed Program staff will work with CPRW, US Forest Service and other partners to identify potential fuels reduction projects that will mitigate risks associated with large scale catastrophic wildfires in the Poudre basin and protect water quality in the Poudre River and Horsetooth Reservoir. Hazard fuels reduction needs around critical infrastructure in the watershed, such as Horsetooth and Joe Wright Reservoirs, Michigan Ditch and the Poudre intake facility, will receive highest priority. OTHER WATER QUALITY-RELATED STUDIES Watershed Program staff support a variety of other water-quality related studies for internal Utilities Divisions including Water Production, Water Reclamation and Water Resources. Poudre River Monitoring Alliance (PRMA). The PRMA is a group of seven wastewater dischargers on the Poudre River, who coordinate efforts to assist participants in meeting sampling requirements of the water quality Regulation #85 and to demonstrate stewardship by tracking the quality of the Poudre River over time. The geographical scope of this program spans from just above the City’s Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility to downstream of the City of Greeley’s outfall near the confluence with the South Platte River. Utilities Watershed Program staff manage the PRMA while the Utilities Pollution Control Laboratory staff conduct the water quality sampling for City of Fort Collins and conduct sample analysis and reporting for the program partners. The Utilities funds approximately $24,000 for maintenance of four PRMA sampling sites, with approximately 67% of the total cost offset by in-kind contributions of laboratory services. Halligan Reservoir Project. The project involves the expansion of the existing Halligan Reservoir on the North Fork of the Poudre to meet the City’s future water supply needs. Water quality studies are critical for ongoing federal permitting and the required State water quality certification process. Currently, Watershed Program staff are assisting Water Resources Division with the collection of water quality information on the Reservoir as well as the North Fork of the Poudre River. These data will be used to construct detailed water quality models, which will be used for future river health work. Water Resources Vulnerability Study. This study was a 2016 BFO enhancement to study future water supply uncertainties related to climate changes, supply disruptions and changes in demand. This study will consider vulnerabilities to water resources from wildfires, other water quality impairments, infrastructure failures, and shifts in population as well as land use changes. Through exploring potential collaborations with Northern Water and the Tri-Districts, staff is developing an IGA with Northern Water to participate in the Study, including providing additional funds. Water Resources staff is finalizing a request for proposals. State of the Poudre-A River Health Assessment. This is an ongoing, jointly funded Natural Areas and Utilities project. Utilities provided $72,000 in one-time funds towards this project. The State of the Poudre project is a holistic assessment of Poudre River health from lower Poudre Canyon to just below I-25. This assessment provides a tool to understand current and future stresses on the River and align management practices with desired outcomes. There are three communication products that will be provided to the public, including a full technical assessment report, a public-facing river report card, and online GIS mapping tool. The project is expected to be completed by May 2017. April 25, 2017 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. City of Fort Collins Source Water Protection Plan (PDF) 2. 2015 Annual Report for the Upper Cache la Poudre Water Quality Monitoring Program (PDF) 3. Summary Table of Watershed Program Activities (PDF) 4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) City of Fort Collins Source Water Protection Plan Larimer County, Colorado PWSID #135291 Kimberly Mehelich Source Water Specialist Colorado Rural Water Association Jill Oropeza Watershed Specialist City of Fort Collins ATTACHMENT 1 City of Fort Collins Source Water Protection Plan Primary Contact Information for City of Fort Collins PWS Name City of Fort Collins PWSID # CO0135291 Name Jill Oropeza Title Watershed Specialist Address 4316 W. Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Phone 970-416-2529 Website http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/water/water-quality/source-water- monitoring Cover photo: City of Fort Collins Drinking Water Treatment Facility. This Source Water Protection Plan is a planning document and there is no legal requirement to implement the recommendations herein. Actions on public lands will be subject to federal, state, and county policies and procedures. Action on private land may require compliance with county land use codes, building codes, local covenants, and permission from the landowner. This SWPP for the City of Fort Collins was developed using a modified version 15.04.27 of the Colorado Rural Water Association’s Source Water Protection Plan Template. Page i Table of Contents COMMON ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................3 1.1 Purpose of the Source Water Protection Plan .............................................................................. 4 1.2 Background of Colorado’s SWAP Program ................................................................................... 5 2.0 SOURCE WATER SETTING ........................................................................................................7 2.1 Cache la Poudre River ................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Horsetooth Reservoir .................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Clean Water Act Water Quality Standards ................................................................................. 10 3.0 SOURCE WATER MONITORING PROGRAMS .......................................................................... 11 3.1 Upper Cache la Poudre (CLP) Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program ...................... 11 3.2 Horsetooth Reservoir Water Quality Monitoring Program ........................................................ 11 3.3 Contaminants of Emerging Concern ........................................................................................... 11 3.4 Harmful Algal Blooms.................................................................................................................. 12 4.0 DRINKING WATER SUPPLY OPERATIONS ................................................................................ 13 4.1 Water Supply and Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 13 4.2 Water Treatment Process ........................................................................................................... 13 4.3 Finished Water Storage ............................................................................................................... 14 4.4 Water Supply Demand Analysis .................................................................................................. 14 5.0 SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 15 5.1 Development of the Poudre River Watershed Resiliency Plan ................................................... 15 5.2 Stakeholder Participation in the Planning Process ..................................................................... 16 5.3 Development and Implementation Grant .................................................................................. 16 5.4 Source Water Assessment Report Review .................................................................................. 16 5.5 Defining the Source Water Protection Area ............................................................................... 17 5.6 Inventory of Potential Contaminant Sources and Other Issues of Concern ............................... 21 5.7 Priority Strategy of Potential Contaminant Sources and Other Issues of Concern .................... 21 6.0 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES AND ISSUES OF CONCERN ............................................ 25 6.1 Forest Health: Wildfires .............................................................................................................. 25 6.2 Historical and Active Mines ........................................................................................................ 27 6.3 Flooding ....................................................................................................................................... 30 Page ii 6.4 Roadways (State Highways, County Roads, Forested Roads) ..................................................... 30 6.5 Septic Systems & Treated Waste Water Effluent ....................................................................... 33 6.6 Forest Health: Insect Mortality & Disease .................................................................................. 34 6.7 Recreation ................................................................................................................................... 36 6.8 Improper Agricultural Practices (Farming & Livestock Grazing) ................................................. 36 6.9 Storage Tanks .............................................................................................................................. 37 6.10 Water Wells ................................................................................................................................ 39 7.0 SOURCE WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .................................................................. 41 8.0 EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS OF SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PLAN ..................................... 47 9.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 49 10. APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 52 Page iii COMMON ACRONYMS BMP Best Management Practice BTEX Benzene, Touluene ethylbenzene, and xylenes CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CECs Contaminants of Emerging Concern CLP Cache la Poudre CPRW Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed CRWA Colorado Rural Water Association DRMS Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety FCWTF Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act GIS Geographic Information System LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank MGD Million Gallons per Day PPCPs Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products PSOC Potential Source of Contamination MTBE Methyl tert-butyl ether NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA) SWAA Source Water Assessment Area SWAP Source Water Assessment and Protection SWPA Source Water Protection Area SWPP Source Water Protection Plan TEPCS threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, or sensitive areas USDA United States Department of Agriculture US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFS United States Forest Service Page iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Schematic drawing of the potential source of contamination to surface and groundwater ....... 3 Figure 2. Location of Fort Collins, CO in Larimer County ............................................................................. 4 Figure 3. Source Water Assessment and Protection Phases ........................................................................ 5 Figure 4. Photo: Upper Cache la Poudre River during Spring snowmelt runoff, 2010. ................................ 7 Figure 5. Upper Cache la Poudre River Sub-watershed within the Poudre River Watershed ...................... 8 Figure 6. Photo: Horsetooth Reservoir, a terminal reservoir in the C-BT system. ....................................... 9 Figure 7. Colorado-Big Thompson Project Water Collection and Distribution Systems (Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, n.d.) ............................................................................................................... 10 Figure 8. Overview of City of Fort Collins' Source Water Protection Areas ............................................... 18 Figure 9. City of Fort Collins' Cache la Poudre River SWPA ....................................................................... 19 Figure 10. City of Fort Collins' Horsetooth Reservoir SWPA ....................................................................... 20 Figure 11. CRWA's SWAP Risk Assessment Matrix ..................................................................................... 22 Figure 12. Location of the High Park and Hewlett Gulch Wildfires in relation to the CIty of Fort Collins Source Watersheds for the Poudre River and Horsetooth Reservoir. ........................................................ 26 Figure 13. Photo: Example of a large debris flow within the High Park Fire burn scar (July 2013) following an afternoon thunderstorm (above) and the subsequent water quality impairment that occurred in the Poudre River (right). .................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 14. Photo: Abandoned mine along Sevenmile Creek in the Upper Poudre River Watershed. ....... 28 Figure 15. Historical mine openings and tailing piles within Fort Collins’ Upper Cache la Poudre River SWPA ........................................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 16. Schematic of a septic system. .................................................................................................... 33 Figure 17. Area Infested by Mountain Pine Beetle and Spruce Beetle in Colorado, 1996-2015. Source: 2015 Report on the Health of Colorado’s Forests, Colorado State Forest Service. .................................... 34 Figure 18. Watershed conditions within the City of Fort Collins's Cache La Poudre SWPA. ...................... 35 Figure 19: Storage Tank Sites within the City of Fort Collins’ Source Water Protection Areas. ............. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 20. Schematic of a LUST spill site. .................................................................................................... 39 Figure 21. Well permit applications within the City of Fort Collins’ Upper Cache la Poudre River SWPA (Colorado Division of Water Resources, 2015) ........................................................................................... 40 Page v LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Surface Water Supply Information ............................................................................................... 14 Table 2. Planning Meetings and SWPP development timeline .................................................................. 15 Table 3. Potential Sources of Contamination and Issues of Concern Prioritization Table ......................... 24 Table 4. Permitted mines within the City of Fort Collins’ Upper Cache la Poudre River SWPA ................. 27 Table 5. Source Water Protection Best Management Practices ................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Page vi Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There is a growing effort in Colorado to protect community drinking water sources from potential contamination. Many communities are taking a proactive approach to preventing the pollution of their drinking water sources by developing a source water protection plan. A source water protection plan identifies a source water protection area, lists potential contaminant sources and outlines best management practices to reduce risks to the water source. Implementation of a source water protection plan provides an additional layer of protection at the local level beyond drinking water regulations. The City of Fort Collins values a clean, high quality drinking water supply and decided to work collaboratively with area stakeholders to develop a Source Water Protection Plan. The source water protection planning effort consisted of public planning meetings with stakeholders including local citizens and landowners, private businesses, water operators, local and state governments, and agency representatives during the months of June 2015 to April 2016, at Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility. Colorado Rural Water Association was instrumental in this effort by providing technical assistance in the development of this Source Water Protection Plan. The City of Fort Collins obtains its drinking water from two surface water intakes on the Upper Cache La Poudre River and the Horsetooth Reservoir, a terminal reservoir on the Colorado-Big Thompson System. The Source Water Protection Areas for these water sources include the watershed boundaries of each source. These Source Water Protection Areas are the areas that the City of Fort Collins has chosen to focus its source water protection measures to reduce source water susceptibility to contamination. The Steering Committee, described herein, conducted an inventory of potential contaminant sources and identified other issues of concern within the Source Water Protection Area. The Steering Committee developed several best management practices to reduce the risks from the potential contaminant sources and other issues of concern. The best management practices are centered on the themes of building partnerships with community members, businesses, and local decision makers; raising awareness of the value of protecting community drinking water supplies; and empowering local communities to become stewards of their drinking water supplies by taking actions to protect their water sources. The following is an abbreviated list that highlights the highest priority potential contaminant sources and/or issues of concern and their associated best management practices. x Forest Health: Wildfires (high) 1. Continue to work with the Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed (CPRW) to complete two priority wildfire-related tasks: a. Identify remaining priority areas for restoration that were burned in the 2012 Hewlett Gulch and High Park Wildfires, and b. Complete the Poudre River Watershed Resiliency Plan to identify priority areas for targeted forest fuels treatment based on the wildfire hazards and other values at risk within sub-drainages in the Upper Poudre Watershed. Page 2 2. Continue to assess and mitigate, as needed, the wildfire hazards that threaten the City of Fort Collins’ critical facilities through forest fuels treatments and other BMPs. 3. Ensure that source watersheds are identified and managed as a critical asset for the Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility (FCWTF) in major planning efforts such as the FCWTF Wildfire Response Plan, FCWTF Vulnerability Assessment and Regional Hazard Mitigation Plans. 4. Share copies of the City of Fort Collins’ SWPP and GIS shapefiles/maps of the SWPAs with stakeholders. 5. Continue to maintain early-warning water quality alert system to signal significant changes in water quality. 6. Participate in regional efforts to advance practices around mitigating the risks of wildfire to water supplies (e.g. Front Range Watershed Wildfire Protection Group, Carpe Diem West’s Healthy Headwaters Initiative). 7. Update internal City policies, as needed, to support the best management practices that provide protection of source water supplies. x Historical and Active Mines(Moderate) 1. Develop a Mine Action Plan by referencing existing studies such as the USFS Hazard Abandoned Mine Land Inventory Project and DRMS inventories to help determine which abandoned mines and tailings piles are impaired and a threat to the source waters. 2. Share data from Mine Action Plan with interested parties. The Steering Committee recognizes that the usefulness of this Source Water Protection Plan lies in its implementation and will begin and/or continue to execute these best management practices upon completion of this Plan. This Plan is a living document that is meant to be updated to address any changes that will inevitably come. The Steering Committee will review this Plan at a frequency of once every 3-5 years or if circumstances change resulting in the development of new water sources and source water protection areas, or if new risks are identified. Page 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION Source water protection is a proactive approach to preventing the pollution of lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater that serve as sources of drinking water. For generations water quality was taken for granted, and still today many people assume that their water is naturally protected. However, as water moves through and over the ground, contaminants may be picked up and carried to a drinking water supply. While a single catastrophic event could potentially wipe out a drinking water source, the cumulative impact of minor contaminant releases over time can also result in the degradation of a drinking water source. Contamination can occur via discrete (point source) and dispersed (nonpoint source) sources. A discrete source contaminant originates from a single point, while a dispersed source contaminant originates from diffuse sources over a broader area. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, nonpoint source pollution is the leading cause of water quality degradation (GWPC, 2008). Figure 1. Schematic drawing of the potential source of contamination to surface and groundwater The City of Fort Collins Drinking Water Quality Policy (Resolution 93-144, 1993) specifies that the City shall provide “water services that meet or exceed customer expectations”. Specifically, pertaining to water supply protection, the policy states: “The City will protect raw water sources from contamination or any other activities that would diminish the quality of water provided to customers, or that would result in increased treatment costs.” Additionally, the Colorado Water Plan (2015), Section 7, identifies natural hazards and watershed health as key influences on water supplies and encourages the development of stakeholder groups and watershed planning efforts to protect the quality of these water supplies. Specifically, the plan recommends identifying potential impacts to public water supplies from abandoned mines and other threats through processes similar to this Source Water Protection Plan (SWPP) development, and implementing strategies to address these impacts. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cowaterplan/colorados-water-plan-final-2015 Page 4 In both policy and practice, the City of Fort Collins recognizes the potential for contamination of their drinking water sources, and realizes that the development of this SWPP is an important step in protecting these valuable resources. Proactive planning is essential to protect the long-term integrity of the drinking water supply and to limit costs and liabilities. This SWPP demonstrates the City of Fort Collins’ commitment to reducing risks to their drinking water supply. Figure 2. Location of Fort Collins, CO in Larimer County 1.1 Purpose of the Source Water Protection Plan The Source Water Protection Plan (SWPP) is a tool for the City of Fort Collins to ensure clean and high quality drinking water sources for current and future generations. This Source Water Protection Plan is designed to: x Create an awareness of the community’s drinking water sources and the potential risks to surface water and/or groundwater quality within the watershed; x Encourage education and voluntary solutions to alleviate pollution risks; x Promote best management practices to protect and enhance the drinking water supply; x Provide for a comprehensive action plan in case of an emergency that threatens or disrupts the community water supply. Developing and implementing source water protection measures at the local level (i.e. county and municipal) will complement existing regulatory protection measures implemented at the state and federal governmental levels by filling protection gaps that can only be addressed at the local level. Page 5 1.2 Background of Colorado’s SWAP Program Source water assessment and protection came into existence in 1996 as a result of Congressional reauthorization and amendment of the Safe Drinking Water Act. These amendments required each state to develop a source water assessment and protection (SWAP) program. The Water Quality Control Division, an agency of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), assumed the responsibility of developing Colorado’s SWAP program and integrated it with the Colorado Wellhead Protection Program. Colorado’s SWAP program is an iterative, two-phased process designed to assist public water systems in preventing potential contamination of their untreated drinking water supplies. The two phases include the Assessment Phase and the Protection Phase as depicted in the upper and lower portions of Figure 3, respectively. Figure 3. Source Water Assessment and Protection Phases Source Water Assessment Phase The Assessment Phase for all public water systems was completed in 2004 and consisted of four primary elements: 1. Delineating the source water assessment area for each of the drinking water sources; 2. Conducting a contaminant source inventory to identify potential sources of contamination within each of the source water assessment areas; Page 6 3. Conducting a susceptibility analysis to determine the potential susceptibility of each public drinking water source to the different sources of contamination; 4. Reporting the results of the source water assessment to the public water systems and the general public. A Source Water Assessment Report was provided to each public water system in Colorado in 2004 that outlines the results of this Assessment Phase. Source Water Protection Phase The Protection Phase is a non-regulatory, ongoing process in which all public water systems have been encouraged to voluntarily employ preventative measures to protect their water supply from the potential sources of contamination to which it may be most susceptible. The Protection Phase can be used to take action to avoid unnecessary treatment or replacement costs associated with potential contamination of the untreated water supply. Source water protection begins when local decision makers use the source water assessment results and other pertinent information as a starting point to develop a protection plan. As depicted in the lower portion of Figure 3, the source water protection phase for all public water systems consists of four primary elements: 1. Involving local stakeholders in the planning process; 2. Developing a comprehensive protection plan for all of their drinking water sources; 3. Implementing the protection plan on a continuous basis to reduce the risk of potential contamination of the drinking water sources; and 4. Monitoring the effectiveness of the protection plan and updating it accordingly as future assessment results indicate. The water system and the community recognize that the Safe Drinking Water Act grants no statutory authority to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment or to any other state or federal agency to force the adoption or implementation of source water protection measures. This authority rests solely with local communities and local governments. The source water protection phase is an ongoing process. The evolution of the SWAP program is to incorporate any new assessment information provided by the public water supply systems and update the protection plan accordingly. Page 7 2.0 SOURCE WATER SETTING The City of Fort Collins obtains its drinking water from two surface water intakes on the Upper Cache La Poudre River and the Horsetooth Reservoir, a terminal reservoir on the Colorado-Big Thompson System. The City of Fort Collins’ source waters lie within both public and private lands. The private land is within the unincorporated areas of Larimer County, and the public lands include Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest Lands, managed by the Canyon Lakes Ranger District, and Rocky Mountain National Park, managed by the National Park Service. Land use on private land consists of agricultural and rural residential development. 2.1 Cache la Poudre River The Cache la Poudre (Poudre) watershed is a sub-watershed of the South Platte River Basin. The South Platte River Basin is part of Colorado Water Division One with the office of the Division Engineer in Greeley. The headwaters of the Cache la Poudre River watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 10190007) lie within Rocky Mountain National Park. From here, the Mainstem Poudre travels approximately 65 miles through the Poudre Canyon, descending approximately 5,500 feet from its starting elevation of 10,800 feet. It then flows through the City of Fort Collins, and meets the South Platte River on the agricultural plains, near Greeley, Colorado. The City of Fort Collins raw Poudre River water intake facility is located on the Mainstem of the Poudre River above the confluence with the North Fork Poudre approximately 5 miles upstream from the mouth of the Poudre Canyon. The upper Poudre watershed (above the canyon mouth) encompasses approximately 565 square miles of mountain terrain, dominated by coniferous forest with less than 4 square miles of developed land. Within this upper basin, there are a total of 30 miles of river designated under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968) as “wild” and another 46 miles with a “recreational” designation. These designations underscore the pristine conditions of these river segments and protect against any activity that threatens the water quality or the outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values on these segments (Oropeza et al, 2011). The City of Fort Collins does not own any of the lands upstream from the Poudre water supply intake, which means all watershed management and water supply protection efforts must be addressed through collaboration with other land owners and land/water management agencies. The primary tributaries of the Mainstem Poudre are the Little South Fork Poudre and Joe Wright Creek. Within the upper watershed, there are nine water supply reservoirs and five trans-basin Figure 4. Upper Cache la Poudre River during Spring snowmelt runoff. Page 8 diversions that deliver water from the Colorado River, Michigan River and Laramie River basins; however, the Mainstem Poudre remains free of impoundments. As such, the water quality at the City’s Poudre Supply Intake, reflects the cumulative contributions of these sources in addition to the land use activities within the watershed. In 2012, a major wildfire, the High Park Fire, burned approximately 135 square miles of the Upper Poudre Watershed, the majority of which drains into the Mainstem Poudre River, above the City’s Poudre Supply Intake. Within the burn area, burned hillslopes have regained significant vegetative cover since 2012, which has significantly reduced the magnitude of peak storm flows and delivery of sediment to the Poudre River. However, the channel structure and hydrologic function of several tributary streams were damaged by the highly erosive flash floods in the first two years following the High Park Fire. These impacted stream channels continue to act as sources of eroded sediment and nutrients to the River, particularly during significant rainfall events, and will be targets for restoration by the Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed (CPRW). Figure 5. Upper Cache la Poudre River Sub-watershed within the Poudre River Watershed 2.2 Horsetooth Reservoir The City of Fort Collins also obtains drinking water from Horsetooth Reservoir via the Hansen Feeder Canal system. Horsetooth Reservoir is located in the foothills west of the Fort Collins’ city boundaries in Larimer County, Colorado. Horsetooth Reservoir has a storage capacity of 156,735 acre feet. It is situated north to south along the foothills with a length of approximately 6.7 miles and a relatively Page 9 narrow, maximum width of 0.9 miles. The residence time of water stored in Horsetooth Reservoir is approximately 8.4 months to 1 year. Horsetooth Reservoir is a terminal reservoir of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The Colorado-Big Thompson Project is the largest trans-mountain water diversion project in Colorado. West of the Continental Divide, runoff from the headwaters of the Colorado River is collected in Granby Reservoir, Shadow Mountain Reservoir and Grand Lake. Granby Reservoir also receives water pumped from Willow Creek Reservoir and Windy Gap Reservoir. When East Slope delivery requirements are greater than the direct runoff to Grand Lake, water is pumped from Granby Reservoir to Shadow Mountain Reservoir where it flows by gravity into Grand Lake. From there, the Alva B. Adams Tunnel, a 13 mile tunnel, transports the water under the divide to the East Slope. Once the water reaches the East Slope, it is used to generate electricity as it falls almost half a mile through five power plants on its way to Colorado's Front Range. Carter Lake, Horsetooth Reservoir and Boulder Reservoir store C-BT water (Figure 7). The C-BT Project provides water for agricultural, municipal and industrial uses (Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, n.d.). The C-BT system includes over 1,000 square miles of watershed area, which is comprised of primarily forested, mountain terrain as well as some developed areas around the Towns of Grand Lake and Estes Park. In comparison, the direct, local watershed of Horsetooth Reservoir is small, approximately 17 square miles. There are several small intermittent streams that feed into the Reservoir, primarily during spring snowmelt runoff and significant rain events. Similar to the Poudre River watershed, the City of Fort Collins does not own any of the lands upstream from the reservoir, which means all watershed management and water supply protection efforts must be addressed through collaboration with other land owners and land/water management agencies. Figure 6. Horsetooth Reservoir, a terminal reservoir in the C-BT system. Page 10 Figure 7. Colorado-Big Thompson Project Water Collection and Distribution Systems (Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, n.d.) 2.3 Clean Water Act Water Quality Standards Under the EPA Clean Water Act, every state must adopt water quality standards to protect, maintain and improve the quality of the nation’s surface waters. Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires all states to assess and report to Congress on the quality of waters within their state. The State of Colorado’s Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) has established water quality standards that define the goals and limits for all waters within their jurisdictions. Colorado streams are divided into individual stream segments for classification and standards identification purposes. Colorado’s Section 303d List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List (Regulation #93) identifies the stream segments that do not meet the attainment of those standards for designated uses. In 2015, all tributaries to the Mainstem of the Upper Cache la Poudre River from the headwaters to the canyon mouth were added to the 303d list of impaired waters due to non-attainment of the Aquatic Life standards (provisional) based on a multimetric index (MMI) for aquatic macroinvertebrates and for total arsenic (As) concentrations (COSPCP02a ). The lower segment between the Munroe Tunnel and the canyon mouth (COSPCP10a), is also 303d listed for temperature. Horsetooth Reservoir (COSPCP14) is on the 303d list for mercury (Hg) concentrations in fish tissue and total arsenic (As) exceedances. These 303d designations do not affect the suitability of the Poudre River or Horsetooth Reservoir as high quality drinking water sources. Page 11 3.0 SOURCE WATER MONITORING PROGRAMS 3.1 Upper Cache la Poudre (CLP) Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program The Upper Cache la Poudre (CLP) Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program (“Upper CLP Program”) was initiated in 2008 as a cooperative approach to monitoring source waters for the City of Fort Collins, City of Greeley and the Tri-Districts. This collaborative program incorporates historical monitoring programs on the Poudre River from City of Greeley and City of Fort Collins. As such, it eliminates redundancies in sampling efforts, improves cost-effectiveness and monitoring capabilities for all partner entities. The majority of samples are analyzed by the City of Fort Collins Water Quality Laboratory. The data collected are used to track water quality trends and watershed issues of concern over time on the Poudre River. The information from this program allows treatment facility operations to readily anticipate any needed changes in treatment processes and plan accordingly. In total, 19 sites on the Mainstem and North Fork of the Poudre River are monitored 11 times per year, for up to 30 water quality constituents that reflect the physical, chemical, microbiological and aesthetic characteristics of the water source. The sites are situated above and below major tributaries, reservoirs, inflow diversion points and at water treatment intake facilities. The data are analyzed and reported in annual and five-year summary reports. All water quality reports can be found at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/water/water-quality/source-water-monitoring/water- quality-reports. 3.2 Horsetooth Reservoir Water Quality Monitoring Program The City of Fort Collins conducted water quality monitoring on Horsetooth Reservoir from the mid- 1980’s until 2014. In 2015 the City entered into a cost-share agreement with Northern Water for the cooperative monitoring of Horsetooth Reservoir. A review of historical data and a program comparison indicates that this shared monitoring effort will eliminate redundancy in sampling efforts, maintain a consistent, high quality data record and offer cost savings to both parties. The current monitoring program evaluates reservoir dynamics by tracking physical depth profile characteristics throughout the year at three key locations at the top and bottom of the reservoir and data from this program are used to monitor long-term and seasonal trends in water quality. Information from this program is used to inform water treatment operations. Horsetooth Reservoir Water Quality Reports can be found at the City’s website, http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/water/water-quality/source-water- monitoring/water-quality-reports and on Norther Water’s website, http://www.northernwater.org/WaterQuality/WaterQualityReports1.aspx. 3.3 Contaminants of Emerging Concern The City of Fort Collins participates in Northern Water’s Cooperative Emerging Contaminant Monitoring Program along with other Front Range municipalities. This program samples from a number of source water supplies three times per year for the presence of a large suite of Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs). The compounds of interest include pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), herbicides, pesticides and hormones. Page 12 A link to the description of this program and the monitoring results can be found at the City of Fort Collins Utilities - Source Water Monitoring web page: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we- do/water/water-quality/source-water-monitoring/special-studies/emerging-contaminants, and at Northern Water’s Website: https://www.northernwater.org/WaterQuality/WaterQualityReports1.aspx. To date, observed concentrations of emerging contaminants have been extremely low, often near the method detection limit and orders of magnitude below typical consumptive or therapeutic doses and consistently well below EPA numerical water quality standards, when applicable. However, the purpose of this cooperative monitoring effort is to establish a baseline for these types of compounds in surface water supplies and to track them over time. In some areas of the country, concentrations of certain compounds have been shown to cause adverse impacts on aquatic life, and it is important for EPA to be able to evaluate the potential impact of CECs and PPCPs on aquatic life and have an approach for determining protective levels for aquatic organisms (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). 3.4 Harmful Algal Blooms The City of Fort Collins assessed the vulnerability of its source waters to harmful algal blooms and cyanotoxin production. Cyanotoxins are produced by several widely-occurring species of cyanobacteria known as blue-green algae. The production of cyanotoxins is complex and very difficult to predict; however, rapid cyanobacteria growth, or “blooms”, are generally favored by slow moving, warm, nutrient-enriched waters with exposure to ample sunlight. These compounds can be difficult to remove in drinking water treatment process, and so avoidance is, by far, the best protection strategy. People and animals who come into contact with contaminated waters can experience serious health effects or even death. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. EPA is required to develop and publish a list of unregulated contaminants that are known or expected to occur in public water systems and that pose concern for public health. Accordingly, the EPA has included 10 cyanotoxins in the fourth Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring Rule (UCMR4), which requires public drinking water systems to analyze samples from their drinking water distribution systems during the period of March 2018 through November 2020. The City of Fort Collins will monitor the drinking water distribution system accordingly. To evaluate the level of risk of Fort Collins water supplies face from potential cyanotoxin production, City staff evaluated the prevalence of environmental factors that favor cyanotoxin production and analyzed historical water quality data. It was determined that the Cache la Poudre River source water supply is at low risk for cyanotoxin production. Horsetooth Reservoir is also of low risk for harmful algal blooms based on long-term historical data; however, future changes in climate or reservoir dynamics may support environmental conditions favorable to harmful algal blooms and potential cyanotoxin release. Therefore, the City of Fort Collins has developed a cyanotoxin monitoring protocol and early warning action plan in the event that conditions favor harmful algal blooms in Horsetooth Reservoir. Due to the low risk of occurrence of cyanotoxins in Horsetooth Reservoir and the high cost of quantifying cyanotoxins, the goal of this monitoring plan is not to monitor specifically for cyanotoxins, but to outline a method to assess water quality indicators that can inform decisions about when to monitor cyanotoxins in raw and finished water. Page 13 4.0 DRINKING WATER SUPPLY OPERATIONS 4.1 Water Supply and Infrastructure The City of Fort Collins operates a community water supply system that supplies drinking water to 129,300 residents located within Larimer County, Colorado. On an annual basis, the FCWTF treats approximately half of its water from each of two primary sources - Horsetooth Reservoir and the Poudre River. Horsetooth Reservoir is a terminal reservoir in the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) system and is managed by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern Water). Horsetooth Reservoir is a deep, narrow reservoir, oriented north to south along the foothills west of Fort Collins. At capacity, it holds approximately 156,735 acre feet of water and has a residence time between 8.4 months to 1 year. The reservoir outlet is located at the north end, near the bottom of the Soldier Canyon Dam and delivers water to the City of Fort Collins, Tri-Districts Soldier Canyon Filter Plant and Colorado State University’s (CSU) Engineering Research Center. In addition to the outlet at Soldier Canyon Dam, there is an outlet at Horsetooth Dam that delivers water to the Hansen Supply Canal which flows approximately 5 miles north and discharges to the Poudre River downstream of the City’s Poudre River intake. The City’s Poudre supply is direct flow to the FCWTF from the Cache la Poudre River via two 13-mile long pipelines. A third pipeline, the Pleasant Valley Pipeline, diverts water from the North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) channel at the mouth of Poudre Canyon. NPIC, in turn, diverts this water from the Mainstem of the Poudre River approximately one mile above the Fort Collins diversion. The Poudre pipelines can deliver a total of 20 million gallons per day (MGD) to the treatment facility. The Pleasant Valley Pipeline can deliver an additional 60 MGD to the FCWTF. Water from all three Poudre pipelines and the Horsetooth pipeline enters a blending basin at the Water Treatment Facility. The Flowblend basin is baffled to provide sufficient mixing of the water from all three pipelines to create one homogenous source of water for treatment. 4.2 Water Treatment Process Chlorine dioxide is added as a pre-oxidant to the incoming raw water in order to minimize taste and odor causing compounds. Chlorine dioxide is typically added to the Horsetooth source prior to the flow blending basin. Sufficient residual remains in the Flowblend basin for treatment of Poudre Water. Capacity exists to feed chlorine dioxide directly to Poudre water, should the need arise. The water is coagulated by addition of aluminum sulfate and flocculated with the aid of a cationic polymer. Solids are removed in sedimentation basins using the aid of lamella plates or settling tubes. The supernatant from the sedimentation basins is filtered through dual media constant rate filters. The filtrate is disinfected using gaseous chlorine. For corrosion control, the alkalinity is increased to between 36 and 40 mg/L by the addition of hydrated lime, and the pH is adjusted to 7.8 – 8.0 by the addition of carbon dioxide. The finished water is also fluoridated using hyrdofluosilic acid. Currently, a portion of the on-site reservoirs are reserved for disinfectant contact time. A contact basin is currently under construction, which will provide all necessary disinfectant contact time prior to the storage reservoirs. The treatment facility consists of four independent treatment trains and 23 filters. Each treatment train has a maximum sustainable treatment capacity of between 20 MGD and 22 MGD, depending on the train, for a total sustainable treatment capacity of 87 MGD. The hydraulic maximum rate of the plant is 92 MGD. Page 14 4.3 Finished Water Storage Two finished water storage reservoirs are located on the plant grounds, with a capacity of 15 million gallons each. Two off site reservoirs help maintain pressure in parts of our system – Foothills Reservoir serves customers on the western edge of Fort Collins, including CSU’s Foothills Campus. It can store 4 million gallons and can be isolated into two hydraulically independent chambers of 2 million gallons each. The Goat Hill Reservoir has a capacity of 1.5 million gallons, and serves customers in the town of LaPorte, northwest of Fort Collins. Table 1. Surface Water Supply Information Water System Facility Name Water System Facility Number Surface Water Source Constructed Date Poudre River Intake / Pleasant Valley Pipeline SS002 Cache la Poudre River 1979 Horsetooth Reservoir Outlet SS001 Horsetooth Reservoir 1951 (filled) 4.4 Water Supply Demand Analysis The City of Fort Collins serves an estimated 129,300 residents and other users in the service area annually. In addition to residents, Fort Collins sells treated water to business customers as well as CSU, and SCFP. The water system has the current capacity to produce 87 million gallons per day. Current estimates indicate that the average daily demand is approximately 21.2 million gallons per day, and that the average peak daily demand is approximately 44.5 million gallons per day. Using these estimates, the water system has a surplus average daily demand capacity of 65.8 million gallons per day and a surplus average peak daily demand capacity of 42.5 million gallons per day. If either water source becomes disabled for an extended period of time due to contamination, the City of Fort Collins is able to meet its average and peak daily demand by using water from the other source. However, if both water sources become disabled, the City of Fort Collins will not be able to meet the average or peak daily demand of its customers. The ability of City of Fort Collins to meet either of these demands for an extended period of time is also affected by the amount of treated water the water system has in storage at the time a water source becomes disabled. The potential financial and water supply risks related to the long-term disablement of one or more of the community’s water sources are a concern to the Steering Committee. As a result, the Steering Committee believes the development and implementation of a source water protection plan for City of Fort Collins can help to reduce the risks posed by potential contamination of its water sources. Additionally, the City of Fort Collins has developed an emergency response plan which is maintained at the Water Treatment Facility to coordinate rapid and effective response to any emergency incident that threatens or disrupts the community water supply. Page 15 5.0 SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT The Colorado Rural Water Association’s (CRWA) Source Water Protection Specialist, Kimberly Mihelich, helped facilitate the source water protection planning process. The goal of the CRWA’s Source Water Protection Program is to assist public water systems in minimizing or eliminating potential risks to drinking water supplies through the development and implementation of Source Water Protection Plans. The source water protection planning effort consisted of individual planning meetings with the water provider and a series of stakeholder meetings. Information discussed at the meetings helped the City of Fort Collins develop an understanding of the issues affecting source water protection for the community. The Steering Committee for the SWPP development included the City’s Watershed Specialist, Watershed Technician and Water Production Manager and CRWA’s Water Protection Specialist. Based on recommendations from stakeholder groups and water treatment staff, the Steering Committee made recommendations for best management practices to be incorporated into the Source Water Protection Plan. In addition to the planning meetings, data and other information pertaining to Source Water Protection Area was gathered via public documents, internet research, phone calls, emails, and field trips to the protection area. A summary of the meetings is represented below. Table 2. Planning Meetings and SWPP development timeline Date Purpose of Meeting June 23, 2015 First Planning Meeting - Review stakeholder list; review of the State’s Source Water Assessment for City of Fort Collins. July 30, 2015 Second Planning Meeting - Review drinking water supply operations for the City of Fort Collins; define Source Water Protection Areas. September 17, 2015 Third Planning Meeting - Review Source Water Protection Areas; identify and develop potential source of contaminant inventory. October 21, 2015 Fourth Planning Meeting - Review inventory of potential sources of contaminants and assess risk; begin development of best management practices. November 24, 2015 Fifth Planning Meeting - Review risk assessment of potential sources of contamination; continue development of best management practices. December 2, 2015 Conference call - Finalize best management practices; prioritize potential sources of contamination. April 21, 2016 Present draft Source Water Protection Plan to stakeholder group May 13, 2016 Stakeholder comment period ends June 13, 2016 Final SWPP published 5.1 Development of the Poudre River Watershed Resiliency Plan The Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed (CPRW) is a 501c3 nonprofit organization, established in 2013, that works to improve and maintain the ecological health of the Poudre River watershed through community collaboration. The City of Fort Collins is a founding member of CPRW and holds a reserved seat on the Board of Directors. CPRW is currently engaged with a variety of stakeholders (e.g. natural resource professionals, scientists, residents, government agency representatives, etc.) to develop a Page 16 community-driven Watershed Resiliency Plan that will identify priority areas at risk from wildfires and among other issues, and that will recommend mitigation / treatment options for prioritized areas and values at risk. The Watershed Resiliency Plan will provide opportunity for outreach to residents about watershed health, and will guide implementation of restoration activities within the upper Poudre River watershed. It is intended that this Source Water Protection Plan will complement CPRW’s Watershed Resiliency Plan, as the quality and consistency of the City’s water supplies depend on healthy, functioning watersheds and likewise, are vulnerable to similar risks. 5.2 Stakeholder Participation in the Planning Process Local stakeholder participation is vitally important to the overall success of Colorado’s Source Water Assessment and Protection (SWAP) program. Source water protection was founded on the concept that informed citizens, equipped with fundamental knowledge about their drinking water source and the threats to it, will be the most effective advocates for protecting this valuable resource. Local support and acceptance of the Source Water Protection Plan is more likely when local stakeholders have actively participated in its development. The planning process took place during the months of June 2015 through April 2016. Because the development of the Fort Collins Source Water Protection Plan and the CPRW Poudre River Watershed Resiliency Plan were largely concurrent efforts, the City decided to utilize the existing CPRW stakeholder meetings for SWPP updates in to maximize the benefit of stakeholder involvement. The City of Fort Collins held internal planning meetings prior to the development of a final SWPP. Local stakeholders and internal City staff were notified initially of the planning process and email and updates were provided to the group. The draft SWPP was shared at a CPRW Stakeholders and internal City staff via email on April 21,2016 and a notice was posted to the City’s Source Water Monitoring webpage (http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/water/water-quality/source-water-monitoring) to provide an opportunity for comments on the Fort Collins SWPP. The City of Fort Collins and the Colorado Rural Water Association are very appreciative of the participation and expert input from the following stakeholders. A list of participating stakeholders in the City of Fort Collins SWPP development is provided in Appendix A. 5.3 Development and Implementation Grant The City of Fort Collins has been awarded a $5,000 Development and Implementation Grant from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. This funding is available to public water systems and representative stakeholders committed to developing and implementing a source water protection plan. A one to one financial match (cash or in-kind) is required. The City of Fort Collins was approved for this grant in February 2015, and it expires on January 31, 2017. The City of Fort Collins intends on using the funds to implement management approaches that are identified in this Plan. 5.4 Source Water Assessment Report Review The Steering Committee has reviewed the Fort Collins Source Water Assessment Report (2004). The Assessment results were used as a starting point to guide the development of appropriate management approaches to protect the source water(s) of City of Fort Collins from potential contamination. A copy of the Source Water Assessment Report for City of Fort Collins can be obtained by contacting the City of Page 17 Fort Collins or by downloading a copy from the CDPHE’s SWAP program website located at: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDPHE-WQ/CBON/1251596793639. 5.5 Defining the Source Water Protection Area A source water protection area is the surface and subsurface areas within which contaminants are reasonably likely to reach a water source. The purpose of delineating a source water protection area is to determine the recharge area that supplies water to a public water source. Delineation is the process used to identify and map the area around a pumping well that supplies water to the well or spring, or to identify and map the drainage basin that supplies water to a surface water intake. The size and shape of the area depends on the characteristics of the aquifer and the well, or the watershed. The source water assessment areas that were delineated as part of the City of Fort Collins’ Source Water Assessment Report provides the basis for understanding where the community’s source water and potential contaminant threats originate, and where the community has chosen to implement its source water protection measures in an attempt to manage the susceptibility of their source water to potential contamination. After carefully reviewing their Source Water Assessment Report and the CDPHE’s delineation of the Source Water Assessment Areas for each of the City of Fort Collins’ sources, the Steering Committee chose to modify it before accepting it as their Source Water Protection Area for this Source Water Protection Plan. The original Source Water Assessment Report included two distinct SWAAs for both of their water sources (Appendix B). The SWAA for the Upper Cache la Poudre River intake included the entire Upper Cache la Poudre River Watershed, and the SWAA for the Horsetooth Reservoir intake included the drainage into Horsetooth Reservoir and expanded up to the entire Colorado River and Little Thompson watersheds. In an effort to reduce the scope of this project, the City of Fort Collins narrowed the Horsetooth Reservoir SWAA to include only the drainage into the reservoir. The City of Fort Collins’ Source Water Protection Areas are defined as: Zone 1 is defined as a 1,000 foot wide band on either side of the streams. Zone 2 extends 1/4 mile beyond each side of the boundaries of zone 1 (2,320 feet from the stream). Zone 3 is made up by the remainder of the SWAA area up to the watershed boundary. The Source Water Protection Area is illustrated in the following maps. Page | 18 Figure 8. Overview of City of Fort Collins' SWPAs. Page | 19 Figure 9. City of Fort Collins' Cache la Poudre River SWPA Page | 20 Figure 10. City of Fort Collins' Horsetooth Reservoir SWPA Page | 21 5.6 Inventory of Potential Contaminant Sources and Other Issues of Concern In 2001 – 2002, as part of the Source Water Assessment Report, a contaminant source inventory was conducted by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to identify selected potential sources of contamination that might be present within the source water assessment areas. Discrete and dispersed contaminant sources were inventoried using selected state and federal regulatory databases, land use / land cover and transportation maps of Colorado. The contaminant inventory was completed by mapping the potential contaminant sources with the aid of a Geographic Information System (GIS). The City of Fort Collins was asked, by CDPHE, to review the inventory information, field-verify selected information about existing and new contaminant sources, and provide feedback on the accuracy of the inventory. Through this Source Water Protection Plan, the City of Fort Collins is reporting its findings to the CDPHE. After much consideration, discussion, and input from local stakeholders, the City of Fort Collins has developed a more accurate and current inventory of contaminant sources located within the Source Water Protection Area and other issues of concern that may impact the City of Fort Collins’s drinking water sources.1 In addition to the discrete and dispersed contaminant sources identified in the contaminant source inventory, the City of Fort Collins has also identified other issues of concern that may impact their drinking water sources (see Table 4. Potential Sources of Contamination and Issues of Concern Prioritization Table, page 47). Upon completion of this contaminant source inventory, the City of Fort Collins has decided to adopt it in place of the original contaminant source inventory provided by the CDPHE. 5.7 Priority Strategy of Potential Contaminant Sources and Other Issues of Concern After developing a contaminant source inventory and list of issues of concern that is more accurate, complete, and current, the City of Fort Collins prioritized each item to guide the implementation of the Best Management Practices outlined in this Source Water Protection Plan (see Table 6: Source Water Protection Best Management Practices). The prioritization ranking of each potential contaminant source or other issue of concern factored in the following criteria (as described below): the level of risk, the water system control, and the Best Management Practices associated with each item. 1. Risk – The level of risk for each contaminant source is a measure of the water source’s potential exposure to contamination. The City of Fort Collins utilized CRWA’s SWAP Risk Assessment Matrix (Appendix C), which calculates the level of risk by estimating the following: x Impact to the Public Water System – The risk to the source waters increases as the impact to the water system increases. The impact is determined by evaluating the human health concerns and potential volume of the contaminant source. CDPHE developed information tables to assist with this evaluation (Appendices D-G). The following descriptions provide a framework to estimate the impact to the public water system. 1 The information contained in this Plan is limited to that available from public records and the City of Fort Collins at the time that the Plan was written. Other potential contaminant sites or threats to the water supply may exist in the Source Water Protection Area that are not identified in this Plan. Furthermore, identification of a site as a “potential contaminant site” should not be interpreted as one that will necessarily cause contamination of the water supply. Page | 22 x Catastrophic (very high) - irreversible damage to the water source(s). This could include the need for new treatment technologies and/or the replacement of existing water source(s). x Major (high) - substantial damage to the water source(s). This could include a loss of use for an extended period of time and/or the need for new treatment technologies. x Significant (moderate)- moderate damage to the water source(s). This could include a loss of use for an extended period of time and/or the need for increased monitoring and/or maintenance activities. x Minor (low) - minor damage resulting in minimal, recoverable, or localized efforts. This could include temporarily shutting off an intake or well and/or the issuance of a boil order. x Insignificant (very low) - damage that may be too small or unimportant to be worth consideration, but may need to be observed for worsening conditions. This could include the development of administrative procedures to maintain awareness of changing conditions. x Probability of Impact – The risk to the source waters increases as the relative probability of damage or loss increases. The probability of impact is determined by evaluating the number of contaminant sources, the migration potential or proximity to the water source, and the historical data. The following descriptions provide a framework to estimate the relative probability that damage or loss would occur within one to ten years. x Certain: >95% probability of impact x Likely: >70% to <95% probability of impact x Possible: >30% to <70% probability of impact x Unlikely: >5% to <30% probability of impact x Rare: <5% probability of impact Figure 11. CRWA's SWAP Risk Assessment Matrix Page | 23 2. Degree of Influence – The degree of water system influence describes the ability of the water system to take measures to prevent contamination or minimize impact. A potential contaminant source that falls within a water system’s jurisdiction (i.e. direct control), may be of higher priority since they can take direct measures to prevent contamination or minimize the impact. x High – The water system can take direct measures to prevent. x Medium – The water system cannot directly control the issue, but can work with another person or entity to take measures to prevent. x Low – The PSOC or issue of concern is outside the control of the public water system and other entities. 3. Best Management Practices – BMPs are the actions that can be taken within the Source Water Protection Area to help reduce the potential risks of contamination to the community’s source waters. The prioritization of the potential contaminant sources or issues of concern may be affected by the feasibility of implementing the BMPs that the City of Fort Collins developed (Table 5. Source Water Protection Best Management Practices). City of Fort Collins’ approach for ranking potential contaminant source inventory and issues of concern is presented in Table 3. Page | 24 Table 3: Potential Sources of Contamination and Issues of Concern Prioritization Table Potential Contaminant Source or Issue of Concern Proximity (SWPA Zone) Impact to Water System (Insignificant , Minor, Significant, Major, Catastrophic) Probability of Impact (Rare, Unlikely, Possible, Likely, Certain) Risk (Very Low, Low, Intermediate, High, Very High) Control (Direct- High, Indirect- Medium, None- Low) BMPs 2 Priority Ranking Forest Health: Wildfires 1, 2, 3 Major Likely High Low High Historical & Active Mines 1, 2, 3 Significant Possible Moderate Low High Flooding N/A Major Unlikely Moderate Low Moderate State Highways 1 Significant Likely High Medium Moderate County & Forest Roads2 1, 2, 3 Minor Rare Very Low Low Moderate Septic Systems Significant Possible Moderate Medium Moderate Forest Health: Insect Mortality /Disease 1, 2, 3 Minor Unlikely Low Low Low Recreation 1, 2, 3 Minor Rare Very Low Low Low Grazing/Agriculture 1, 2, 3 Minor Unlikely Low Low Low Storage Tanks 1 Significant Unlikely Moderate Medium Low Water Wells 1, 2, 3 Insignificant Rare Very Low Low Low 2 The Priority Ranking of the potential contaminant sources or issues of concern may be affected by the feasibility of implementing the identified BMPs. See Table 6: Source Water Protection Best Management Practices for details. Page | 25 6.0 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES AND ISSUES OF CONCERN The following section provides a brief description of potential contaminant sources and issues of concern that have been identified in this plan, describes the way in which they threaten the water source(s) and outlines best management practices. 6.1 Forest Health: Wildfires (Priority Ranking: High) The forests throughout Colorado are dense with fuel build-up from a century of fire suppression and thus more vulnerable to high-intensity fires than historically. The years 2012 and 2013 were among the worst for wildfires in Colorado due to drought conditions throughout the State. The previous winters were extremely dry and summer temperatures exceeded or approached 100°F. The High Park Fire occurred near Fort Collins in the summer of 2012, and was the largest and most destructive fire in the history of Larimer County, burning over 87,200 acres of land (CDOT, Larimer County, NRCS, and USFS, 2012) within both the Horsetooth Reservoir and Cache La Poudre River SWPAs (Figure 12). The Coalition for the CPRW, discussed previously, is currently spearheading restoration activities within the 2012 High Park Fire burn areas. The Upper Cache la Poudre River Watershed Resiliency Plan that is in development will include additional watershed activities to reduce the risk of future catastrophic wildfires and address other watershed risks (Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed, 2014). Wildfires can have an impact on source waters by altering land cover and watershed hydrology. This can result in soil erosion and sediment and ash pollution in source water supplies, which present challenges to water treatment operations. Large rain events can produce mudslides, and debris flows capable of destroying water infrastructure and impacting water quality (Figure 13). Chemicals used in fire retardants may also have a negative impact on drinking water sources. On December 31, 2011, the US Forest Service signed a new direction to approve the use of aerially applied fire retardant and implement an adaptive management approach that protects resources and improves the documentation of retardant effects through reporting, monitoring and application coordination. Aerial retardant drops are not allowed in mapped avoidance areas for certain threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, or sensitive (TEPCS) species or waterways. All waterways were given at least a 300 foot buffer avoidance area. A waterway is defined as a body of water including lakes, rivers, streams and ponds whether or not they contain aquatic life (US Department of Agriculture, 2013). Wildfire Best Management Practices Recommendations 1. Continue to work with the Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed to complete two priority wildfire-related tasks: a. Identify remaining priority areas for restoration that were burned in the 2012 Hewlett Gulch and High Park Wildfires, and b. Complete the Poudre River Watershed Resiliency Plan to identify priority areas for targeted forest fuels treatment based on the wildfire hazards and other values at risk within sub-drainages in the Upper Poudre Watershed. 2. Engage with CPRW and other stakeholders and partners to implement fuels treatments identified in the Resiliency Plan and other planning efforts. 3. Continue to assess and mitigate, as needed, the wildfire hazards that threaten the City of Fort Collins’ critical facilities through forest fuels treatments and other BMPs. Page | 26 4. Ensure that source watersheds are identified and managed as a critical asset for the Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility in major planning efforts such as the FCWTF Wildfire Response Plan, FCWTF Vulnerability Assessment, Master Plan, and Regional Hazard Mitigation Plans. 5. Share copies of the City of Fort Collins’ SWPP and GIS shapefiles/maps of the SWPAs with stakeholders. a. Gather contact information & create mailing list for distribution; b. Utilize CRWA’s “SWPP Distribution Letter” template to develop a cover letter for SWPP distribution; c. Print hard/CD copies of SWPP; print CDs with SWPA GIS shapefiles; d. Mail SWPP Distribution Cover Letter along with copy of City of Fort Collins’ SWPP and SWPA GIS shapefiles. 6. Maintain early-warning water quality alert system to signal significant changes in water quality. 7. Participate and partner in local and regional efforts to advance practices around mitigating the risks of wildfire to water supplies (e.g. Front Range Watershed Wildfire Protection Group, Carpe Diem West’s Healthy Headwaters Initiative, Colorado Big Thompson Headwaters Partnership, Colorado Conservation Exchange) 8. Update internal City policies, as needed, to support the best management practices that provide protection of source water supplies. Note that implementation of projects identified in Tasks 1.a and 1.b will be completed in cooperation with a broad-reaching group of stakeholders, which may include Federal, State, and Local government agencies, non-profit organizations as well as businesses, private landowners and local natural resource practitioners. Figure 12. Location of the High Park and Hewlett Gulch Wildfires in relation to the CIty of Fort Collins Source Watersheds for the Poudre River and Horsetooth Reservoir. Page | 27 6.2 Historical and Active Mines (Priority Ranking: Moderate) The City of Fort Collins’ Upper Cache la Poudre River Source Water Protection Area includes several historic mine sites as well as a few permitted mining operations. The Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety (DRMS) regulates mining and prospecting operations in the state of Colorado under the auspices of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act and the Hard Rock/Metal Mining Rules and Regulations of the Mined Land Reclamation Board. The Division is responsible for mineral and energy development, policy, and regulation and planning. One of their primary objectives is to review mining permit applications and to inspect mining operations to make sure that regulations are being followed. Permitted Mines The State of Colorado began requiring mines to be permitted in 1973. Mine permits are administered by the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS). According to the DRMS database, there are currently eight permitted mining operations within the City of Fort Collins’ Upper Cache la Poudre River SWPA and none in the Horsetooth Reservoir SWPA. The status of each permitted mine is shown in Table 5 below, but the majority of them have been terminated. Table 4. Permitted mines within the City of Fort Collins’ Upper Cache la Poudre River SWPA Site Name Permittee ID Number Commodities Mined Status Forest Service Pit (Colorado Division of Highways) M1978254 Sand & Gravel Terminated Carrol Sorelle Pit (Siegrist Construction Company) M1990099 Borrow Material for Construction Terminated Roaring Creek Pit (Colorado Division of Highways) M1980181 Borrow Material for Construction Terminated Sagert Storage (Alan Sagert) M1999159 Chlorine Not Mining Red Feather Lakes (Elkhorn Excavating) M2000141 Sand & Gravel Not Mining The Polemic Lode (The Polemic Lode) M1988049 Gold Application Withdrawn Glacier View Meadows (Donald B. Weixelman) M1980031 Sand & Gravel Terminated Boy Scout Turnoff Red Feather Lakes (Longs Peak Council – Boy Scouts of America) M1998042 Borrow Material for Construction Not Mining (Source: DRMS, http://mining.state.co.us/Reports/Pages/default.aspx, September 24, 2015) Figure 13. Example of a large debris flow within the High Park Fire burn scar (July 2013) following an afternoon thunderstorm (above) and the subsequent water quality impairment that occurred in the Poudre River (right). Page | 28 Figure 14. Abandoned mine along Sevenmile Creek in the Upper Poudre River Watershed. Abandoned Mine Land Historical mining practices allowed mine owners to simply abandon mines without consideration of the impact on streams, water quality, slope stability and safety. Many old mining properties contain abandoned mine workings, mine waste and/or mill tailings. Active and inactive mining operations have a potential to contaminate drinking water supplies from either point source discharges (i.e. mine drainage tunnels or flowing adits) or nonpoint source discharges from run-off over waste rock or tailing piles. Acidic, metal-laden water from inactive mines and waste rock piles has a potential to impair aquatic life in the Upper Cache la Poudre River Watershed upstream from the Fort Collins’ drinking water intake, and to a lesser degree threaten drinking water supplies. Historical mining activity in the Horsetooth Reservoir watershed includes sandstone quarries. Information from the United States Geologic Survey Mineral Resources Program indicates that the Horsetooth Reservoir watershed contains three mine occurrences, two of which are currently located under the reservoir near Solider Canyon and Spring Canyon Dams. These mines were previous fire clay refractories. The third mine is located near the headwaters of an intermittent drainage that flows into Inlet Bay, and was also mined for stone. During the years 1991 through 1999, the Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) completed an inventory of abandoned mine lands on National Forest System lands within Colorado to assess environmental degradation (Colorado Geologic Survey, n.d.). The Estes-Poudre Ranger District was inventoried in 1993 and included mapping of features, environmental information, environmental safety ratings, and water and waste water samples from selected sites. The highest environmental degradation rating given within this ranger district was 4 (“slight”) based on a 1 through 5 scale with 1 being “extreme” and 5 being “none.” Seven out of 40 inventoried areas within the Upper CLP were identified as having a “slight” impact to the environment (Heath, 2016). A total of 26 tailings piles and 71 openings were identified within the 40 mine inventory areas in the Upper CLP basin. Field visits verified that no draining water was exiting any of the 26 tailing piles, however, three locations exhibited signs of erosion. Standing water was identified at mine openings located in the historic Manhattan Mine District in the Sevenmile Creek sub-basin, which was given a “slight” environmental hazard rating (Figures 14 & 15). The City of Fort Collins is not currently aware of any mining impacts to their drinking water sources, but has developed a Mine Assessment and Action Plan for the Upper Cache la Poudre River Watershed (Appendix H). The goal of the Mine Assessment and Action Plan is to inventory existing and historical mining activity within the City’s Source Water Protection Areas and to evaluate potential water quality impacts of historical and active mines. The assessment included a research review of relevant historical background information, relevant data, and past abandoned mine inventories and Page | 29 assessments associated with mining activities and impacts within the watershed, and then identified sites with potential or confirmed environmental degradation. A water quality monitoring plan was develop and will be implemented in Fall 2016 to catalog water quality of perennial streams draining mine impacted sub-basins that flow to the Poudre River. Figure 15. Historical mine openings and tailing piles within Fort Collins’ Upper Cache la Poudre River SWPA Historical and Active Mines Best Management Practices Recommendations 1. Develop a Mine Action Plan by referencing existing studies such as the USFS Hazard Abandoned Mine Land Inventory Project and DRMS inventories to help determine which abandoned mines and tailings piles are impaired and a threat to the source waters. a. Conduct water quality analyses at high priority sites. b. Develop notification procedures with organizations that might first notice the problems (e.g. Larimer County, Fire Department, USGS, USFS, and/or Private Landowners). c. Develop and maintain an effective contact list to report and collaborate on any issues that may arise. d. Report any issues or threats that arise to the appropriate agencies. 2. Share data from Mine Action Plan with interested parties. Page | 30 6.3 Flooding (Priority Ranking: Moderate) Flooding is a moderate priority concern for the City of Fort Collins. In September 2013, Larimer County, along with several other counties in Colorado’s Front Range, experienced a substantial flood event. In addition to the large amounts of mud and additional sediment load caused by flood events, this could be a concern to drinking water providers because it can cause the disruption of water purification and sewage disposal systems, overflowing of toxic waste sites, and dislodgement of chemicals previously stored above ground. Floodwaters also pose as a potential health risk because they may contain infectious organisms such as E. coli, Salmonella and Shigella. Floodwaters may also be contaminated by agricultural or industrial chemicals or by hazardous agents preset at flooded hazardous waste sites. Pools of standing or stagnant water in the aftermath of floods can become breeding ground for mosquitoes, increasing the risk of West Nile Virus or other mosquito-borne diseases (Occupation Safety and Health Administration, 2013). Flooding Best Management Practices Recommendations 1. Continue to maintain the City of Fort Collins flood alert system. 2. Share copies of the City of Fort Collins’ SWPP and GIS shapefiles/maps of the SWPAs with stakeholders. a. Gather contact information & create mailing list for distribution; b. Utilize CRWA’s “SWPP Distribution Letter” template to develop a cover letter for SWPP distribution; c. Print hard/CD copies of SWPP; print CDs with SWPA GIS shapefiles; d. Mail SWPP Distribution Cover Letter along with copy of City of Fort Collins’ SWPP and SWPA GIS shapefiles. 6.4 Roadways (State Highways, County Roads, Forested Roads) (Priority Ranking: Moderate) The City of Fort Collins’ Source Water Protection Areas are served by a large network of roads and lie within a variety of jurisdictions. Within the Upper Cache la Poudre River SWPA, there are about 8 miles of county roads maintained by Larimer County and some paved and unpaved forested roads maintained by the US Forest Service. Colorado State Highway 14 also runs through the Poudre River SWPA and is maintained by CDOT. The Horsetooth Reservoir SWPA includes county roads maintained by Larimer County. In addition, there are several private roadways that are owned and maintained by the corresponding landowners within the SWPAs. Sediment Erosion along Unpaved Roads Several studies have concluded that forest roads are a major source of sediment in forested watersheds and sediment delivered to streams from forest roads can carry undesirable pollutants into source waters potentially impacting drinking water treatment (Elliot, 2003). Page | 31 Accidents & Spills on Roadways Motor vehicles, roads, and parking facilities are a major source of water pollution to both surface and groundwater. An estimated 46% of US vehicles leak hazardous fluids, including crankcase oil, transmission, hydraulic, and brake fluid, and antifreeze, as indicated by oil spots on roads and parking lots, and rainbow sheens of oil in puddles and roadside drainage ditches. An estimated 30-40% of the 1.4 billion gallons of lubricating oils used in automobiles are either burned in the engine or lost in drips and leaks, and another 180 million gallons are disposed of improperly onto the ground or into sewers. Runoff from roads and parking lots has a high concentration of toxic metals, suspended solids, and hydrocarbons, which originate largely from automobiles (Gowler & Sage, 2006). Storm water runoff over these roads can deliver contaminants from the road surface into the nearby groundwater. Vehicular spills may occur along the transportation route within the Source Water Protection Areas from trucks that transport fuels, waste, and other chemicals that have a potential for contaminating the groundwater. Furthermore, boating activity on Horsetooth Reservoir presents the opportunity for fuel/oil spills directly into the water. Chemicals from accidental spills are often diluted with water, potentially washing the chemicals into the soil and infiltrating into the groundwater. Roadways are also frequently used for illegal dumping of hazardous or other potentially harmful wastes. Chemical Applications to Roadways De-Icers. During the winter season, CDOT may apply a salt-sand mixture and de-icer (magnesium chloride, M1000, or Ice Slice r) to State Highway 14 along routes within the Upper Cache la Poudre River Source Water Protection Area. Water quality problems resulting from the use of road de-icers can cause concern among federal, state, and local governments. Salt from the highway is introduced into the surface water and groundwater through multiple pathways. When runoff occurs from highways, flows are sometimes carried to ditches and unlined channels through which the water infiltrates into the soil and eventually into the groundwater. Also, when snow is plowed together with the salt, the snow pile that is accumulated on the roadside melts during warmer weather. The water that results contains high dissolved salt which can also infiltrate. Plowing and splashing of salt causes the salt to deposit along the pavement, especially near the shoulders where it melts causing runoff to enter drainage ways and then the groundwater system. Salt contributes to increased chloride levels in groundwater through infiltration of runoff from roadways. Unlike other contaminants, such as heavy metals or hydrocarbons, chloride is not naturally removed from water as it travels through soil and sediments and moves towards the water table. Once in the groundwater, it may remain for a long time if groundwater velocity is slow and it is not flushed away. Chloride may also be discharged from groundwater into surface water and can account for elevated levels of chloride throughout the year, not just in winter. Thus, regardless of the path that the runoff takes, salt poses a water quality problem. The Upper CLP Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program, managed by the City of Fort Collins tracks ion concentrations that serve as potential indicators of various salts, including chloride (Cl-), Magesium (Mg+2), and Calcium (Ca+2). Dust Abatement. Dust abatement containing magnesium chloride may be applied to unpaved county roads within the Source Water Protection Areas. Dust suppressants abate dust by changing the physical Page | 32 properties of the road surface by creating a hard, compact surface that resists potholing, rutting, and loss of aggregate. The use of chemical dust suppressants prevents road particulates from becoming airborne. Magnesium chloride, used in dust abatement, is highly soluble in water and has the potential to move through the soil with water. The movement is dependent on the rate and frequency of rainfall, the drainage characteristics, and soil type. If the soil surface is not bound together well or if the rain event is extreme, dust suppressant treated soil particles can be carried by overland flow into streams, rivers, and ditches. Potential water quality impacts include elevated chloride concentrations in streams downstream of application areas and shallow groundwater contamination (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2002). Weed Management. During spring and summer months the Larimer County Weed District and CDOT spray herbicides, which is a type of pesticide, along county- and state-maintained roadsides, respectively, in an effort to control noxious weeds. Pesticides can be harmful to both aquatic life and human health should they be allowed to enter the water supply. On county roads, the Larimer County Weed District complies with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that regulates the distribution, sale, and use of all pesticides, including herbicides. Before EPA may register a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant must show that using the pesticide according to specifications will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effect on the environment (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). In addition to FIFRA, the Weed District must also have and comply with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide General Permit, which is regulated at the state and federal level. The Pesticide General Permit requires operators to minimalize discharge of pesticides, protect water quality, visually monitor for adverse effects, report incidents, and document and maintain details of pest control activities (US Environmental Agency). In addition operators of a Pesticide General Permit are required to create a Spill Management Plan and calibrate equipment frequently so as to ensure they are not spraying more pesticides than necessary. Along State Highway 14, CDOT is the main weed manager. Weed management along that route is strictly mechanical and is considered a mow-only site due to environmental concerns. Chemical treatment along the route has not been performed for over three years, and when pesticides were applied, they were spot-sprayed by hand with the pesticide, Milestone. State Highway Best Management Practices Recommendations 1. Continue to implement elements of the Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility - Emergency Response Plan pertaining to vehicular spills, accidents, and maintenance/construction of roadways, for both Poudre River and Horsetooth Reservoir. 2. Identify compounds used for weed management and the State’s Herbicide Application BMPs 3. Maintain City’s participation in Northern Water’s Cooperative Emerging Contaminant Monitoring Program and update compound list annually to reflect compounds in current use for weed management, when possible. 4. Share copies of the City of Fort Collins’ SWPP and GIS shapefiles/maps of the SWPAs with stakeholders. Page | 33 a. Gather contact information & create mailing list for distribution; b. Utilize CRWA’s “SWPP Distribution Letter” template to develop a cover letter for SWPP distribution; c. Print hard/CD copies of SWPP; print CDs with SWPA GIS shapefiles; d. Mail SWPP Distribution Cover Letter along with copy of City of Fort Collins’ SWPP and SWPA GIS shapefiles. County, Private, and Forest Roads Best Management Practices Recommendations 1. Share copies of the City of Fort Collins’ SWPP and GIS shapefiles/maps of the SWPAs with USFS; Larimer County Road & Bridge; Larimer County Sheriff’s Dept.; Colorado State Patrol; Larimer County Hazardous Material Unit, and other emergency responders and/or stakeholders. a. Gather contact information & create mailing list for distribution; b. Utilize CRWA’s “SWPP Distribution Letter” template to develop a cover letter for SWPP distribution; c. Print hard/CD copies of SWPP; print CDs with SWPA GIS shapefiles; d. Mail SWPP Distribution Cover Letter along with copy of City of Fort Collins’ SWPP and SWPA GIS shapefiles. 2. Inventory USFS roads in proximity to perennial streams. a. For roads that are determined to be impacting water quality, including those identified in the CPRW Watershed Resiliency Plan, work with USFS to develop BMPs for remediation. 3. Identify compounds used for weed management and the County Herbicide Application BMPs 4. Maintain City’s participation Northern Water’s Cooperative Emerging Contaminant Monitoring Program and update compound list annually to reflect compounds in current use for weed management, when possible. 5. For known risks to water quality on private property, communicate SWPP importance of source water protection with private landowners and encourage use of BMPs for construction of new roadways. 6.5 Septic Systems & Treated Waste Water Effluent (Priority Ranking: Moderate) Within the source water protection areas there are properties that rely on septic systems to dispose of their sewage. A septic system is a type of onsite wastewater system consisting of a septic tank that collects all the sewage and a leach field that disperses the liquid effluent onto a leach field for final treatment by the soil (Figure 16). Septic systems are the second most frequently cited source of groundwater contamination in our country. Unapproved, aging, and failing septic systems have a large impact on the quality and safety of the water supply. The failure to pump solids that accumulate in the septic tank will also eventually clog the lines and cause untreated wastewater to back up into the home, on the ground Figure 16. Schematic of a septic system. Page | 34 surface, or to seep into groundwater. If managed improperly, these residential septic systems can contribute excessive nutrients, bacteria, pathogenic organisms, and chemicals to the groundwater. In Larimer County, individual sewage disposal systems are permitted by their Larimer County Health Department. The County administers and enforces the minimum standards, rules, and regulations outlined in the state of Colorado’s Revised Statutes (CRS 25-10-105). It is unknown at this time the number or age of approved and unapproved septic systems within the City of Fort Collins’ SWPAs. Septic Systems Best Management Practices Recommendations 1. Develop a public education campaign for septic system owners within City of Fort Collins’ SWPAs. a. Continue participation in Northern Water’s cooperative Emerging Contaminants Monitoring program to track presence of compounds indicative of both treated and untreated wastewater effluent over time. b. Gather contact information & create mailing list of septic system owners within SWPAs (work w/ Larimer County Health Department for list of owners) c. Gather or develop outreach material about Source Water Protection as it relates to improper septic system maintenance practices (work w/ CRWA or Larimer County Health Department to find/create material) d. Mail outreach material to septic system owners identified in SWPAs 6.6 Forest Health: Insect Mortality & Disease (Priority Ranking: Low) The overly dense forests throughout the Rocky Mountains are concentrated with older age classes of trees that lack diversity in age and size. This lack of diversity, along with intense competition for resources has left many forest stands vulnerable to insect and disease attacks and widespread damage. The US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region 2 has conducted aerial and ground surveys annually over western conifer and aspen forest to detect damage caused by defoliating insects (USDA Forest Service , 2014). According to the 2014 Forest Health Conditions Report and the Colorado State Forest Service’s 2015 Report on the Health of Colorado’s Forests for the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest Report, the 2014 and 2015 Aerial Detection Surveys indicated that spruce beetle activity has increased while mountain pine beetle activity decreased (Figure 17). Western balsam bark beetle or subalpine fir decline activity also occurred (USDA Forest Service , 2014). Figure 17. Area Infested by Mountain Pine Beetle and Spruce Beetle in Colorado, 1996-2015. Source: 2015 Report on the Health of Colorado’s Forests, Colorado State Forest Service. http://csfs.colostate.edu/media/sites/22/2016/02/ForestHealthReport-2015.p Figure 17. Area Infested by Mountain Pine Beetle and Spruce Beetle in Colorado, 1996-2015. Source: 2015 Report on the Health of Colorado’s Forests, Colorado State Forest Service. http://csfs.colostate.edu/media/sites/22/2016/02/ForestHealthReport- 2015.pdf Page | 35 The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Strategic Plan for FY 2010–2015 targeted the restoration of watershed and forest health as a core management objective of the national forests and grasslands. To achieve this goal, the USFS, agency of USDA, was directed to restore degraded watersheds. The Watershed Condition Framework was developed as a comprehensive approach for classifying watershed conditions, proactively implementing integrated restoration in priority watersheds on national forests and grasslands, and tracking and monitoring outcome-based program accomplishments for performance accountability. Thirty-three sub-watersheds within the City of Fort Collins Source Water Protection Area were evaluated using the Watershed Condition Framework (Figure 18). Of those sub-watersheds, 22 were classified as “Functioning at Risk” while the remaining 11 were classified as “Functioning Properly”. Watershed conditions were classified based on a 12-indicator model, which identified the following factors: (1) Water Quality, (2) Water Quantity, (3) Aquatic Habitat, (4) Aquatic Biota, (5) Riparian/Wetlands Vegetation, (6) Roads & Trails, (7) Soils, (8) Fire Regime or Wildfire, (9) Forest Cover, (10) Rangeland Vegetation, (11) Terrestrial Invasive Species, and (12) Forest Health (USDA Forest Service, May 2011). Figure 18. Watershed conditions within the City of Fort Collins's Cache La Poudre SWPA. Page | 36 Forest Health: Insect Mortality & Disease Best Management Practices Recommendations 1. Continue Source Water Quality Monitoring Program. 2. Continue to routinely evaluate the extent and severity of insect mortality in the source watersheds. 6.7 Recreation (Priority Ranking: Low) There are many types of recreation that occurs in Fort Collins’ SWPAs including camping, hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, and off-road-vehicle use where legal, on system roads and trails. These activities can pose threats to forested lands and streams. Some undesirable impacts include eroded soils, user-created unplanned roads, disrupted wetland ecosystems, as well as general habitat destruction and degraded water quality throughout forested lands. Northern Water’s annual Emerging Contaminants reports indicate that compounds indicative of recreational activity are detected at very low levels in the Poudre River and Horsetooth Reservoir and include caffeine, sucralose and diethyltoluamide (DEET), and triclosan. (http://www.northernwater.org/WaterQuality/WaterQualityReports1.aspx) Recreation Best Management Practices Recommendations 1. Continue monitoring for emerging contaminants. 2. Work with USFS, City Natural Areas and State Wildlife Areas to install signage or post information about source water protection and emerging contaminants at recreational sites in SWPA. 6.8 Improper Agricultural Practices (Farming & Livestock Grazing) (Priority Ranking: Low) Agriculture is a significant land use throughout Larimer County and is present within the City of Fort Collins’ SWPAs. While many of the operations are relatively small, their cumulative impact can be a threat to water supplies. Farming (Irrigated Fields) Agricultural crop and hay production is limited within the City of Fort Collins’ SWPAs. In general, excess use and poor application methods for these operations can cause fertilizer movement into surface and groundwater. If the land is over-irrigated, this can lead to excess runoff of fertilizers as well. Fertilizers usually consist of nitrogen and phosphorus, the two compounds which are of greatest concern to drinking water supplies. The increased nutrient loads in water from these fertilizers can lead to changes in dissolved oxygen content and cause algal blooms to grow around intakes. Likewise, pesticide application to crops can be a potential source of contamination, which can lead to surface and groundwater impacts if mismanaged. Synthetic organic chemicals in pesticides have been linked to serious health problems, including cancer, liver and kidney damage, reproductive difficulties, and nervous system effects. Page | 37 The City of Fort Collins tracks the occurrence of herbicides and pesticides in source water supplies through the Northern Water Cooperative Emerging Contaminant Program. Source water monitoring efforts on the Cache la Poudre and Horsetooth Reservoir routinely track nutrient concentrations and would identify a potential increase in loads associated with excessive fertilizer application. Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing occurs within private and federal lands within the City of Fort Collins’ SWPAs. On US Forest System lands, livestock operators are authorized to graze on areas called allotments through an approved USFS grazing permit. If not well managed, livestock grazing can impact riparian health, stream-channel conditions and water quality. The most common water quality impacts include pathogen contamination, sedimentation, and increased water temperatures from loss of vegetative stream coverage. Grazing activities with the highest potential for direct and indirect impacts to water resources include long-term concentrated grazing in riparian areas, and trampling/trailing near water sources. Direct bank damage may add large amounts of sediment directly into streams, especially in wet meadow streams or erosive topography that is prone to gully formation. In addition, animal waste can also have an impact on source waters. In particular, animal waste contains many pollutants and pathogens that can impact human health. Nitrates found in animal waste can contaminate surface and groundwater as well (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). Improper Agricultural Practices Best Management Practices Recommendations 1. Share outreach material with private land owners that explains the importance of source water protection. a. Identify private landowners and areas in US Forest System lands within the SWPAs where grazing and/or agricultural practices occur. b. Gather/develop outreach material as it pertains to livestock grazing/agricultural material. c. Mail outreach material. 2. Continue Source water quality monitoring programs on the Upper Poudre River and Horsetooth Reservoir. 3. Continue participation in the Northern Water Emerging Contaminants Program 6.9 Storage Tanks (Priority Ranking: Low) There are five locations within the City of Fort Collins’ Source Water Protection Areas that have permitted storage tanks onsite (Figure 19). Each location has between one and four above ground or underground storage tanks onsite containing petroleum products (gasoline, diesel). In addition, there are several other sites within the SWPAs that contain permanently closed storage tanks. Page | 38 Storage Tank Spills Storage tanks can become leaky due to corrosion, failure of the piping systems, spills, and overfills, as well as equipment failure and human operational error. Even a small spill can have a serious impact. A single pint of oil released into the water can cover one acre of water surface area and can seriously damage an aquatic habitat. A spill of one gallon can contaminate a million gallons of water (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). The owner/operator of a storage tank must report a suspected release within 24 hours and investigate suspected releases within seven days. After confirming a release and conducting the initial response and abatement, the owner/operator must continue further source investigation, site assessment, characterization and corrective actions. Figure 19. Storage Tank Sites within the City of Fort Collins’ Source Water Protection Areas The leaky underground storage tank releases gasoline or “liquid phase hydrocarbon.” The gasoline descends through the unsaturated soil zone to float on the water table (gasoline is lighter than water). The gasoline releases compounds like benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) to the groundwater and they are carried in the direction of groundwater flow. The extent of contamination is defined by the concentration of benzene (from 10 to 10,000 parts per billion) in the groundwater. Page | 39 Spills from leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) sites can contaminate the groundwater and also present other hazards(Figure 20). Because gasoline is lighter than water, gasoline floats on the water table and remains relatively close to the land surface. The most hazardous compounds in groundwater (the BTEX compounds) are quite volatile and carcinogenic. Besides the potential for being consumed in drinking water, volatile compounds can enter nearby buildings. In poorly ventilated buildings, the compounds can accumulate and present a health risk through inhalation. In buildings, the volatile compounds can also present an explosion hazard (Ryan, 2006). Storage Tank Best Management Practices Recommendations 1. Develop a public education campaign for storage tank owners within the Upper Cache la Poudre River and Horsetooth Reservoir SWPAs. a. Gather contact information & create mailing list of storage tank owners within SWPAs b. Gather or develop outreach material about Source Water Protection as it relates to storage tanks (work with CRWA to find/create material) c. Mail outreach material to storage tank owners identified in SWPAs 2. Work with owners of aboveground storage tanks within SWPAs Zone 1 to install secondary containment. 6.10 Water Wells (Priority Ranking: Low) There are over 1,650 private water well permits located within the City of Fort Collins’ Upper Cache la Poudre River SWPA as shown in Figure 21, below. Of those well permits, approximately 1214 have constructed wells onsite and 131 permits have been issued, but completion status of the well is unknown. There are no water well permits within the Horsetooth Reservoir SWPA. Private water wells can be a direct route for contaminants to enter the groundwater if not properly cased and maintained. Contaminants that infiltrate from the surface are more likely to pollute wells that are old, shallow, uncased, or improperly abandoned. Private Wells Best Management Practices Recommendations 1. Share outreach material with private well owners that explains the importance of source water protection. a. Identify private wells within the SWPAs utilizing the DWR’s database. b. Gather/develop outreach material as it pertains to private wells. c. Mail outreach material. Figure 20. Schematic of a LUST spill site. Page | 40 Figure 21. Well permit applications within the City of Fort Collins’ Upper Cache la Poudre River SWPA (Colorado Division of Water Resources, 2015) Page | 41 7.0 SOURCE WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The Steering Committee reviewed and discussed several possible best management practices that could be implemented within the Source Water Protection Area to help reduce the potential risks of contamination to the community’s source water. The Steering Committee established a “common sense” approach in identifying and selecting the most feasible source water management activities to implement locally. The best management practices were obtained from multiple sources including: Environmental Protection Agency, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and other source water protection plans. The Steering Committee recommends the best management practices listed in Table 6 be considered for implementation. Page | 42 Table 5: Source Water Protection Best Management Practices Issues Best Management Practices Partners Forest Health: Wildfires Priority Ranking: High 1. Continue to work with the Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed to complete two priority wildfire-related tasks: a. Identify remaining priority areas for restoration that were burned in the 2012 Hewlett Gulch and High Park Wildfires, and b. Complete the Poudre River Watershed Resiliency Plan to identify priority areas for targeted forest fuels treatment based on the wildfire hazards and other values at risk within sub-drainages in the Upper Poudre Watershed. 2. Support CPRW and other stakeholders in implementation of fuels treatments identified in the Resiliency Plan and other planning efforts. 3. Continue to assess and mitigate, as needed, the wildfire hazards that threaten the City of Fort Collins’ critical facilities through forest fuels treatments and other BMPs. 4. Ensure that source watersheds are identified and managed as a critical asset for the Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility in major planning efforts such as the FCWTF Wildfire Response Plan, FCWTF Vulnerability Assessment, Master Plan, and Regional Hazard Mitigation Plans. 5. Share copies of the City of Fort Collins’ SWPP and GIS shapefiles/maps of the SWPAs with stakeholders. a. Gather contact information & create mailing list for distribution; b. Utilize CRWA’s “SWPP Distribution Letter” template to develop a cover letter for SWPP distribution; c. Print hard/CD copies of SWPP; print CDs with SWPA GIS shapefiles; d. Mail SWPP Distribution Cover Letter along with copy of City of Fort Collins’ SWPP and SWPA GIS shapefiles. 6. Maintain early-warning water quality alert system to signal significant changes in water quality. 7. Participate and partner in local and regional efforts to advance practices around mitigating the risks of wildfire to water supplies (e.g. Front Range Watershed Wildfire Protection Group, Carpe Diem West’s Healthy Headwaters Initiative, Colorado Big Thompson Headwaters Partnership, Colorado Conservation Exchange) 8. Update internal City policies, as needed, to support the best management practices that provide protection of source water supplies. City of Fort Collins; USFS; Poudre Fire Authority; CDOT; Larimer County Page | 43 Abandoned Mines / Mine Tailings Priority Ranking: High 1. Develop a Mine Action Plan by referencing existing studies such as the USFS Hazard Abandoned Mine Land Inventory Project and DRMS inventories to help determine which abandoned mines and tailings piles are impaired and a threat to the source waters. a. Conduct water quality analyses at high priority sites. b. Develop notification procedures with organizations that might first notice the problems (e.g. Larimer County, Fire Department, USGS, USFS, and/or Private Landowners). c. Develop and maintain an effective contact list to report and collaborate on any issues that may arise. d. Report any issues or threats that arise to the appropriate agencies. 2. Share data from Mine Action Plan with interested parties. City of Fort Collins Flooding/Runoff Priority Ranking: Moderate 1. Continue to maintain the City of Fort Collins flood alert system. 2. Share copies of the City of Fort Collins’ SWPP and GIS shapefiles/maps of the SWPAs with stakeholders. a. Gather contact information & create mailing list for distribution; b. Utilize CRWA’s “SWPP Distribution Letter” template to develop a cover letter for SWPP distribution; c. Print hard/CD copies of SWPP; print CDs with SWPA GIS shapefiles; d. Mail SWPP Distribution Cover Letter along with copy of City of Fort Collins’ SWPP and SWPA GIS shapefiles. 3. Implement projects that decrease flood risk as identified in the CPRW Watershed Resiliency Plan. City of Fort Collins; Larimer County; CDOT; emergency responders; Colorado State Patrol State Highways Priority Ranking: Moderate 1. Continue to implement elements of the Emergency Response Plan pertaining to vehicular spills, accidents, and maintenance/construction of roadways. 2. Identify compounds used for weed management and the State’s Herbicide Application BMPs 3. Maintain City’s participation in Northern Water’s Cooperative Emerging Contaminant Monitoring Program and update compound list annually to reflect compounds in current use for weed management, when possible. 4. Share copies of the City of Fort Collins’ SWPP and GIS shapefiles/maps of the SWPAs with stakeholders. a. Gather contact information & create mailing list for distribution; b. Utilize CRWA’s “SWPP Distribution Letter” template to develop a cover City of Fort Collins; CDOT; Larimer County Sheriff’s Dept.; Colorado State Patrol; Larimer County Hazardous Material Unit; emergency responders; CRWA Page | 44 letter for SWPP distribution; c. Print hard/CD copies of SWPP; print CDs with SWPA GIS shapefiles; 5. Mail SWPP Distribution Cover Letter and Fort Collins’ SWPP and SWPA GIS shapefiles. County, Private, and Forest Roads Priority Ranking: Moderate 1. Share copies of the City of Fort Collins’ SWPP and GIS shapefiles/maps of the SWPAs with USFS; Larimer County Road & Bridge; Larimer County Sheriff’s Dept.; Colorado State Patrol; Larimer County Hazardous Material Unit, and other emergency responders and/or stakeholders. a. Gather contact information & create mailing list for distribution; b. Utilize CRWA’s “SWPP Distribution Letter” template to develop a cover letter for SWPP distribution; c. Print hard/CD copies of SWPP; print CDs with SWPA GIS shapefiles; d. Mail SWPP Distribution Cover Letter along with copy of City of Fort Collins’ SWPP and SWPA GIS shapefiles. 2. Inventory USFS roads in proximity to perennial streams. a. For roads that are determined to be impacting water quality, including those identified in the CPRW Watershed Resiliency Plan, work with USFS to develop BMPs for remediation. 3. Identify compounds used for weed management and the County Herbicide Application BMPs. 4. Maintain City’s participation Northern Water’s Cooperative Emerging Contaminant Monitoring Program and update compound list annually to reflect compounds in current use for weed management, when possible. 5. For known risks to water quality on private property, communicate SWPP importance of source water protection with private landowners and encourage use of BMPs for construction of new roadways. City of Fort Collins; USFS; Larimer County Road & Bridge; Larimer Sheriff’s Dept.; Colorado State Patrol; Larimer County Hazardous Material Unit, and other emergency responders; private landowners; CRWA Septic Systems Priority Ranking: Moderate 1. Develop a public education campaign for septic system owners within City of Fort Collins’ SWPAs. a. Gather contact information & create mailing list of septic system owners within SWPAs (work w/ Larimer County Health Department for list of owners). b. Gather or develop outreach material about Source Water Protection as it relates to improper septic system maintenance practices (work w/ CRWA or Larimer County Health Department to find/create material). City of Fort Collins; Larimer County Health Department; CRWA; septic system owners Page | 45 2. Mail outreach material to septic system owners identified in SWPAs. Forest Health (insect disease/mortality) Priority Ranking: Low 1. Continue Source Water Quality Monitoring Program. 2. Continue to routinely evaluate the extent and severity of insect mortality in the source watersheds. City of Fort Collins; Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed; USFS Recreation Priority Ranking: Low 1. Continue monitoring for emerging contaminants. 2. Work with USFS to install signage or post information about source water protection and emerging contaminants at recreational sites in SWPA. City of Fort Collins; USFS Livestock Grazing / Agricultural Practices Priority Ranking: Low 1. Share outreach material with private land owners that explains the importance of source water protection. a. Identify private landowners and areas in US Forest System lands within the SWPAs where grazing and/or agricultural practices occur. b. Gather/develop outreach material as it pertains to livestock grazing/agricultural material. 2. Mail outreach material. Town of Fowler; Larimer County; CRWA; Private Land Owners Aboveground / Underground Fuel Storage Tanks Priority Ranking: Low 1. Develop a public education campaign for storage tank owners within the Cache la Poudre River and Horsetooth Reservoir SWPAs. a. Gather contact information & create mailing list of storage tank owners within SWPAs. b. Gather or develop outreach material about Source Water Protection as it relates to storage tanks (work with CRWA to find/create material). c. Mail outreach material to storage tank owners identified in SWPAs. 2. Work with owners of aboveground storage tanks within SWPAs Zone 1 to install secondary containment. City of Fort Collins; Storage Tanks owners Private Wells Priority Ranking: Low 1. Share outreach material with private well owners that explains the importance of source water protection. a. Identify private wells within the SWPAs utilizing the DWR’s database. b. Gather/develop outreach material as it pertains to private wells. 2. Mail outreach material. City of Fort Collins; CRWA; CO Division of Water Resources; Private Well Owners Regional Agreements to enhance SWPP efforts Priority Ranking: N/A 1. Work with Larimer County, other water providers, and land management agencies to develop MOUs for this SWPP effort to increase collaboration and gain partnerships Page | 46 Page | 47 8.0 EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS OF SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PLAN The City of Fort Collins is committed to developing a tracking and reporting system to gauge the effectiveness of the various source water best management practices that have been implemented. The purpose of tracking and reporting the effectiveness of the source water best management practices is to update water system managers, consumers, and other interested entities on whether or not the intended outcomes of the various source water best management practices are being achieved, and if not, what adjustments to the Source Water Protection Plan will be taken in order to achieve the intended outcomes. It is further recommended that this Plan be reviewed at a frequency of once every 5 years or if circumstances change resulting in the development of new water sources and source water protection areas, or if new risks are identified. The City of Fort Collins is committed to a mutually beneficial partnership with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in making future refinements to their source water assessment and to revise the Source Water Protection Plan accordingly based on any major refinements. Page | 48 Page | 49 9.0 REFERENCES CDOT, Larimer County, NRCS, and USFS. (2012, July 17). High Park Fire Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Report. Retrieved from Larimer County: http://www.larimer.org/highparkfire/bear_report.pdf Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed. (2014). Our Work. Retrieved from Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed: http://www.poudrewatershed.org/our-work/ Colorado Division of Water Resources. (2015, June 22). GIS Data for Download. Denver, Colorado. Retrieved from http://water.state.co.us/DataMaps/GISandMaps/Pages/GISDownloads.aspx Colorado Geological Survery. (n.d.). United States Forest Service Hazard Abandoned Mine Land Inventory Project. Retrieved from Colorado Geological Survey: http://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/water/abandoned-mine-land/united-states-forest-hazard- abandoned-mine-land-inventory-project/ Elliot, W.J., 2000. Chapter 9. Roads and other Corridors. In: Frinking water from forests and grasslands.USDA Forest SErvice General Technical Report SRS-39, Asheville, NC, pp. 85-100. Gowler, A., & Sage, R. (2006). Traffic and Transport; Potential Hazards and Information Needs. In G. Howard, O. Schmoll, J. Chilton, & I. Chorus (Eds.), Protecting Groundwater for Health (p. 704). London, U.K.: IWA Publishing. Ground Water Protection Council. (2007). Ground Water Report to the Nation: A Call to Action. Oklahoma City: Ground Water Protection Council. Heath, J., 2016. Upper Cache la Poudre Watershed Mine Assessment and Action Plan. Internal Production Report. City of Fort Collins Utilities. 2016. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. (n.d.). How the Colorado-Big Thompson Project Works. Retrieved from Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District: http://www.northernwater.org/WaterProjects/HowtheC-BTWorks.aspx Occupation Safety and Health Administration. (2013). Fact Sheets on Natural Disaster Recovery: Flood Cleanup. (U. S. Labor, Editor) Retrieved December 10, 2013, from United States Department of Labor: https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/floodCleanup.html Oropeza, J., Billica, J., Elmund, K., 2011. Navigating Uncharted Waters: Assessing Geosmin Occurrence in a Colorado Rocky Mountain Source Water River. In: Proceedings of the 2011© American Water Works Association AWWA WQTC Conference. Nov. 13-17, 2011, Phoenix, AZ. Pueblo County Sheriff's Office Emergency Serivces Bureau. (2009). Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan for Pueblo County, Colorado. Pueblo County, Colorado. Ryan, J. (2006). Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Boulder, Colorado: University of Colorado. Retrieved from http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/waterworks/lust.html US Department of Agriculture. (2013, January 31). Implementation Guide for Aerial Application of Fire Retardant. Retrieved July 1, 2013, from US Forest Service: http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/retardant/afr_handbook.pdf US Environmental Protection Agency. (2001, July). Source Water Protection Practices Bulletin - Managing Above Ground Storage Tanks to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water. EPA Office of Water. US Environmental Protection Agency. (2001, July). Source Water Protection Practices Bulletin - Managing Livestock, Poultry, and Horse Waste to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water. EPA Office of Water. US Environmental Protection Agency. (2002, May 30-31). Potential Impacts of Dust Suppressants: "Avoiding Another Times Beach". (T. Piechota, Ph.D., P.E., J. van Ee, J. Batista, Ph.D., K. Stave, Ph.D., & D. James, Ph.D., P.E., Eds.) Las Vegas, Nevada: USEPA. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/esd/cmb/pdf/dust.pdf Page | 50 US Environmental Protection Agency. (2015, November 17). Contaminants of Emerging Concern including Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products. Retrieved from United States Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/wqc/contaminants-emerging-concern- including-pharmaceuticals-and-personal-care-products US Environmental Protection Agency. (2015, October 1). WATERS Geospatial Data Downloads. Retrieved from US Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geospatial- data-downloads#305bWatersAsAssessed US Environmental Protection Agency. (2016, January 8). Watershed Quality Assessment Report: Colorado, Cache La Poudre Watershed. Retrieved from United States Environmental Protection Agency: http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_watershed.control#causes USDA Forest Service . (2014). Report of the Rocky Mountain Region (R2) 2014 Forest Health Conditions. Retrieved from USDA Forest Service: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd485694.pdf USDA Forest Service. (May 2011). USDA Watershed Condition Framework. Page | 51 Page | 52 10. APPENDICES 3 A. SWPP Stakeholder List B. Fort Collins Source Water Assessment Report C. CRWA’s SWAP Risk Assessment Matrix D. Table A-1 Discrete Contaminant Types E. Table A-2 Discrete Contaminant Types (SIC Related) F. Table B-1 Dispersed Contaminant Types G. Table C-1 Contaminants Associated with Common PSOC’s H. Fort Collins Mine Action Plan I. MOU Between CDPHE and U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region 3 All appendices are located on the CD version of this SWPP. UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM i 2015 ANNUAL REPORT Upper Cache la Poudre Watershed Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program June 24, 2016 PREPARED FOR Fort Collins Utilities City of Greeley Tri-Districts PREPARED BY: Jared Heath, Watershed Technician Jill Oropeza, Watershed Specialist City of Fort Collins Utilities ATTACHMENT 2 ii UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND The Upper Cache la Poudre Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program (hereafter referred to as the Upper CLP monitoring program) is designed to assist the City of Fort Collins, the City of Greeley and the Tri-Districts in meeting current and future drinking water treatment goals by reporting current water quality conditions and trends within the Upper Cache La Poudre River (CLP) watershed and summarizing issues that potentially impact watershed health. Sample collection for the Upper CLP monitoring program consists of eleven sampling events between the months of April and November at eleven monitoring sites on the Mainstem CLP (Mainstem) and nine monitoring sites on the North Fork CLP (North Fork). Water samples are analyzed for a total of up to 39 parameters. SCOPE OF 2015ANNUAL REPORT This annual report summarizes the hydrologic and water quality data collected in 2015 and provides a comparison of water quality from the years 2012 – 2015. The report also summarizes significant events, issues of concern, results from special studies, and data quality control. The main body of the report focuses on seven keysites that are considered representative of conditions throughout the Mainstem and North Fork CLP watersheds. Time-series summary graphs for all parameters and locations of monitoring sites are presented in separate attachments (Attachment 7 and 2, respectively). STATE OF UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED WATER QUALITY The Upper CLP watershed continues to provide a high quality drinking water supply for the City of Fort Collins, the City of Greeley, and the Tri-Districts. Consistent with previous years, the Mainstem and the North Fork exhibited different water quality characteristics due to differences in geology, land use, and elevation. No significant water quality concerns were identified for the Mainstem or North Fork CLP that immediately impact drinking water quality or treatment operations. Several river segments in the upper CLP are listed on Colorado’s Section 303(d) List and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) List (Regulation #93) identifying impaired however, water quality data collected and analyzed as part of the upper CLP watershed collaborative monitoring program were measured below the WQCC’s standards with the exception of short-lived exceedances in naturally occurring metals. Elevated baseline nutrient levels continue to persist at wildfire-impacted monitoring locations lower in the watershed, and a basin-wide increasing trend in phosphate continues following the 2013 flood event. Despite these increases, nutrient concentrations remain low(near the reporting limit). Neither excess algal growth nor potentially associated taste and odor issues have been observed. Program staff will continue to monitor these trends in subsequent years. SIGNIFICANT EVENTS, ISSUES OF iv UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM to a dry summer monsoon season. Changes from baseline water quality conditions were short-lived and water quality conditions recovered within 24 hours. Storm event sampling will continue in 2016 as the watershed progresses towards recovery. Water Quality Regulations The Upper CLP remains a high quality drinking water supply for Fort Collins, City of Greeley and surrounding communities served by the Tri-Districts. Accordingly, there were no observed exceedances of the EPA drinking water quality standards for nitrate (10 mg/L) or nitrite (1 mg/L) at any site on the Mainstem or the North Fork from 2012 through 2015. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s (CDPHE) secondary drinking water quality standards for dissolved iron and manganese were exceeded on the Mainstem and North Fork, respectively, but exceedances were short-lived. Compounds regulated under the secondary drinking water standards are not a threat to public health, but may impact the aesthetics of the finished water. The observed elevated iron and manganese concentrations did not affect the aesthetic quality of finished water supplies at any of the three water treatment facilities. Program Performance Review of the 2015 Upper CLP Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program data indicate the program continues to adequately capture seasonal and annual trends and characteristics in water quality, while providing a spatial context for examining notable events and impacts to the watershed. Field quality assurance and control sampling indicated that data precision and accuracy were acceptable. Monitoring and Protection Efforts in 2015 The Upper CLP Collaborative Monitoring Program will continue water quality monitoring and protection efforts in 2016. The 2016 efforts are listed below: x Routine Water Quality Monitoring Program x Emerging Contaminant Monitoring x Geosmin Monitoring x Storm Water & Watershed Recovery Monitoring x Little South Fork Streamflow Monitoring The Upper Cache La Poudre Watershed continues to provide a high quality drinking water supply for the City of Fort Collins, the City of Greeley, and the Tri-Districts. Joe Wright Creek on May 4th, 2015 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM v TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................................................................................III Background.................................................................................................................................................................................................iii Scope of 2015 Annual Report..................................................................................................................................................................iii State of Upper Cache la Poudre Watershed Water Quality................................................................................................................iii Significant Events, Issues of Concern & Special Studies....................................................................................................................iii TABLE OF FIGURES....................................................................................................................................................................................VII LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................................................................................IX LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS...............................................................................................................................................XI 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background....................................................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Watershed Description and Sampling Locations....................................................................................................................1 1.3 Sampling Schedule and Parameters.........................................................................................................................................2 1.4 Sample Collection and Analysis.................................................................................................................................................2 1.5 Scope of 2015 Annual Report....................................................................................................................................................3 2.0 SIGNIFICANT EVENTS, ISSUES OF CONCERN & SPECIAL STUDIES......................................................................................5 2.1 Poudre River Geosmin................................................................................................................................................................5 2.2 Colorado’s Section 303(d) and Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) Lists.................................................................................7 2.3 Emerging Contaminants..............................................................................................................................................................9 2.4 Post-Wildfire Watershed Recovery..........................................................................................................................................11 3.0 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED RESULTS................................................................................................................13 3.1 Watershed Hydrology................................................................................................................................................................13 3.2 Water Temperature....................................................................................................................................................................18 3.3 General Parameters...................................................................................................................................................................19 3.4 Total Organic Carbon.................................................................................................................................................................21 3.5 Nutrients.......................................................................................................................................................................................22 3.6 Metals...........................................................................................................................................................................................27 3.7 Microorganisms...........................................................................................................................................................................29 4.0 DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONTROL...............................................................................................................................31 4.1 Field Quality Control...................................................................................................................................................................31 4.2 Laboratory Quality Control........................................................................................................................................................32 vi UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 5.0 SUMMARY...............................................................................................................................................................................................33 5.1 Program Performance................................................................................................................................................................33 5.2 Hydrology.....................................................................................................................................................................................33 5.3 Upper Cache la Poudre River Water Quality.........................................................................................................................33 5.4 Monitoring and Protection Efforts in 2016..............................................................................................................................34 6.0 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................................................................................35 ATTACHMENT 1............................................................................................................................................................................................37 LAND USE COMPARISON OF THE NORTH FORK AND MAINSTEM CLP ATTACHMENT 2............................................................................................................................................................................................39 UPPER CLP COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM SAMPLING SITE ATTACHMENT 3............................................................................................................................................................................................41 2015 UPPER CLP COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAMPARAMETER LIST ATTACHMENT 4............................................................................................................................................................................................43 UPPER CLP COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 2015 SAMPLING PLAN ATTACHMENT 5............................................................................................................................................................................................45 ANALYTICAL METHODS, REPORTING LIMITS, SAMPLE PRESERVATION, AND HOLDING TIMES ATTACHMENT 6............................................................................................................................................................................................47 2015 SEAMAN RESERVOIR PHYTOPLANKTON DATA ATTACHMENT 7............................................................................................................................................................................................57 2015 UPPER CLP COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM GRAPHICAL SUMMARY ATTACHMENT 8.........................................................................................................................................................................................119 2015 UPPER CLP COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM GRAPHICAL SUMMARY UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM vii TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 – Map of the Upper CLP collaborative water quality monitoring network............................................................................2 Figure 3.1 – Locations of SNOTEL and snow course monitoring sites in the UCLP and percent of median peak snow water equivalent (SWE) in for the 2015 water year.............................................................................................................................................14 Figure 3.2 – Snow water equivalent measured at Joe Wright SNOTEL site near Cameron Pass over the 2012-2015 water years (October 1, 2014 – September 31, 2015).......................................................................................................................................15 Figure 3.3 – Streamflow measured over the 2012-2015 water years at the CLP at Canyon Mouth near Fort Collins (CLAFTCCO) streamflow monitoring station.............................................................................................................................................15 Figure 3.4 – Bar graph of tributary contributions by month to the Mainstem CLP above the Munroe Tunnel in 2015. Note that continuous flow measurements were not available for calculating “other” flow in January, February, and December................16 Figure 3.5 – Streamflow measured over the 2012-2015 water years at the North Fork CLP River below Seaman Reservoir (CLANSECO) streamflow monitoring station.............................................................................................................................................17 Figure 3.6 – Proportion of average Mainstem and North Fork contributions at PBD during May and June from 2012 through 2015..................................................................................................................................................................................................................18 Figure 3.7 – a) Average water temperature at key sites in the Upper CLP watershed from 2012 through 2015 and b) water temperature at key Upper CLP monitoring sites from 2012 through 2015...........................................................................................18 Figure 3.8 – General water quality parameters a) specific conductance, b) hardness, and c) alkalinity measured at key Upper CLP monitoring sites......................................................................................................................................................................................19 Figure 3.9 – pH levels measured at key Upper CLP monitoring locations from 2011 through 2014...............................................20 Figure 3.10 –Turbidity levels measured at key Upper CLP monitoring locations from 2012 through 2015....................................20 Figure 3.11 – Turbidity spike measured at the early warning turbidity sensor above the City of Fort Collins intake on August 16th....................................................................................................................................................................................................................21 Figure 3.12 – Total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations measured at key Upper CLP monitoring locations from 2012 through 2015..................................................................................................................................................................................................................21 Figure 3.13 –Total nitrogen concentrations at key Upper CLP monitoring locations.........................................................................23 Figure 3.14 – Nitrate as nitrogen concentrations at key Upper CLP monitoring locations................................................................23 Figure 3.15 – Distribution of total nitrogen concentrations on the Mainstem and North Fork...........................................................23 Figure 3.16 – Nutrient concentrations for a) ortho-phosphate and b) total phosphorus at keyUpper CLP....................................24 Figure 3.17 – Distribution of total phosphorus concentrations at monitoring locations throughout the North Fork watershed...25 Figure 3.18 – Counts of a) total coliforms and b) E. coli on the Mainstem and North Fork CLP......................................................29 Figure 3.19 – Concentrations of a) giardia and b) Cryptosporidium on the Mainstem and North Fork CLP..................................30 viii UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Poudre River geosmin concentrations (ppt or ng/L) in 2015 at Poudre above the North Fork (PNF) and Poudre below Rustic (PBR) monitoring locations.....................................................................................................................................................5 Table 2 – Segments of Upper CLP waters listed on the State of Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of impaired waters and Monitoring and Evaluations (M&E) Lists......................................................................................................................................................7 Table 3 – Tributary contributions by month to the Mainstem Cache la Poudre River above the Munroe Tunnel in 2015. Contributions highlighted in red indicated underestimates due to incomplete data sets. Note: AF = acre-feet............................17 Table 4 – Dissolved and total metals concentrations measured in 2015 on the Mainstem and North Fork of the Poudre River. Metals highlighted in red indicated temporary exceedances of the CDPHE secondary drinking water standard.........................28 Table 5 – Data quality assurance statistics calculated for duplicate samples collected at PNF monitoring location in 2015......31 Table 6 – Acceptable margin of error for multi-parameter water quality sonde sensors....................................................................32 x UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS % percent Ag Silver HCO3- Bicarbontes BMR Barnes Meadow Reservoir Outflow (routine monitoring site) Ca Calcium CO3- Carbonates Cd Cadmium CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CDWR Colorado Division of Water Resources CEC Contaminants of Emerging Concern cfs cubic feet per second CHR Chambers Lake Outflow (routine monitoring site) Cl Chloride CLP Cache la Poudre River cfu/mL colony forming units per milliliter Cr Chromium Cu Copper D.O. Dissolved Oxygen DBP Disinfection By-Product C-DBP Carbon-based Disinfection By-Product N-DBP Nitrogen-based Disinfection By-Product EDC Endocrine Disrupting Chemical EPA Environmental Protection Agency FCWQL Fort Collins Water Quality Lab FCWTF Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility Fe Iron HAN4 Haloacetonitrile HSWMP Halligan-Seaman Water Management Project H+ Hydrogen ion JWC Joe Wright Creek above the Poudre River (routine monitoring site) K Potassium LC/TOF-MS Liquid Chromatography – Time of Flight – Mass Spectrometry LRT Laramie River Tunnel xii UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM m meter M&E List Colorado’s Monitoring & Evaluation List Mg Magnesium mg/L milligrams per liter Na Sodium NBH North Fork of the Poudre River below Halligan Reservoir (routine monitoring site) NDC North Fork of the Poudre River above Dale Creek Confluence (routine monitoring site) NFG North Fork of the Poudre River below Seaman Reservoir (routine monitoring site) NFL North Fork of the Poudre River at Livermore (routine monitoring site) ng/L nanograms per liter NH3-N Ammonia as nitrogen Ni Nickel NISP Northern Integrated Supply Project NO2-N Nitrite as nitrogen NO3-N Nitrate as nitrogen NTU Nephelometric TurbidityUnits OH- Hydroxide ion oC degrees Celsius Pb Lead PBD Poudre River at the Bellvue Diversion (routine monitoring site) PBR Poudre River below Rustic (routine monitoring site) PCM Pine Creek Mouth (routine monitoring site) PCP Personal Care Product PPCP Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Product PJW Poudre River above the confluence with Joe Wright Creek PNF Poudre River above the North Fork (routine monitoring site) PO4 ortho-phosphate ppt parts per trillion RCM Rabbit Creek Mouth (routine monitoring site) SCFP Soldier Canyon Filter Plant SCM Stonewall Creek Mouth (routine monitoring site) SFC South Fork above confluence with the Mainstem (routine monitoring site) SFM South Fork of the Poudre River above the Mainstem (routine monitoring site) SNOTEL Snow telemetry network SWE Snow wáter equivalent UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM xiii T&O Taste & Odor TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TN Total Nitrogen TOC Total Organic Carbon TP Total Phosphorus μg/L micrograms per liter μS/cm microSeimens per centimeter USGS United States Geological Survey WQCD Water Quality Control Division WTP Water Treatment Plant Zn Zinc xiv UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND The Upper Cache la Poudre (CLP) River is an important source of high-quality drinking water supplies for communities served by the City of Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility (FCWTF), the City of Greeley-Bellvue Water Treatment Plant (WTP), and the Tri-Districts Soldier Canyon Filter Plant (SCFP). In the shared interest of sustaining this pristine water supply, the City of Fort Collins, the City of Greeley, and the Tri-Districts partnered in 2007 to design the Upper CLP Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program. The Program was subsequently implemented in Spring 2008. The goal of this monitoring partnership is to assist the participants in meeting current and future drinking water treatment goals by providing up-to-date information about water quality and trends within the Upper CLP watershed. Raw Poudre River water quality parameters that have historically had the most impact on treatment at the three treatment plants include: x turbidity x total organic carbon (TOC) x pH x alkalinity x temperature x pathogens (Giardia and Cryptosporidium), x taste and odor (T&O) compound (geosmin) A more in-depth discussion of TOC, geosmin, and pathogens and the challenges they present for water treatment is included in the program design document, “Design of a Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program for the Upper Cache la Poudre River” (Billica, Loftis and Moore, 2008). This document also provides a complete description of the scope and objectives of the monitoring program, as well as a detailed description of the watershed, sampling design, and methods. Three proposed water supply projects in the Upper CLP are currently under consideration. The proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) includes a new off- channel reservoir (Glade Reservoir) that will take water from the Upper CLP downstream of the North Fork CLP River (North Fork) confluence. The formerly proposed Halligan-Seaman Water Management Project (HSWMP) aimed to expand both Halligan Reservoir and Seaman Reservoir on the North Fork. In early 2015, HSWMP separated into two separate projects, with the City of Fort Collins independently pursuing the Halligan Enlargement project and the City of Greeley pursuing the expansion of Seaman Reservoir. Seasonal updatesandannual and five-year reports for the collaborative program are prepared by City of Fort Collins’ Source Watershed Program staff to keep participants informed of current issues and trends in water quality of the Upper CLP. Seasonal updates are provided throughout the monitoring season in the Spring, Summer, and Fall. These updates include a seasonal summary of the Upper CLP watershed by highlighting seasonal precipitation, streamflow, and water quality conditions. The purpose of annual reports is to summarize hydrologic 2 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM In 2015, the South Fork above Mainstem (SFM) site was discontinued because data collected in 2014 at the new downstream location, South Fork above Mainstem Confluence (SFC) and SFM revealed comparable water quality conditions. Adescription and rationale for each site is provided in Attachment 2. 1.3 SAMPLING SCHEDULE AND PARAMETERS The sampling frequency for the Upper CLP monitoring program was determined based on both statistical performance and cost considerations. Parameters included in the monitoring program were selected based on analysis of historical data and aim to provide the best information possible within current budgetary constraints. A list of parameters is included in Attachment 3. Complete discussions of parameter selection and sampling frequency are provided in Sections 5.3 and 5.4, respectively, of the program design document by Billica, Loftis and Moore (2008). The 2015 sampling schedule is provided in Attachment 4 of this report. 1.4 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Sampling was conducted by staff members from the City of Fort Collins, City of Greeley, and Tri-Districts. Sampling methods, including those for the collection of field measurements for temperature, pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen (D.O.) are documented in Section 5.5 of Billica, Loftis and Moore (2008). All bulk water samples were analyzed by the City of Fort Collins Water Quality Lab (FCWQL), except for Cryptosporidium and Giardia filter samples, which were delivered to CH Diagnostic and Consulting, Inc., in Berthoud, CO for analysis. In addition, phytoplankton samples were collected monthly from April through November at the top and bottom of Seaman Figure 1.1 – Map of the Upper CLP collaborative water quality monitoring network. UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 3 Reservoir in 2015. Phytoplankton samples were identified and enumerated at the species level by Dick Dufford (private consultant) of Fort Collins, CO. The analytical methods and detection limits for the FCWQL parameters are included in Attachment 5. Consistent with the quality assurance guidelines outlined in Section 5.5 of Billica, Loftis and Moore (2008), approximately ten percent of environmental samples consist of field blanks and field duplicate samples,which are identified in the sampling plan (Attachment 4). Quality assurance and quality control of field blanks and field duplicates is discussed further in Section 4 of this document. 1.5 SCOPE OF 2015 ANNUAL REPORT The 2015 annual report summarizes the hydrologic and water quality data collected for the Upper CLP monitoring program and highlights the significant events, issues of concern, and the results of special studies. This report compares water quality information from 2015 with the previous three years, 2012-2014. 4 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 5 2.0 SIGNIFICANT EVENTS, ISSUES OF CONCERN & SPECIAL STUDIES 2.1 POUDRE RIVER GEOSMIN Geosmin is a naturally occurring organic compound that imparts an earthy odor to water and can be detected by the most sensitive individuals at concentrations as low as 4 nanograms per liter (ng/L), or parts per trillion (ppt). Geosmin does not pose a public health risk, but it is of concern because its detectable presence can negatively affect customer confidence in the quality of drinking water. The Mainstem Poudre River raw water supply is monitored monthly for geosmin. TheUpper CLPraw water supply has experienced periodic episodes of elevated geosmin concentrations above the 4 ng/L odor threshold over time, with the most recent outbreak occurring in early 2010. In response to the elevated geosmin in raw water supply in 2010, intensive sampling on the Mainstem was initiated to evaluate in-stream concentrations and delineate the approximate area of elevated geosmin concentrations along the river. Geosmin monitoring activities in the CLP watershed focus on the following objectives: x Identify areas on the Poudre River with high geosmin concentrations; x Identify spatial and seasonal geosmin and nutrient trends in areas of geosmin production; x Evaluate potential sources of nutrients to the target areas, and; x Characterize the periphyton community and identify known geosmin-producing species, when possible. For further detail on the intensive monitoring plan and subsequent monitoring refer to the “2011 Annual Report Upper Cache la Poudre River Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program” (Oropeza, 2012) and the “Five Year Summary Report (2008-2012) Upper Cache la Poudre River Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program” (Oropeza and Heath, 2013). The results of previous monitoring efforts suggest that concentrations at downstream sites are not well-predicted by upstream concentrations (Heath and Oropeza, 2014). In 2014, the number ofsampling locationswasreduced to two sites, PBR and PNF (Figure 1.1). PBR is an upstream site near Rustic that has historically seen relatively high geosmin concentrations and provides early-indication that conditions may be favorable for geosmin production elsewhere. The second location, PNF, is located near downstream water supply intakes and is intended to estimate concentrations that could be observed in raw water at the treatment facilities. In 2015, samples were collected June through November at both sites. Geosmin concentrations remained below the 4 ng/L threshold at both sampling locations (Table1). Concentrations were reported slightly above the reporting limit (1 ppt or ng/L) at Poudre below Rustic (PBR) monitoring sitefrom April through June, and then dropped below the reporting limit through the remainder of the 6 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 7 2.2 COLORADO’S SECTION 303(d) AND MONITORING & EVALUATION (M&E) LISTS Colorado’s Section 303(d) List and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) List (Regulation #93) establishes Colorado’s list of impaired waters and list of waters suspected of water quality problems. Colorado’s Section 303(d) List and M&E List for the 2016 listing cycle were adopted on January 11, 2016 and became effective on March 1, 2016. When water quality standard exceedances are suspected, but uncertainty exists regarding one or more factors (such as the representative nature of data used in the evaluation), a water body or segment is placed on the M&E List. The Section 303(d) Listing Methodology and Colorado’s Section 303(d) List is scheduled for review every two years. Segments of the Mainstem and North Fork Cache la Poudre River on the State of Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of impaired water and M&E List, as of March 1, 2016 are listed in Table 2. Segments with 303(d) impairment require total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and are prioritized with respect to TMDL development from low (L) to high (H) priority. WBID Segment Description Portion Colorado’s Monitoring & Evaluation Parameter(s) Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Impairment 303(d) Priority COSPCP02a Cache la Poudre River including all tributaries from the boundaries of RMNP, and the Rawah, Neota, Comanche Peak, and Cache la Poudre Wilderness Areas to the South Fork Cache la Poudre River all As, Aquatic Life (provisional) H/L COSPCP06 Mainstem of the North Fork of the Cache la Poudre River, including all tribs from source to Halligan Reservoir all As L COSPCP07 North Fork of the Cache la Poudre from Halligan Reservoir to the Cache la Poudre all As, Ag, Fe(Dis) Pb, Cd, Mn M L COSPCP08 8 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 9 2.3 EMERGING CONTAMINANTS Contaminants of emerging concern (CEC) are becoming more widely recognized as a water quality concern. Contaminants of emerging concern are trace concentrations (at the ng/L or ppt level, or less) of the following types of chemicals: x Pharmaceuticals: prescription and non- prescription human drugs (including pain PHGLFDWLRQV DQWLELRWLFV ȕ-blockers, anti- convulsants, etc.) and veterinary medications x Personal care products (PCPs): fragrances, sunscreens, insect repellants, detergents, household chemicals x Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs): chemicals that interfere with the functioning of natural hormones in humans and other animals; includes steroid hormones (estrogens, testosterone, and progesterone), alkylphenols, and phthalates x Pesticides and herbicides The primary objective of this collaborative effort is to be proactive and develop a baseline of data on pharmaceuticals, PCPs, hormones, and pesticides in the source waters of interest that are associated with drinking water supplies, using a cost-sharing approach that minimizes the cost burden for each entity. In 2008, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern Water) initiated an emerging contaminant study to determine the presence of these compounds in waters of the CBT system. In 2009, the program was opened up as a regional collaboration, and in that process, two monitoring sites on the Upper Cache la Poudre, the Poudre River above the North Fork and the North Fork below Seaman Reservoir (PNF and NFG, respectively) were added to the study with funding provided by the City of Fort Collins and the City of Greeley. In 2009, samples were collected once in June. Beginning in 2010, samples werecollected three times per year (February, June and August) to more fully assess seasonal influences of spring runoff, recreational activities, weed management activities, reservoir stratification and turnover, as well as low stream flow conditions. Each year the list of target compounds are reviewed by the collaborators and additions and/or deletions are made as needed. In 2015, two compounds were added to the low-level list – dextrorphan (a metabolite of dextromethorphan, the active ingredient found in cough syrup) and gabapentin (anti-epileptic).A full list of analytes can be found in the 2015 Emerging Contaminants Program Annual Report (Northern Water, 2015). All samples are submitted to the Center for Environmental Mass Spectrometry at the University of Colorado (CEMS) for laboratory analysis. Samples are analyzed using two primary methods. The presence/absence screening method (Liquid Chromatography/Time-Of-Flight Mass Spectrometry, LC/TOF-MS) is used for detection of constituents above the method reporting limits, but does not quantify the concentration. In 2015, 104 compounds were analyzed by LC/TOF-MS, which included 40 10 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 11 2.4 POST-WILDFIRE WATERSHED RECOVERY The Upper CLP watershed was impacted by two major wildfires in 2012. The Hewlett Gulch Fire (May 14- 22) burned 7,685 acres in dense Ponderosa Pine forest stands on the north-facing slopes, as well as shrub and grasslands that occupied much of the south-facing aspects. The burned area includes sub-watersheds that drain both to the Mainstem and into Seaman Reservoir on the North Fork. The High Park Fire (June 9 - July 2) burned 87,415 acres of primarily forested landscape characterized by Ponderosa and Lodgepole Pine at the lower elevations and mixed conifer species at the upper elevations. To a lesser degree, shrublands, grasslands and riparian areas were also impacted. The burned area includes numerous sub-drainages that are tributary to the Mainstem and the South Fork. The 2012 wildfires caused dramatic changesto land cover within the Upper CLP watershed that had an immediate effect on watershed hydrology and water quality within and downstream of the burn scars. The disturbance has caused an increase in streamflow and sediment erosion into streams draining burned sub-basins specifically during and following high-intensity storm events. The loss of vegetative cover altered the cycling of water, carbon, nutrients and other elements directly influencing water quality in the Poudre River. Upper CLP monitoring sites that were impacted by the wildfires were limited to the middle to lower elevations of the watershed and included South Fork above the Mainstem Confluence, SFC, the Poudre below the South Fork (PSF), PNF, the North Fork below Seaman Reservoir (NFG), and the Poudre at the Bellvue Diversion (PBD) (Figure 1.1). Routine data collected from these monitoring locations (pre- (2008 to 2012) and post-wildfire (2012- present))are valuable for evaluating the impacts of wildfire on CLP water quality (non-event based) and watershed recovery. In addition, early warning instrumentation was installed in 2013 to provide warning alerts of impacted river water quality to water treatment plant staff and trigger event- based stormwater monitoring. Event-based stormwater monitoring has been conducted since 2013 to evaluate storm impacts to water quality. In 2015, an automated stormwater sampler was installed at the City of Fort Collins raw water intake structure to increase event-based stormwater sampling efficiency due to uncertainty in the timing of storm events and availability and safety of staff during storm events. Wildfire impacts on background (non-storm event) water quality were still evident in 2015. Background nutrient concentrations, specifically nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N), ammonia as nitrogen (NH3-N), and ortho-phosphate (PO4), remained elevated in 2015 compared to pre-fire conditions. Storm events over the Upper CLP watershed, causing short term impairments to water quality, were limited in 2015 due to a relatively inactive monsoon season. There 12 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 13 3.0 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED RESULTS For the 2015 annual report, seven key sites were identified that are considered representative of conditions on the Mainstem and North Fork CLP Rivers. The selected sites are listed below: ƒ Mainstem above North Fork JWC – Joe Wright Creek above the Poudre River PJW–Poudre above Joe Wright Creek PBR – Poudre below Rustic PNF – Poudre above North Fork ƒ North Fork above Mainstem NFL – North Fork at Livermore (above Seaman Reservoir) NFG – North Fork at Gage (below Seaman Reservoir) ƒ Mainstem below North Fork Confluence PBD – Poudre at Bellvue Diversion Discussion of the results will focus primarily on these seven key sites; however, data from all sites were reviewed and analyzed and any notable events and trends are included in the discussion. A full list of monitoring sites, abbreviations and descriptions is available in Attachment 2. All data summary graphs are located in Attachment 7; finalized raw data are available upon request from the City of Fort Collins Source Watershed Program. 3.1 WATERSHED HYDROLOGY The hydrology of the Upper CLP plays an important role in regulating water quantity and quality. Precipitation events and snowmelt runoff largely control the quantity and timing of deliveries of material to the river. Furthermore, the amount of water in the system at a given time influences the concentration of water quality constituents. Discharge is measured as part of the routine Upper CLP monitoring activities at two key sites on the Mainstem: Poudre above Joe Wright Creek (PJW) and South Fork of the Poudre above the Confluence (SFC). Discharge values for PJW represent instantaneous discharge measurements collected on the specified sampling dates, while SFC represents continuous streamflow data throughout the monitoring season. Discharge measurements are also collected on four tributaries of the North Fork CLP: North Fork above Rabbit Creek (NRC), Rabbit Creek Mouth (RCM), Stonewall Creek Mouth (SCM), and Lone Pine Creek Mouth (PCM), but are not included for the purposes of this discussion. A full graphical summary of all Upper CLP hydrology and water quality measurements is presented in Attachment 6. Continuous streamflow data were obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and Colorado Division of Water Resources (CDWR) online reporting sites for flow gauging stations at JWC, NFL, NFG and PBD. Continuous streamflow data from the South Fork at SFC was collected and managed by the City of Fort Collins. Streamflow values at PNF were calculated using continuous flow data from the Canyon Mouth gage and 14 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM There are approximately 1,600 permanent snow courses nationwide. The SNOTEL and snow course network are managed and operated by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Peak SWE data were collected from five NRCS SNOTEL stations and five snow course monitoring sites to evaluate differences across the basin as well as between years (Figure 3.1). Deadman Hill, Red Feather, and Black Mountain sites represent snow conditions in the North Fork basin; Cameron Pass and Hourglass Lake represent conditions in the South Fork basin; and Joe Wright, Long Draw, Big South, and Bennet Creek represent conditions in the Mainstem Poudre basin (Figure 3.1). On an annual basis, higher elevation sites receive more SWE than lower elevation sites in the watershed. These differences in SWE are driven primarily by differences in elevation and the orographic nature of winter storms in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. In 2015, peak SWE across the entire Cache la Poudre Watershed was 91% of the expected peak SWE based on the long term average. The North Fork basin was 99% of average, while the South Fork and Mainstem Poudre basins were below average reporting basin indices of 76% and 88%, respectively (Figure 3.1). Joe Wright SNOTEL contains the longest record of continuous SWE measurements in the Cache la Poudre Watershed dating back to 1978. The long-term data record providesa valuable tool for evaluating the evolution of the snowpack, in terms of accumulated water and snowmelt, compared to the historical average and previous three years (Figure 3.2). Figure 3.1 – Locations of SNOTEL and snow course monitoring sites in the UCLP and percent of median peak snow water equivalent (SWE) in for the 2015 water year. UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 15 The start of the 2015 snow accumulation season was dry and below normal. The first measureable snowfall was observed towards the end of October followed bysteady snowfall through the end of November. Snow water equivalent was recorded near the long-term median in early December, but conditions becamequite dry with no measured precipitation until mid-December. A large winter storm in the later part of the month brought several inches of water, but was followed by a dry January with below normal SWE through early2015. A steady increase in SWE was observed beginning in February through the first week of March, but conditions were dry through mid-April when the snowpack began to show signs of an early snowmelt. Significant snowfall increased SWE at Joe Wright by nearly 5 inches beginning in mid-April. Peak SWE was measured at 19.8 inches on April 27th compared to the historical median peak SWE of 23.8 inches measured on April 29th (Figure 3.2). The snowpack began to melt following peak, but steady late season snow storms continued to impactthe Northern Colorado Mountains and Upper CLP through May extending the snow accumulation season by nearly one month. Snowmelt runoff began in late May and the by mid-June the 2015 snowpack was completely melted at Joe Wright (Figure 3.2). Mainstem Cache la Poudre Watershed Streamflow The Mainstem and North Fork watersheds exhibit snowmelt-dominated hydrographs. Water is stored in the snowpack as precipitation accumulates through the winter and is released later in the spring when there is more incident solar radiation to the earth surfacecausing a net gain of energy to the snowpack and subsequent snowmelt. The Cache la Poudre at Canyon Mouth near Fort Collins (CLAFTCCO) streamflow monitoring station managed by the CDWR (http://www.dwr.state.co.us/) contains the longest record of continuous streamflow in the Upper CLP watershed dating back to 1883. The streamflow monitoring station is located at the Canyon Mouth and includes streamflow contributionsfrom both the Mainstem and North Fork watersheds. The long-term data record provides a valuable tool for evaluating the temporal progression of streamflow compared to the expected long-term average (Figure 3.3). In an average year, snowmelt runoff on the Mainstem begins in mid- to late-April with streamflow peaking by mid-June. Following spring runoff, the hydrograph slowly recedes through the summer months returning to baseflow conditions in late fall (Figure 3.3). Multiple spikes in the hydrograph reflect natural and human influenced fluctuations of river levels that result from snowmelt runoff, rainfall events, and reservoir releases and water diversions in the Upper CLP (Figure 3.3). Over the past several years, streamflow on the Poudre River near the Canyon Mouth displayed dramatic fluctuations in response to summertime thunderstorms and subsequent flash flooding of burned areas from the High Park and Hewlett Gulch Fires of 2012 (Figure 3.3). In 2015, winter baseflow conditions remained above average. A significant spring snow storm in mid-April 16 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM continued through May due to extendedmelt freeze cycles lengthening the duration of the 2015 snowmelt runoff. A peak streamflow of 3,910 cubic feet per second (cfs) was measured on June 12th, which was six days later and 182% of the long-term average. Streamflow began to rapidly recede following peak and remained near average through the remainder of the season with the exception of two notable storm events, which were observed on July5th and August 16th. Baseflow conditions beginning in mid to late August were below average for the remainder of the 2015 water year. Wildfire impacts on streamflow, including debris flows and flooding, were less common on the Mainstem during the 2015 monsoon season following high intensity, short duration precipitation events localized over burn scar areas in the Upper CLP watershed. The hydrograph response to rainfall driven flooding is a rapid increase shortly after or during the precipitation event, followed bya slower return to pre-storm flows. The response in streamflow is highly dependent on the location, magnitude, duration, and intensity of the precipitation event. Reservoir and diversion operations higher in the watershed also caused temporary increases in streamflow. Mainstem Streamflow Contributions An estimated 315,379 acre-feet of water flowed down the Poudre River above the Munroe Tunnel and North Fork in 2015. This is an underestimate of total water because streamflow records from PBD are not yet available for all months of the year (January and December). Total acre- feet for February and November are also underestimated because the stream gage was not online until February 9th and was taken offline on November 15th. Streamflow data for these months are usually estimated by the operating agency and will not be available until May 2016. In addition, the streamflow gage on the Little South Fork was not online until late March 9th, 2015 and was taken offline for the season on November 19th. There are a number of tributaries, diversions, and reservoirs that contribute to the overall streamflow and water quality on the Mainstem CLP above the North Fork. The two highest elevation diversions in the Upper CLP include Michigan River Ditch, which conveys water from the Upper North Platte basin to Joe Wright Reservoir and the Grand Ditch, which conveys water from the Upper Colorado River basin into Long Draw Reservoir. The contributions of these diversions are not discussed in the report, but contributions from releases from the reservoirs in which these waters are stored are addressed. In 2015, releases from Long Draw Reservoir contributed 27,453 acre-feet (5%) of water to the Poudre River, which was 94% of 2014 water volumes. Most of this contribution occurred in July (10,999 acre-feet) with the highest percentage contribution (24%) in August (Table 2 and Figure 3.4). Water from the Michigan Ditch is initially stored in Joe Wright Reservoir and then released down Joe Wright Creek to Chambers Lake before being released back into Joe Wright Creek, and then eventually, the Poudre River. UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 17 The Laramie River Tunnel (LRT), located downstream of the confluence of the Poudre River and Joe Wright Creek, conveys water from the Laramie River to the Poudre River. In general, the LRT diverts water beginning in late April through early September. In 2015,water diversions from the Laramie River began in late June. The LRT contributed 9,167 acre-feet (3%) of water to the CLP in 2015, which was 73% of 2014 contributions. Water delivery from the LRT ended on September 10th. The largest tributary in the Upper CLP (above the confluence with the North Fork Poudre) is the South Fork (SFC). Streamflow on the South Fork is primarily snowmelt driven with much of the late season flow coming from releases from Comanche and Hourglass Reservoirs, owned and operated by the City of Greeley. In 2015, the South Fork contributed 63,386 acre-feet (20%) of water to the Poudre River (Table 2 and Figure 3.4). North Fork Cache la Poudre Watershed Streamflow The North Fork follows a similar streamflow pattern to the Mainstem (Figure 3.5). The timing of runoff and peak streamflow on the North Fork occurs earlier than the Mainstem because it is lower in elevation. Streamflow measured at NFL represents cumulative flows of the North Fork above Seaman Reservoir and provides information about the timing and magnitude of snowmelt runoff in the upper North Fork drainage. Streamflow measurements at NFG include contributions from the North Fork to Mainstem flows (measured at PBD). Although, streamflow at NFG is regulated by reservoir operations, the snowmelt hydrographs for NFL and NFG are typically very similar. During snowmelt runoff, if Seaman Reservoir is at capacity,the majority of flow going into Seaman Reservoir spills over the emergency spillway. When reservoir storage capacity is available, inflowing water may be stored in the reservoir or bypassed through the outlet structure depending on the river call priority regime at the time of available capacity. Reservoir operations generally influence streamflow later in the season following snowmelt runoff, as a result of water releases from both Halligan and Seaman Reservoirs. Table 3 – Tributary contributions by month to the Mainstem Cache la Poudre River above the Munroe Tunnel in 2015. Contributions highlighted in red indicated underestimates due to incomplete data sets. Note: AF = acre-feet Figure 3.5 – Streamflow measured over the 2012- 2015 water years at the North Fork CLP River below Seaman Reservoir (CLANSECO) streamflow monitoring station. Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan Dec Nov Oct 2500 18 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM In an average year, peak streamflow on the North Fork is observed from late-May to early-June (Figure 3.5). In 2015, snowmelt runoff began in mid-April, reaching peak runoff earlier than normal on May 10th at a discharge of 1,550 cfs at NFG. Peak streamflow in 2015 was three times the average peak flow (435 cfs) at NFG (2005- 2014). A late spring snowstorm slowed the snowmelt cycle higher in the watershed lessening the magnitude of peak streamflow, but also lengthened the duration of streamflow runoff. In mid-Maysnowmelt runoff resulted in second peak of 1,480 cfs on May 23rd. Streamflow steadily decreased to near baseflow conditions following the second peak (Figure 3.5). Water was released periodically from reservoirs throughout the rest of the season. In 2015, the combined volume of water on the Mainstem at PBD was 368,991 acre-feet during averaged over the months of May through June from 2012 through 2015. The North Fork contributed 34% of total acre-feet to the Mainstem, which was the highest water contribution from the North Fork over the four year period (Figure 3.6). 3.2 WATERTEMPERATURE Water temperature increases with decreasing elevation throughout the watershed (Figure 3.7a). In general, stream water temperatures are at a minimum during winter baseflow conditions when air temperatures are the lowest and at a maximum in July and August when air temperatures are the greatest and streamflow is low. The highest stream temperatures typically occur on the lower North Fork (NFL and NFG) presumably due to relatively low flows and differences in elevation between the Mainstem and North Fork watersheds. In 2015, water temperaturesin the Upper CLP watershed followed similar temporal and spatial patterns to the three previous years. Mean water temperatures were slightly greater than 2013 and 2014, but lower than the drought year 2012 with the exception of NFG which exhibited warmer temperatures in 2014 and 2015 (Figure 3.7a). Water temperature throughout the Upper CLP watershed ranged from 0.05°C at PJW on November 9th to a maximum temperature of 19.5°C at NFG on June 23rd. Maximum temperatures at sites along the Mainstem and NFL were observed in August (Figure 3.7b). Temperatures at PJW and NFG were likely influenced by Long Draw and Seaman Reservoir, respectively, which can result in colder stream temperatures due to coldwater being released from the bottom of these reservoirs. Following the annual maximum, water temperatures decreased at all sites through the remainder of the monitoring season to the lowest temperatures observed over the 2015 monitoring season (Figure 3.7). Figure 3.6 – Proportion of average Mainstem and North Fork contributions at PBD during May and June from 2012 through 2015. 2012 2013 2014 2015 400000 300000 200000 100000 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 19 3.3 GENERAL PARAMETERS Conductivity, Hardness, and Alkalinity Conductivity is an index of dissolved ionic solids in water, and hardness is an index of the total calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) in water. Alkalinity is a measure of the effective acid buffering capacity of water, and is derived from the dissociation of mineral carbonates (CO3-), bicarbonates (HCO3-), and hydroxides (OH-). Conductivity, hardness, and alkalinity are influenced by local geology, as well as other dissolved constituents derived from land use practices throughout the watershed. Concentrations of these constituents are also largely influenced by the magnitude and timing of streamflowand by the contributing watershed area. The highest concentrations are observed during times of low flow in late-fall and winter, while minimum concentrations are observed during snowmelt runoff. In general, concentrations increase with decreasing elevation and increasing contributing watershed area. Spatial and temporal patterns were similar in 2015 to the previous three years with the exception of 2012. The extreme drought conditions and low streamflow in 2012 illustrate the effect of streamflow on concentrations when below average snowmelt runoff had little dilution effect on concentrations. Specific conductivity (Figure 3.8a), hardness (Figure 3.8b), and alkalinity (Figure 3.8c) concentrations were within the range of expected values throughout the 2015monitoring season on the Mainstem (21.4 μS/cm – 114.4 μS/cm; 8.0 mg/L – 60.3 mg/L; and 9.0 mg/L – 60.4 mg/L, respectively). The lowest concentrations on the Mainstem were measuredon June 22nd. The highest concentrations were observed in late summer and fall, which were greater than the previous three years, except at PJW. North Fork watershed concentrations were higher and more variable across monitoring locations as compared to Mainstem sites. The highest concentrations were monitored on tributary sites (Rabbit Creek (RCM), Stonewall Creek (SCM), and Lone Pine Creek (PCM)) (see Attachment 7, pp. 61, 62, and 63). Specific conductivity, hardness, and alkalinity concentrations measured at NFL and NFG range from 81.4 μS/cm – 346.3 μS/cm, 40.2 mg/L – 229.4 mg/L, and 43.0 mg/L – 208.8 mg/L, respectively. The greatest factors likely driving higher concentrations throughout the North Fork a) b) c) Figure 3.8 – General water quality parameters a) specific conductance, b) hardness, and c) alkalinity measured at key Upper CLP monitoring sites. 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 20 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM watershed are land use, changes in streamflow, and geology. pH pH is a measure of the amount of free hydrogen (H+) and hydroxide (OH-) ions in water and is measured on a logarithmic scale ranging from 0 to 14. Water with a pH near 7 is considered neutral, with more acidic conditions occurring below 7 and more basic, or alkaline, conditions occurring above 7. pH is an important water quality parameter to monitor because it influences the solubility and biological availability of chemical constituents, including nutrients and heavy metals. In 2015, the pH in the Upper CLP watershed followed similar temporal and spatial patterns as was observed in alkalinity, conductivity and hardness concentrations (Figure 3.9). pH levels were within the expected range as compared to the previous three years (6.30 – 9.00), but did not experience as much variability as 2013. All sites showed a decrease in pH during spring runoff and then increased following snowmelt runoff. Summer and fall pH trends varied between Mainstem and North Fork sites as well as between years. In 2015, pH on the Mainstem ranged from 7.01 at PJW on September 14th to 8.21 at PBD on October 12th. Values on the North Fork were greater than the Mainstem and ranged from 7.61 to 8.64. Turbidity Turbidity is a measurement of the amount of light capable of passing through water. This water quality parameter is often monitored to track changes in water clarity, which is influenced by the presence of algae and/or suspended solids introduced to surface waters through various land use activities, including runoff and erosion, and urban storm water runoff and drainage from agricultural lands. Turbidity levels can signal changes in land use activity. For water treatment, turbidity is an important indicator of the amount suspended material that is available to harbor pollutants such as heavy metals, bacteria, pathogens, nutrients, and organic matter. In general, turbidity on the Mainstem and North Fork peaks during the beginning of spring runoff. Higher streamflow velocities increase the transport capacity of sediment and organic material throughout the water column, and the increase in suspended sediment translates to increased turbidity levels. Following peak snowmelt runoff, turbidity values steadily decrease to values near 1 NTU on the Mainstem with values approaching 10 NTU on the North Fork. The highest turbidity values in the fall are observed at NBH and NFG (see Attachment7, p. 64). Turbidity values in 2015 followed seasonal patterns similar to pre-fire and pre-flood conditions. Snowmelt peak turbidity values on May 4th ranged from 5 NTU at PJW to 18 NTU at PNF and were nearly two times greater than observed in 2012 (Figure 3.10).The lower snowmelt peak turbidity values in 2012wererelated to drought conditions and the river’s decreasedcapacity to move sediment due to lower than normal streamflow. A greater degree of variability was observed following the High Park wildfire (2012 and 2013) as a result of debris UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 21 spike from 2 NTU to a peak value of 805 NTU in less than 2 hours. Turbidity values recovered within 24 hours of the event (Figure 3.11). The watershed response to the high intensity precipitation event in August indicates the 2012 wildfirescontinue to impact Cache la Poudre water quality, but the events are typically short-lived. The maximum values observed during snowmelt runoff in 2015 were 18.2 NTU on the Mainstem at PNF and 17.7 NTU on the North Fork at NFL. Overall, values ranged from 0.36 to 18.2NTU, excluding the August 16th sampling event (Figure 3.10). As seen in previous years, a late season spike in turbidity (10 NTU) was observed in 2015 at NFG downstream of Seaman Reservoir. This spike in turbidity at NFG was not of sufficient magnitude or load to impact downstream turbidity at Greeley’s water supply intake (<1 NTU at PBD) when mixed with Mainstem water. 3.4 TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON Total organic carbon (TOC) is a measure of the total concentration of dissolved and particulate organic matter in water. TOC is derived from both terrestrial and aquatic sources. Terrestrial TOC originates from soils and plant materials that are leached and/or delivered to surface waters during storms and spring snowmelt runoff, whereas aquatic-derived TOC originates from algal production and subsequent decomposition within surface waters. Total organic carbon is an important indicator of water quality, particularly as it relates to water treatment. Water treatment requires the effective removal of TOC because the interaction between residual TOC and disinfectants can form regulated disinfection by-products (DBPs). DPBs are strictly regulated due to their carcinogenic potential. Increases in source water TOC concentrations pose concern due to the potential for higher residual TOC (post-filtration) and increased DBP formation potential. Mainstem Poudre River Seasonal and spatial patterns of TOC on the Mainstem are generally consistent from year-to-year. Unlike most water quality constituents, there is a direct relationship between streamflow and TOC meaningthat as streamflow increases TOC concentrations increase and vice versa. Concentrations are highly variable during the spring and summer, but begin to stabilize in the fall and early winter when streamflow is low. TOC concentrations at most sites are normallylow (<5 mg/L)during baseflow conditions and then begin to increase during snowmelt. In a normal year, annual maximum TOC values occur in early May after the onset of spring snowmelt and before peak streamflow. The timing and magnitude of concentrations are highly dependent on the timing and magnitude of snowmelt runoff and the availability and mobilization of carbon. Concentrations are less variable between monitoring locations throughout the watershed. The highest TOC concentrations are observed at BMR and LRT. Maximum concentrations measured at LRT have been measured at nearly 1.5 times the maximum concentration measured on the Mainstem (see Attachment 7, pg. 66). The highest concentration measured over the past four years was 21.75 mg/L. The overall loadto the Mainstemis generally low due to the timing, magnitude, and duration of water 22 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM In 2015,TOC concentrations on the Mainstem followed expected seasonal trends and were within the range of values observed over the previous three years. Concentrations were low and relatively stable in April, but increased rapidly during snowmelt runoff to annual maximum concentrations on May 6th. Peak concentrations at key sites range from 9.12 mg/L at PBD to 12.1 mg/L at JWC (Table 3.12), and higher concentrations up to 23 mg/L were measured at LRT (see Attachment 7, pg. 66). TOC concentrations steadily decreased during the summer months to baseflow concentrations of less than 5 mg/L at all sites by August 17th and continued to remain low through the remainder of the monitoring season. North Fork Poudre River Seasonal and spatial patterns of TOC on the North Fork Poudre River are less predictable from year to year than the Mainstem. In general, concentrations are higher on the North Fork compared to the Mainstem. In the North Fork watershed, TOC is normally highest at Rabbit Creek (RCM) and Lone Pine Creek (PCM) during snowmelt runoff from April through May or June, but the magnitude of concentrations at these sites is variable from year to year. In contrast, the lowest TOC concentrations are observed at Stonewall Creek (SCM) (see Attachment 7, pg. 66). Concentrations at this site remain low throughout the monitoring season and do not vary greatly throughout the year because Stonewall Creek is primarily fed by ground water as opposed to snowmelt. The North Fork Cache la Poudre River experiences snowmelt driven changes in TOC concentrations. Concentrations on the North Fork are typically below 5 mg/L prior to spring snowmelt and then increase rapidly following the onset of snowmelt runoff. Peak TOC concentrations are characteristicallyobserved in early to mid-May. TOC concentrations slowly decrease throughout the remainder of the season to baseflow concentrations following peak. The two monitoring locations situated below Seaman and Halligan Reservoir (NFG and NBH, respectively) remain slightly elevated in the late summer and fall relative to other sites in the upper CLP watershed. The elevated TOC levels at these sites suggest additional sources of TOC, which may be caused by reservoir hydrochemical processes. Elevated TOC concentrations on the North Fork at NFG can influence downstream concentrations at PBD. Thisis especially evident in the late summer and fall when comparing concentrations between PBD and PNF. In 2015, TOC dynamics on the North Fork were similar to the Mainstem (Figure 3.12). In early April, TOC concentrations were 3.9 mg/L at NFL and 3.5 mg/L at NFG before increasing during snowmelt runoff to peak concentrations of 9.1 mg/L and 8.8 mg/L on May 20th and May 5th, respectively. Concentrations at NFL and NFG steadily decreased through the remainder of the year following peak. TOC concentrations were near 5 mg/L at NFG by September and remained at this concentration through November. The slightly elevated TOC concentrations in September and October at NFG were UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 23 (10 μg/L) for ammonia and TP, and 0.04 mg/L (40 μg/L) for nitrate and nitrite. In the calculation of TN(TKN+NO3- N+NO2-N), concentrations below their respective reporting limit were reported as half the reporting limit. Mainstem Poudre River Nitrogen Seasonal and spatial patterns of nitrogen on the Mainstem are generally consistent from year-to-year. The highest nitrogen concentrations are typically observed early in the snowmelt period due to the flushing of finite pools of inorganic and organic nitrogen from soils, in combination with the release of atmospherically derived nitrogen contained within the snowpack. Nitrogen concentrations steadily decrease on the Mainstem following snowmelt runoff into the summer months with the exception of storm-driven nutrient spikes in recent years at monitoring locations located within the burn scar. In 2015, total nitrogen (TN) concentrations on the Mainstem Poudre River were similar across sites, but were generally lower than the previous three years (<10 – 5,018 μg/L N, from 2012 – 2014) (Figure 3.13). Total nitrogen concentrations ranged from 138 μg/L to 770 μg/L at key sites in 2015with a median value of 288 μg/L. The highest concentrations were observed during snowmelt at wildfire impacted sites. The nitrogen pulse during snowmelt is an expected seasonal response in river water quality especially in areas affected bywildfires of high and moderate burn severity (Rhoades, 2011; Smith, 2011). This water quality response was most pronounced in 2015, especially in NO3-N at PNF (Figure 3.14), because of significant late-season snow accumulation over the burn scar and subsequent snowmelt and delivery of nitrogen to the Mainstem. In contrast to previous years, the variability of total nitrogen on the Mainstem was lower (Figure 3.15). Temporal and spatial variability is usually quite low throughout the watershed, but monitoring locations located within the burn area (PNF and PBD) have experienced infrequent, yet significant, spikes in nitrogen, primarily during snowmelt runoff and rainstorm events. Post-fire background (non-storm event) nitrogen concentrations were elevated at fire impacted monitoring locations in 2012 through 2014, but concentrations were lower in 2015. TKN concentrations were notablylower in 2015, but NO3-N and NH3-N concentrations remained elevated. The monsoon season was dry in 2015 compared to previous years, which limited erosion from the burn scar and delivery of organic nitrogen to Mainstem surface waters. Figure 3.13 – Total nitrogen concentrations at key Upper CLP monitoring locations. (- - - - - CDPHE proposed cold water stream standard for TN, annual median of 1.25 mg/L with an allowable exceedance of 1-in-5 years.) 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 24 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM Phosphorus Total phosphorus (TP) concentrations on the Mainstem typically increase during snowmelt and decrease through the summer months into the fall. In contrast, ortho- phosphate generally does not follow temporal or spatial trends. In recent years, phosphorus concentrations at lower elevations in the watershed (PNF and PBD) have experience infrequent spikes as a result of impacts from the High Park Fire. In 2015, TP concentrations were within the range of values observed over the previous three years (10 μg/L – 1000 μg/L). The Mainstem Poudre had a median TP concentration of 14 μg/L with concentrations between 5 μg/L and 75 μg/L in 2015. The peak concentration was observed during snowmelt at PJW on June 22nd. Annual maximum TPconcentrations at lower elevation sites were observed earlier in 2015 on May 4th. Concentrations decreased following the snowmelt pulse to near the reporting limit (Figure 3.16b). Ortho-phosphate (PO4)concentrationsmeasured in 2015 were within the range of values observed over the previous three years (<5 μg/L – 56 μg/L); however the median PO4concentration (7 μg/L), although only slightly above the reporting limit, was higher than the previous three years (Figure 3.16a). Historically, concentrations have been low with reportable levels measured at BMR and LRT. Beginning in 2012, PO4 concentrations were measured above the reporting limit more often and at more monitoring locations. This basin wide observation may be a combination of drought conditions and wildfire in 2012 further exacerbated by the flood event in 2013. Soil erosion is a major source of phosphorus to surface waters. Large flood events not only deliver large amounts of soil from the surrounding watershed into surface waters, but also cause severe bank and channel erosion. The flood event may be responsible for increasing PO4 concentrations throughout the watershed. Elevated PO4 concentrations persisted through 2015at wildfire impacted monitoring locations. North Fork Poudre River In general, nutrient concentrations are higher on the North Fork compared to the Mainstem (Figure 3.15). Elevated nutrient concentrations are generally observed at upstream North Fork tributary sites during snowmelt runoff. These higher concentrations likely occur in response to flushing and suspension of sediment and dissolved nutrients during snowmelt. The relatively high concentrations of nutrients in these small tributaries are due, in large part, to low streamflow, especially during the summer months, and represent small contributions to overall streamflow and nutrient loads to NFL. Most nutrients on the North Fork River increase slightly with decreasing elevation. Halligan and Seaman Reservoirs appear to be both a source and sink for nutrients in the North Forkwatershed. Nitrogen TN on the North Fork followed a similar seasonal pattern and was within the range of values observed over the previous three years (<10 μg/L – 1,857 μg/L). The UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 25 measured on October 12th. The peak concentration at NFG observed in the fall is likely related to reservoir dynamics. Higher peak concentrations were observed in the North Fork tributaries at RCM and PCM (1,400 μg/L and 1,110 μg/L, respectively) during snowmelt runoff. Concentrations at NRC were slightly higher than concentrations downstream at NFL suggesting the tributaries may be sources of nitrogen (see Attachment 7, pg.73). In most years during the late summer and fall, reservoir thermal stratification leads to depletion of dissolved oxygen concentrations in the lower levels of the reservoir (see Attachment 7, p.89 for Seaman Reservoir water quality profiles). These conditions may facilitate the release of nutrients stored in reservoir sediments into the water column. This may explain the seasonal occurrences often observed at NDC and NFG, respectively. The extent and magnitude of these events varies from year to year. A slight increase in NH3-N has been observed throughout the North Fork watershed with more sites reporting values above the reporting limit throughout the monitoring season in recent years (2012-2015). Similar to Mainstem, this increase is likely associated with the impacts of the 2013 flood event. Phosphorus Total phosphorus dynamics on the North Fork followed a similar seasonal pattern to previous years. Concentrations increased during snowmelt and then steadily decreased through the summer and fall. Phosphorus concentrations increased at NFG beginning in August and remained elevated through November. Concentrations during these months were the highest levels observed throughout the monitoring season. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 200 100 0 ug/L 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 200 100 0 ug/L 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 200 100 0 ug/L 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 200 100 0 ug/L 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 200 100 0 ug/L 26 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM Total phosphorus concentrations throughout the North Fork watershed in 2015 were within the range of values observed over the previous three years (<10 μg/L – 336 μg/L); however, annual median concentrations were higher in 2015 at all sites with the exception of monitoring locations situated below Halligan and Seaman Reservoirs (Figure 3.17). It should be noted, however, that one value was observed on May 5th, 2015 at NBH when concentrations exceeded 4,000 μg/L. While the cause of this high concentration is unknown, it maybe a result of winter thermal stratification of Halligan Reservoir. Ortho-phosphate concentrations throughout the North Fork watershed in 2015 were also within the range of values observed over the previous three years (<5 μg/L – 44 μg/L) and followed expected seasonal patterns. Similar to trends in median TP concentrations, annual median PO4concentrations continued to increase in 2015, except at monitoring locations located below the Reservoirs. UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 27 3.6 METALS Naturally occurring metals are routinely detected at low concentrations in the North Fork and Mainstem. The presence of metals in source water supplies is most often due to mineral weathering of the soils and subsequent erosion of those sediments into the river with snowmelt runoff, wind, precipitation and other natural processes. Additional sources of metals may include atmospheric deposition, Metals were sampled twice annually on the Mainstem at PNF and on the North Fork at NFG from 2010 through 2012. In 2013 and 2014, routine sample frequency was increased to three times per year and new analytes were added to the monitoring plan to better evaluate the effects of the 2012 wildfires. Additional sites, above and below the burn scar were also added and all samples were analyzed for total and dissolved metals. Post-fire analysis of metals indicated that baseline metal concentrations were similar to pre-fire conditions. Snowmelt runoff generally results in elevated metal concentrations, as does storm events. In 2015, metals were sampled twice annually on the Mainstem at PNF and on the North Fork at NFG, similar to pre-fire routine sampling. Samples were collected on May 18th and May 20th and October 12th and October 13th at PNF and NFG, respectively. The most commonly detected metals in 2015 were aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and manganese (Mn). All of these metals were detected during snowmelt runoff and later in the season during baseflow conditions. Both Al and Fe were detected at much lower concentrations in October at PNF and NFG. Mn, however, was measured at 194 μg/L at NFG on October 13th, which exceeded the secondary drinking water quality standard of 50 μg/L. The higher concentration of this metal at this site is associated with low streamflow and the release of Mn from reservoir bottom sediments facilitated by depleted oxygen in the Reservoir hypolimnion. Dissolved iron concentrations were just below the secondary drinking water quality standard of 300 μg/L during snowmelt (May 19th) at NFG. The standard was exceeded on May 18th at PNF when concentrations measured 330 μg/L (Table 4). Metal concentrations are usually higher during snowmelt. While compounds regulated under the secondary drinking water standards are not a threat to public health, they may impact the aesthetics of the finished water, which affects customer perceptions of safety. Such aesthetic changes in water quality include associated taste and odors, coloration of the water, staining of fixtures and corrosion in the distribution system. Copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), and nickel (Ni) were detected slightly above the reporting limit during snowmelt runoff on May 18th. Both the total and dissolved fractions of Cu were detected at PNF and NFG, but only the total fraction of Ni and Cr were detected at PNF. In contrast, arsenic (dissolved) was detected at NFG on October 13th, but was only slightly above the reporting limit at 1.25 μg/L. Silver (Ag), cadmium (Cd), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), selenium 28 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM Metal Site May 18a -May 20 b October 12a - October 13b Soluble Total Soluble Total Aluminum (Al) PNF 484 1,013 6 ----- NFG 364 480 5 ----- Arsenic (As) PNF <1 <1 <1 ----- NFG <1 <1 1 ----- Copper (Cu) PNF 1.41 2.36 <1 ----- NFG 1.14 1.88 <1 ----- Chromium (Cr) PNF <1 3 <1 ----- NFG <1 <1 <1 ----- Iron (Fe) PNF 330 959 31 ----- NFG 258 375 31 ----- Manganese (Mn) PNF 4 21 4 ----- NFG 6 13 194 ----- Nickel (Ni) PNF <1 1 <1 ----- NFG <1 <1 <1 ----- Table 4 – Dissolved and total metals concentrations measured in 2015 on the Mainstem and North Fork of the Poudre River. Metals highlighted in red indicated temporary exceedances of the CDPHE secondary drinking water standard. UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 29 3.7 MICROORGANISMS Total Coliforms and E. coli Coliforms are types of bacteria found naturally in the environment in plant and soil material, but can also found in the digestive tract of animals, including humans. Disease causing bacteria or pathogens can be introduced to the raw drinking water supply from fecal contamination. The City of Fort Collins tests its source water supply for the presence of bacterial contamination by measuring the total amount of coliforms, an indicator organism for the presence of pathogenic bacteria. In addition, Escherichia coli (E. coli) is measured and used as an indicator of human or animal fecal waste pollution since the source of origin is more specific than total coliforms. Total coliform counts are greater than E. coli counts because total coliform includes all types and sources of coliform bacteria. Water samples were collected and tested for both total coliform and E. coli at four monitoring locations in 2015 – NFG, PBR, PNF, and PBD – along the Mainstem and North Fork Poudre Rivers. Coliforms samples have been collected from these monitoring locations since 2008. Total coliforms and E. coli exhibited a great degree of seasonal and annual variability (Figure 3.18). Total coliforms are generally low at the beginning of the monitoring season at all sites, but increase during runoff and remained elevated until streamflow receded to baseflow levels in the fall (Figure 3.18a). Total coliforms measured on the Mainstem in 2015 were within the range of values observed over the previous three years (3.1 – 24,196 colony forming units (cfu) per 100 mL). The large range in total coliforms observed over the previous three years was largely associated with post-wildfire impacts from debris flows and flooding mobilizing soil and plant material from burned hillslopes into the Poudre River. In 2015, total coliforms ranged from 14.6 to 4,611 cfu/100 mL with a median value of 435 cfu/100 mL, which was greater than the previous three years. A similar seasonal trend was observed at all sites on the Mainstem. Total coliforms increased throughout the monitoring season to an annual maximum concentration at all Mainstem sites on August 18th. Concentrations decreased following this date, but remained elevated (>1000 cfu/100 mL) at PBD through November. Total coliforms are commonly higher and more variable at NFG compared to sites on the Mainstem, but do not appear to have a big impact on the Mainstem at PBD. In 2015, total coliforms were within the range of values observed over the previous three years (0 – 34,411 cfu/100 mL). Total coliforms at NFG ranged from 69 to 3,654 cfu/100 mL. The annual median value of 1,270 cfu/100 mL was similar to the previous three years. Total coliforms followed a similar seasonal trend to the Mainstem. E. coli counts on the Mainstem in 2015 were within the range of concentrations observed over the previous three years (0 – 1,918 cfu/100 mL). Like total coliform, the large range in values over the previous three years is related to wildfire impacts from debris flows and flooding. In 2015, 30 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM and later in the monitoring season on August 17th (Figure 3.18b). In comparison, E. coli counts at NFG were lower than the Mainstem and range from 0 to 196 cfu/100 mL over the previous three years. In 2015, E. coli counts at NFG ranged from 0 to 140 cfu/100 mL with an annual median value of 14.5 cfu/100 mL. E. coli exceeded the CDPHE recreational water quality standard at NFG on June 9th when cell counts were 140 cfu/100 mL. The exceedance did not persist and counts were measured well below (~10 cfu/100 mL) the standard through the remainder of the season. Cryptosporidium and Giardia Giardia and Cryptosporidium are types of protozoa, or unicellular organisms, which live in the intestines of animals and humans. The main source of these organismsisanimals,but leaking septic systems can also contribute to contamination of surface waters. Both Giardia and Cryptosporidiumare found to be widespread in the environment, and all water treatment facilities are required, under the EPA’s Surface Water Treatment Rule, to filter and disinfect surface water for the removal of 99.9% of Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Giardia and Cryptosporidium were detected on both the Mainstem and North Fork from 2012 through 2015. Giardiawas more abundant than Cryptosporidium (Figure 3.19). Giardiaconcentrations were low at PNF and within the range of values observed over the previous three years (0.1 – 14 cells/L) (Figure 3.19a). In 2015, giardia concentrations ranged from 4 to 14 cells/L with a median value of 7 cells/L, which was higher than any of the previous three years. In contrast to previous years, giardia concentrations were higher from April through August, but the magnitude and timing of the annual maximum concentration was similar to previous years. An annual maximum concentration of 14 cells/L was observed on November 4th. Giardia concentrations on the North Fork were similar to concentrations on the Mainstem. Giardia concentrations measured in 2015 were within the range of values observed over the previous three years (0.10 – 35 cells/L) at North Fork sites. In 2015, giardia concentrations ranged from 0.06 to 17 cells/L with an annual median value of 4 cells/L. The highest concentration was measured at NBH at 17.1 cells/L on May 5th. Concentrations were consistently higher at NDC throughout the year. Giardia concentrations decreased moving downstream to NFG below Seaman Reservoir where giardia counts were less than 7 cells/L throughout the entire monitoring season. Cryptosporidiumconcentrations are generally low on both the North Fork and Mainstem. Cell counts are generally below the detection limit of 0.1 cell/L on the Mainstem, while detections occur more often on the North Fork. In 2015, Cryptosporidium did not display seasonal or annual trends on the Mainstem, but concentrations were higher, although still low, at North Fork sites. The range in Cryptosporidium cell counts on the North Fork in 2015 was greater than the previous three years (<0.1 – 0.68 cells/L). In 2015, cell counts ranged from less than 0.1 to UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 31 4.0 DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONTROL The Upper CLP watershed collaborative monitoring program assures comparability and validity of data by complying with monitoring methods and implementing quality assurance and quality control (QAQC) measures. QAQC measures are good practice in environmental monitoring and can be used to determine potential error in data due to contamination of water samples, sampling error, equipment contamination, and/or laboratory error. The Upper CLP monitoring sites are representative of the goals and objectives outline previously and demonstrate the true character of the watershed at the time of sampling. 4.1 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL A minimum of ten percentof the total samples collected in the field were collected as field duplicate and/or field blank samples. Field duplicates (11 duplicates in total) were obtained at PNF during each monitoring event to determine precision of data, while field blanks (11 blanks in total) were collected at different monitoring locations, alternating between the Mainstem and North Fork, to identify potential for sample contamination. The field data quality sampling schedule is outlined in the 2015 annual sampling plan (Attachment 4). QAQC samples and accuracy of field equipment is reviewed by Source Watershed Program staff. A complete graphical summary of field quality control data is located in Attachment 8. Field Duplicates In 2015, twelve percent (22 out of 183) of the environmental samples collected were QAQC samples. Precision is a measure of the deviation from the true value. For most constituents, duplicate determinations should agree within a relative percent difference of 10%. Duplicate samples that differ greater than 10% were flagged for further quality assurance and control measures. Blank samples should not contain analytes above the reporting limit. The results of the field quality assurance and control sampling indicate that precision and accuracy were acceptable. Table 5 outlines relative percent difference statistics for duplicate samples collected in 2015 and illustrates that UCLP water quality data are of high precision. All duplicate samples, except ammonia, were within 10% agreement at the 50th percentile. Ammonia, PO4, and TKN were slightly outside of the 10% agreement at the 75th percentile, but these constituents are generally measured at concentrations near or below the reporting limit. There is more uncertainty in the accuracy of concentrations measured below the reporting limit and comparison of duplicate samples at these levels does not allow for a genuine measure of precision. Nearly all field blank samples reported below the constituent’s respective reporting limits in 2015. Constituents that were detected above the reporting limits included NH4-N, NTU, and TDS. Concentrations were reported only slightly above the reporting limit for these samples and concentrations were minimal compared to 32 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM reported above 0.01 mg/L N for NH4-N, but were below 0.02 mg/L. Field and laboratory blanks are easily contaminated by NH4-N. Field Instrument Accuracy Monthly equipment calibrations using certified standards were conducted to assure the accuracy of sensors on the multi-parameter water quality sonde. Accuracy is a measure of the degree of closeness a measurement is to the true measurement. The accuracy of the multi- parameter water quality sonde was checked prior to monitoring events by comparing sonde readings to bench- top instruments to assure sonde readings were within the acceptable margin of error (Table 6). Sensors were re- calibrated and re-checked if the sensors were outside of the QC limits. The results of monthly calibrationsand calibration checks indicated that the multi-parameter water quality sonde sensors were within the acceptable range for instrument accuracy and precision. 4.2 LABORATORY QUALITY CONTROL Upper CLP water quality samples analyzed by the Fort Collins Water Quality Laboratory are reviewed by the Quality Assurance Coordinator to ensure data are free of sample contamination, analytical, and/or data entry errors. The City of Fort Collins Water Quality Laboratory implements analytical QAQC measures by conducting laboratory blank, duplicate, replicate,and spiked samples. The City of Fort Collins WQL conducts a majority of analyses for the Source Water Quality Monitoring Program, and is a U.S. EPA Certified Drinking Water Laboratory with an established QA plan that is applied to all samples received by the laboratory (Elmund et al, 2013). The primary features of their QA protocol include: x Precision: one duplicate sample is analyzed for every 10 samples; relative deviation should be less than 10%. x Accuracy: one external QCS sample is analyzed with each set of samples analyzed. Methods may specify an acceptable recovery range. In general, Standard Methods limits are ± 5% and EPA methods are ± 10%. x Recovery: one sample is spiked for every 10 samples; if there are different matrices, at least one sample per matrix is spiked. Limits for most methods are ± 15%. If one type of matrix spike fails and all other QC passes, those samples may be flagged. A complete description of laboratory personnel, equipment, and analytical QA methods is outside of the scope of this report and is not addressed in detail here. As part of the City’s Environmental Services Division the WQL operates under the guidance of a general QA plan (Elmund et al., 2013). Parameter Units Range Accuracy pH pH units 0 to 14 units ±0.1 pH units within ±10oC of calibration temperature; ±0.2 pH units UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 33 5.0 SUMMARY 5.1 PROGRAM PERFORMANCE Review of the 2015 Upper CLP monitoring program data indicates that the program adequately captures seasonal trends in water quality and provides a spatial context for examining notable events. In recent years, the spatial distribution of monitoring locations and the long-term dataset have provide a valuable tool for evaluating wildfire impacts on both baseline and event-based water quality by comparing pre- and post-wildfire water quality conditions at burn impacted monitoring locations. The results of the field quality assurance and control sampling indicate that data precision and accuracy were acceptable. 5.2 HYDROLOGY In 2015, peak snow water equivalent (SWE) in the Upper CLP watershed was slightly below average at 91% of normal. Peak SWE was observed on April 27th, which is similar to the long-term data record. Steady late season snow storms continued through May extending the snow accumulation season by nearly one month. Winter baseflow conditions remained above average in 2015. A significant spring snow storm in mid-April brought several feet of snow to the lower elevations of the watershed, which resulted in a rapid rise in streamflow through mid-May. Peak streamflow was measured on June 12th at 182% of the long-term average. Baseflow conditions beginning in mid- to late-August were below average for the remainder of the 2015 water year. Two notable storm events were observed on July 5th and August 16th, which caused an increase in streamflow. 5.3 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER WATER QUALITY No significant water quality concerns were identified for the Mainstem or North Fork CLP that immediately impact drinking water quality or treatment operations. During spring runoff, the typical challenges for water treatment were observed on the Mainstem and the North Fork. Raw water from these two sources exhibited high TOC and turbidity levels, low alkalinity and hardness concentrations, and decreased pH during spring runoff, but concentrations were within the expected range of variability and followed normal seasonal, temporal, and spatial trends. North Fork watershed concentrations for these water quality constituents were higher and more variable across monitoring locations as compared to Mainstem sites, but followed similar seasonal trends with the exception of monitoring sites located below reservoirs. These sites experienced similar early season trends during snowmelt runoff, but reservoir processes later in the monitoring season appeared to influence water quality at monitoring locations situated below the reservoirs. In most instances, notable events or trends in water quality observed on the North Fork at NFG were not detectable downstream at PBD near Greeley’s water intake. The data collected through this program suggest that the greatest factors influencing water quality throughout the North Fork watershed are land use changes in streamflow, and watershed geology. 34 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM the 2012 wildfires continue in the Upper CLP watershed. The most notable impacts to water quality associated with the wildfire are increases in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). Nutrients on the Mainstem continued to be relatively low in 2015, but inorganic nitrogen (NO3-N and NH3-N) and PO4 remained elevated at wildfire impacted monitoring sites (PNF and PBD) compared to pre-fire conditions. Elevated nutrient concentrations have been observed in many studies that examined the impact of wildfires on water quality (Hibbert, 1974; Tiedemann, 1979; Neary, 2005; Rhoades et al., 2011). Despite the elevated concentrations in 2015, nutrient levels remained low and have not resulted in excessivealgal growth and/or associated taste and odor issues. Data collected from the Upper CLP monitoring program suggest that the Upper Poudre watershed remains on a path toward recovery. Naturally occurring metals are routinely detected at low concentrations in the North Fork and Mainstem. The most commonly detected metals in 2015 were aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and manganese (Mn). All of these metals were detected during snowmelt runoff and later in the season during baseflow conditions. Dissolved iron concentrations exceeded the secondary drinking water quality standard during snowmelt at PNF. The secondary drinking water quality standard for dissolved Mn was exceeded at NFG on October 13th. These exceedances did not cause any issues for water treatment. Total coliforms and E. coli exhibited a great degree of seasonal and annual variability. Total coliforms are commonly higher and more variable at NFG compared to sites on the Mainstem, but do not appear to have a big impact downstream on the Mainstem at PBD. E. coli counts at NFG were lower than the Mainstem. E. coli counts at NFG exceeded the CDPHE recreational water quality standard on June 9th. The exceedance was short- lived. 5.4 MONITORING AND PROTECTION EFFORTS IN 2016 Planned water quality monitoring and other related Upper CLP activities for 2016 are summarized below: x Routine Monitoring Program: Samples will continue to be analyzed for all parameters in 2016. The South Fork above Mainstem (SFM) site was not sampled in 2015 and has been replaced by the South Fork above Confluence (SFC) monitoring site. Statistical analysis conducted in early 2015 indicated that the two sites were comparable. x Emerging Contaminant Monitoring: The Cities of Fort Collins and Greeley will continue to participate in Northern Water’s Emerging Contaminants Program in 2016. Samples will be collected at PNF and NFG in February, June, and August. x Geosmin: Geosmin monitoring will continue on the Mainstem CLP in 2016 at two key sites (PBR and PNF) during routine sampling events. Sampling will also be conducted monthly through the winter at these locations UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 35 6.0 REFERENCES Billica, Loftis and Moore, 2008. Design of a Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Pogram for the Upper Cache la Poudre River. July 14, 2008. Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Commission, Regulation No. 93, 5 CCR 1002-93 (2016) Elmund, K., F. Schrupp, J. Cannon, S. Reed, 2013. Quality Assurance Plan, Internal Environmental Services Division Pollution Control & Water Quality Laboratories Document, City of Fort Collins, January 9, 2013, 36 pages. Heath, J, 2014. Little South Fork of the Cache la Poudre River Streamflow Monitoring Plan, Internal Water Production Report, February 28, 2014, 14 pages. Heath, J. and J. Oropeza, 2014. City of Fort Collins Utilities 2013 Horsetooth Reservoir Water Quality Monitoring Program Report Internal Water Production Report, 69 pages plus appendices. Hibbert, A.R, E.A. Davis, D.G. Scholl, 1974. Chaparral conversion potential in Arizona. Part I: Water yield response and effects on other resources. Res. Pap. RM-126. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 36 p. Neary, Daniel G.; Ryan, Kevin C.; DeBano, Leonard F., eds. 2005. (revised 2008). Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 p Northern Water, 2015. 2015 Emerging Contaminants Program Annual Report, Northern Water Emerging Contaminants Program, Northern Water, 29 pages. Oropeza, J., Billica, J. and K.Elmund. 2011. Navigating Uncharted Waters: Assessing Geosmin Occurrence in a Colorado Rocky Mountain Source Water River. In: Proceedings of the 2011© American Water Works Association AWWA WQTC Conference (Nov. 13-17, 2011, Phoenix, AZ). Oropeza, J., 2012. City of Fort Collins Utilities 2011 Annual Report for the Upper Cache la Poudre River Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program, Internal Water Production Report, 75 pages plus appendices. Oropeza, J. and J. Heath, 2013. City of Fort Collins Utilities Five Year Summary Report (2008-2012) Upper Cache la Poudre River Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program, Internal Water Production Report, August 20, 2013, 85 pages plus appendices. Oropeza, J. and J. Heath, 2014. City of Fort Collins Utilities 2013 Annual Report for the Upper Cache la Poudre River Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program, Internal Water Production Report, 69 pages plus appendices. Rhoades, C.C., D. Entwistle, D. Butler, 2011. The influence of wildfire extent and severity on streamwater chemistry, sediment and temperature following the 36 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 37 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE COMPARISON OF THE NORTH FORK AND MAINSTEM CLP (AREAS CALCULATED USING USGS SEAMLESS GIS DATA SETS) Land Use Comparison North Fork (acres) Main Stem (acres) North Fork Area (%) Main Stem Area (%) Developed land (commercial, industrial, residential, urban, and utilities) 2,817 1,945 0.8 0.7 Agricultural use and grassland (Cropland, pasture, other agriculture, scrub and grasses) 183,719 54,765 52.3 18.3 Forest (forest and brush) 154,654 213,879 44.1 71.5 Natural lands (exposed rock, bare ground, wetlands, tundra, lakes) 9,926 28,473 2.8 9.5 Total 351,116 299,062 100 100 38 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 39 ATTACHMENT 2 UPPER CLP COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM SAMPLING SITE MAIN STEM Description Rationale GPS Coordinates 100CHR Chambers Lake Outflow Outflow from Chambers Lake N 40° 36.039 W 105° 50.203 090BMR Barnes Meadow Reservoir outflow High TOC and nutrients compared to CHR N 40° 36.039 W 105° 50.203 080JWC Joe Wright Creek at Aspen Glen Campground Joe Wright Creek above confluence with main stem N 40° 37.233 W 105° 49.098 070PJW Poudre at Hwy14 crossing (Big South Trailhead) Above confluence Joe Wright Creek N 40° 38.074 W 105° 48.421 060LRT Laramie River at Tunnel at Hwy 14 crossing Laramie River diversion water N 40° 40.056 W 105° 48.067 050PBR Poudre below Rustic Midpoint between Laramie River Tunnel and South Fork; impacts to river from Rustic N 40° 41.967 W 105° 32.476 040SFM South Fork at bridge on Pingree Park Rd Only access point on South Fork; South Fork water quality differs from main stem N 40° 37.095 W 105° 31.535 041SFC South Fork above confluence with Mainstem Capture 15% more watershed area than SFM 030PSF Poudre below confluence with South Fork - Mile Marker 101 Below confluence with South Fork N 40° 41.224 W 105° 26.895 020PNF Poudre above North Fork 1/2 mile upstream from Old FC WTP#1 Represents water diverted at Munroe Tunnel and at Old FC WTP #1 N 40° 42.087 W 105° 14.484 010PBD Poudre at Bellvue Diversion Greeley WTP Intake N 40° 39.882 W 105° 12.995 NORTH FORK 280NDC North Fork above Halligan Reservoir; above confluence with Dale Creek Inflow to Halligan Reservoir N 40° 53.852’ W 105° 22.556’ 270NBH North Fork at USGS gage below Halligan Reservoir Outflow from Halligan Reservoir N 40° 52.654’ W 105° 20.314’ 260NRC North Fork above Rabbit Creek Main stem North Fork above Rabbit Creek; downstream of Phantom Canyon N 40° 49.640 W 105° 16.776 250RCM Rabbit Creek Mouth Tributary to North Fork; drainage area includes agricultural/grazing lands; significant flows late 40 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 41 ATTACHMENT 3 2015 UPPER CLP COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM PARAMETER LIST Rationale Notes Field Parameters Conductance Indicator of total dissolved solids. Profile at Seaman Reservoir Dissolved Oxygen Profile indicates stratification, importance for aquatic life and chemical processes. Profile at Seaman Reservoir Secchi Disk Measure of transparency. Seaman Reservoir only Temperature Reflects seasonality; affects biological and chemical processes; water quality standard. Profile at Seaman Reservoir pH Measure of acidity. General & Miscellaneous Parameters Alkalinity Indicator of carbonate species concentrations; Acid neutralizing capacity of water; treatment implications. Chlorophyll-a Reflects algal biomass. Seaman Reservoir only Discharge Necessary for flow dependant analysis and load estimation. Measured during sampling at NRC, RCM, SCM, PCM, PJW, SFM Hardness Treatment implications. Hard water causes scaling and soft water is considered corrosive. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Indicator of overall water quality; includes both ionic and non-ionic species. Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Important parameter for water treatment; precursor of disinfection byproducts. Turbidity Indicator of suspended material; important for water treatment. Nutrients Nitrogen, Ammonia Primary source of nitrogen to algae, indicator of pollution by sewage, septic tanks, agriculture; water quality standard. Nitrate Primary source of nitrogen to algae; indicator of pollution by sewage, septic tanks, agriculture; water quality standard. Nitrite Toxic inorganic nitrogen species; rarely encountered at significant concentrations; water quality standard. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Sum of organic nitrogen and ammonia. Ortho-Phosphorus (Soluble Reactive Phosphorus) Form of phosphorous (dissolved PO4 -3 ) most available to algae; indicator of pollution by sewage, septic tanks, agriculture. Total Phosphorus Includes dissolved and adsorbed, organic and inorganic forms of phosphorus, indicator of pollution by sewage, septic tanks, agriculture. 42 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM Major Ions Calcium Major ion. Monitor for two years at half frequency (6x/yr) Chloride Major ion. Monitor for two years at half frequency (6x/yr) Magnesium Major ion. Monitor for two years at half frequency (6x/yr) Potassium Major ion, minor importance as a nutrient. Monitor for two years at half frequency (6x/yr) Sodium Major ion. Monitor for two years at half frequency (6x/yr) Sulfate Major ion. Monitor for two years at half frequency (6x/yr) Microbiological Constituents E. Coli Indicator of human or animal waste contamination; water quality standard. Only from Rustic downstream, NFL, NFG, SER Total Coliform Indicator of human or animal waste contamination. Only from Rustic downstream, NFL, NFG, SER Cryptosporidium Pathogen, indicator of human or animal waste contamination. Above and below Halligan Reservoir, and below Seaman Reservoir Giardia Pathogen, Indicator of human or animal waste contamination. Above and below Halligan Reservoir, and below Seaman Res Algal Species Composition Shows presence of nuisance species and trophic state. Seaman Reservoir surface sample only Metals Cadmium, dissolved Indicator of pollution from mining activity at elevated levels; water quality standard. Only PNF & NFG (2x/yr) Chromium, dissolved Water quality standard. Only PNF & NFG (2x/yr) Copper, dissolved Water quality standard. Only PNF & NFG (2x/yr) Iron, Total Affects aesthetic quality of treated water. Only PNF & NFG (2x/yr) Iron, dissolved Affects aesthetic quality of treated water. Only PNF & NFG (2x/yr) Lead, dissolved Indicator of pollution from mining activity at elevated levels; water quality standard. Only PNF & NFG (2x/yr) Nickel, dissolved Indicator of pollution from mining activity at elevated levels; water quality standard. Only PNF & NFG (2x/yr) Silver, dissolved Indicator of pollution from mining activity at elevated levels. Only PNF & NFG (2x/yr) Zinc, dissolved Indicator of pollution from mining activity at elevated levels. Only PNF & NFG (2x/yr) Mercury, Low Level Accumulates in fish tissue even when present in very low concentrations. Sample every 3 to 5 yrs. UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 43 ATTACHMENT 4 UPPER CLP COLLABORATIVE WATERQUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 2015 SAMPLING PLAN 1 Grab samples taken at two depths (Top & Bottom); meter samples at 1-m intervals. 2 Call commissioner to find out if water is flow ing. If not flowing, skip sample. 3SFC = South Fork above Confluence w/ Mainstem, new site in 2014 to capture fire impacts. Blanks analyzed for NH3, NO3, TOC, TDS, NTU and Cl- 2015 Sampling Dates Apr 6-7 Apr 20-21 May 4-5 May 18-19 Jun 8-9 Jun 22-23 Jul 13-14 Aug 17-18 Sep 14-15 Oct 12-13 Nov 9-10 Station North Fork NDC F,G,P F,G,I,B F,G,P F,G,I F,G,P F,G,I F,G,P F,G,I,P F,G,P F,G,I,P F,G,I,P NBH F,G,P F,G,I F,G,P F,G,I F,G,P F,G,I F,G,P F,G,I,P F,G,P F,G,I,P F,G,I,P,B NRC F,G,D F,G,I,D F,G,D F,G,I,D F,G,D F,G,I,D,B F,G,D F,G,I,D F,G,D F,G,I,D F,G,I,D RCM G,D F,G,I,D F,G,D F,G,I,D F,G,D F,G,I,D ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- SCM G,D F,G,I,D F,G,D F,G,I,D F,G,D F,G,I,D ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- PCM G,D F,G,I,D F,G,D F,G,I,D F,G,D F,G,I,D ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- NFL F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I,B F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G,I NFG F,G,E,P F,G,I,E F,G,E,P F,G,I,M,E, F,G,E,P F,G,I,E, F,G,E,P F,G,I,E,P,B F,G,E,P F,G,I,M,P,E F,G,I,P,E Mainstem CHR F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G,I BMR2 F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G,I JWC F,G, B F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G,I PJW F,G,D F,G,I,D F,G,D F,G,I,D F,G,D F,G,I,D F,G,D F,G,I,D F,G,D F,G,I,D,B F,G,I,D LRT F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G F,G,I F,G,I PBR F,G,E,T F,G,I,E F,G,E,T, B F,G,I,E F,G,E,T F,G,I,E F,G,E,T F,G,I,E,T F,G,E,T F,G,I,E,T F,G,I,E,T SFM ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- SFC3 F,G,D F,G,I,D F,G,D F,G,I,D F,G,D,B F,G,I,D F,G,D F,G,I,D F,G,D F,G,I,D F,G,I,D PSF F,G,E F,G,I,E F,G,E F,G,I,E F,G,E F,G,I,E F,G,E F,G,I,E F,G,E F,G,I,E F,G,I,E PNF F,G,E,T, 2 F,G,I,E,2 F,G,E,T,2 F,G,I,E,M,2 F,G,E,T,2 F,G,I,E,2 F,G,E,T,2 F,G,I,E,T,2 F,G,E,T,2 F,G,I,E,M,T,2 F,G,I,E,T,2 PBD F,G,E F,G,I,E F,G,E F,G,I,E F,G,E F,G,I,E F,G,E,B F,G,I,E F,G,E F,G,I,E F,G,I,E Reservoir SER1 F,G,A,C,E ---------- F,G,A,C,E ---------- F,G,A,C,E ---------- F,G,A,C,E F,G,I,A,C,E F,G,A,C,E,B F,G,I,A,C,E F,G,I,A,C,E 2 = Duplicate, A = Algae (Lugol’s); B=Blank, C = Chlorophyll (500 mL sample); D = Flow; F = Field data (Temp, pH, conductance streams + Secchi, DO for lake); G = 1 liter sample for general, nutrients, TOC; E = E. coli, coliform (500 mL sterile bottle); I = Major ions; M = Metals; P = Giardia/Cryptosporidium; T=Geosmin 44 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 45 ATTACHMENT 5 ANALYTICAL METHODS, REPORTING LIMITS, SAMPLE PRESERVATION, AND HOLDING TIMES Parameter Method Reporting Preser- Holding Limit vation Time Micro- Total Coliform, E.coli - QT SM 9223 B 0 cool, 4C 6 hrs biological Giardia & Cryptosporidium (CH Diagnostics) EPA 1623 0 cool, 4C 4 days Algae I.D. (Phyto Finders) SM 10200E.3, SM 10200F.2c1 Lugol's Solution, cool, 4C 12 mo General & Alkalinity, as CaCO3 SM 2320 B 2 mg/L cool, 4C 14 days Misc. Chlorophyll a SM10200H modified 0.6 ug/L cool, 4C 48 hrs Hardness, as CaCO3 SM 2340 C 2 mg/L none 28 days Specific Conductance SM 2510 B cool, 4C 28 days Total Dissolved Solids SM 2540 C 10 mg/L cool, 4C 7 days Turbidity (NTU) SM2130B,EPA180.1 0.01 units cool, 4C 48 hrs Nutrients Ammonia - N Lachat 10-107-06-2C 0.01 mg/L H2SO 4 28 days Nitrate EPA 300 (IC) 0.04 mg/L cool, 4C (eda) 48 hrs Nitrite EPA 300 (IC) 0.04 mg/L cool, 4C (eda) 48 hrs Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen EPA 351.2 0.1 mg/L H2SO 4 pH<2 28 days Phosphorus, Total SM 4500-P B5,F 0.01 mg/L H2SO 4 pH<2 28 days Phosphorus, Ortho SM 4500-P B1,F 0.005 mg/L filter, cool 4C 48 hrs Major Ions Calcium EPA 200.8 0.05 mg/L HNO3 pH <2 6 mos Chloride EPA 300 (IC) 1.0 mg/L none (eda) 28 days Magnesium, flame EPA 200.8 0.2 mg/L HNO3 pH <2 6 mos Potassium EPA 200.8 0.2 mg/L HNO3 pH <2 6 mos Sodium, flame EPA 200.8 0.4 mg/L HNO3 pH <2 6 mos Sulfate EPA 300 (IC) 5.0 mg/L cool, 4C (eda) 28 days Metals Cadmium EPA 200.8 0.1 ug/L HNO3 pH <2 6 mos Chromium EPA 200.8 0.5 ug/L HNO3 pH <2 6 mos Copper EPA 200.8 3 ug/L HNO3 pH <2 6 mos Iron, (total & dissolved) EPA 200.8 10 ug/L HNO3 pH <2 6 mos Lead EPA 200.8 1 ug/L HNO3 pH <2 6 mos Nickel EPA 200.8 2 ug/L HNO3 pH <2 6 mos Silver EPA 200.8 0.5 ug/L HNO3 pH <2 6 mos Zinc EPA 200.8 50 ug/L HNO3 pH <2 6 mos TOC TOC SM 5310 C 0.5 mg/L H3PO 4pH <2 28 days Analysis conducted by City of Fort Collins Water Quality Lab (FCWQL), unless otherwise noted. Reporting Limit = lowest reportable number based on the lowest calibration standard routinely used. 46 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 47 ATTACHMENT 6 2015 SEAMAN RESERVOIR PHYTOPLANKTON DATA 48 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 49 Phytoplankton Densities (cells/mL) = geosmin producing species 6/9/2015 CYANOPHYTA (blue-green algae) top bottom bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom Anabaena inaequalis Anabaena sp. Aphanizomenon flos-aquae 9480.0 34.4 324.4 12.0 126.8 80.0 Aphanocapsa conferta 375.0 9375.0 Aphanocapsa delicatissima 1500.0 750.0 Aphanocapsa holsatica 20.0 Aphanocapsa sp. Aphanothece clathrata Aphanothece smithii 2625.0 750.0 16250.0 3000.0 2500.0 800.0 1000.0 Coelosphaerium aerugineum 10.4 Cuspidothrix issatschenkoi Cyanobium sp. 500.0 250.0 Dactylococcopsis acicularis Dactylococcopsis sp. 40.0 Dolichospermum (Anabaena) flos-aquae 1050.0 Dolichospermum (Anabaena crassa) crassum 689.6 160.0 8.8 3.2 Dolichospermum (Anabaena) lemmermannii Dolichospermum (Anabaena planctonica) planctonicum 84.0 10.4 Geitlerinema sp. Gloeotrichia echinulata Jaaginema sp. Limnothrix sp. Lyngbya birgei 10.4 Merismopedia sp. Merismopedia tenuissima Microcystis flos-aquae Microcystis wesenbergii Myxobaktron hirudiforme Oscillatoria tenuis Planktolyngbya limnetica 20640.0 2100.0 2140.0 Planktothrix agardhii Pseudanabaena limnetica 10.0 Pseudanabaena mucicola Pseudanabaena sp. 3.2 Rhabdogloea smithii Romeria leopoliensis Romeria sp. 8/18/2015 9/15/2015 10/13/2015 SAMPLING DATE 4/21/2015 7/14/2015 11/10/2015 50 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM CYANOPHYTA (blue-green algae) continued top bottom bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom Snowella litoralis Synechococcus capitatus Synechococcus nidulans 125.0 Synechocystis sp. Woronichinia naegeliana 628.0 80.0 343.2 1760.0 600.0 TOTAL CYANOPHYTA 45,260 0 42,914 58,989 3,000 42,924 20,890 64,539 4,714 43,777 46 45,958 2,820 CHRYSOPHYTA (golden-brown algae) top bottom bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom Chromulina parvula 875.0 2500.0 62.5 250.0 Chrysococcus sp. Dinobryon bavaricum 0.8 Dinobryon cylindricum var. alpinum 4.0 0.8 Dinobryon cylindricum Dinobryon cylindricum var. palustre Dinobryon divergens 158.4 59.2 1.2 0.2 Dinobryon sociale var. americanum statospore of Dinobryon Mallomonas akrokomos Mallomonas caudata Mallomonas sp. cyst of Mallomonas sp. Ochromonas minuscula Synura petersenii Uroglenopsis americana TOTAL CHRYSOPHYTA 1,037 2,561 63 1 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 XANTHOPHYTA Gloeobotrys limneticus UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 51 6/9/2015 BACILLARIOPHYTA (diatoms) top bottom bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom Amphora sp. Asterionella formosa 332.0 124.8 124.4 14.4 62.0 40.0 2.4 170.8 600.0 Aulacoseira ambigua 3.2 383.6 Aulacoseira granulata var. angustissima 65.6 16.0 4.4 478.0 130.4 76.0 120.0 292.4 263.6 Aulacoseira granulata Aulacoseira italica 18.4 8.8 18.4 4.0 2.4 8.0 Aulacoseira italica var. tenuissima 84.8 137.6 21.6 Aulacoseira subarctica Cyclostephanos sp. Cymatopleura solea Diatoma anceps Diatoma moniliformis Diatoma tenuis Discostella glomerata Discostella pseudostelligera Discostella stelligera 60.0 Fragilaria crotonensis 70.4 14.4 38.4 324.4 10.4 615.0 58.0 113.6 42.8 1021 604.0 Fragilaria sp. Gomphonema sphaerophorum Gyrosigma acuminatum Melosira varians 0.8 Navicula capitatoradiata 0.2 Navicula lanceolata Navicula rhynchocephala Navicula tripunctata Nitzschia archibaldii Nitzschia draveillensis 0.4 Nitzschia fonticola Nitzschia gracilis Nitzschia linearis Nitzschia nana Nitzschia sigma Nitzschia sp. Nitzschia supralitorea Punticulata bodanica 0.8 1.6 0.4 Stephanocyclus meneghiniana Phytoplankton Densities (cells/mL) SAMPLING DATE 4/21/2015 7/14/2015 8/18/2015 9/15/2015 10/13/2015 11/10/2015 52 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 6/9/2015 BACILLARIOPHYTA (diatoms) continued top bottom bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom Stephanodiscus medius 1.2 Stephanodiscus niagarae 0.4 2.0 27.6 4.0 462.5 437.5 Stephanodiscus parvus 2800.0 120.0 20.0 20.0 Synedra acus Synedra cyclopum Synedra delicatissima var. angustissima Synedra radians Synedra rumpens var. familiaris Synedra rumpens Synedra tenera Synedra ulna var. danica Synedra ulna var. subaequalis 0.4 1.2 Synedra ulna Tabellaria fenestrata 1.6 Urosolenia eriensis TOTAL BACILLARIOPHYTA 507 291 44 3,407 70 355 17 1,277 196 277 170 1,967 1,906 HAPTOPHYTA Chrysochromulina parva 850.0 30.0 380.0 280.0 CRYPTOPHYTA Chroomonas coerulea 2.4 Chroomonas nordstedtii 6.0 Cryptomonas borealis 21.2 93.2 9.2 15.0 Cryptomonas curvata 6.8 20.4 5.2 3.0 0.2 Cryptomonas erosa Cryptomonas marsonii 0.4 2.0 Goniomonas truncata Hemiselmis sp. Komma caudata 50.0 Plagioselmis nannoplanctica 1600.0 440.0 2240.0 110.0 80.0 cyst of Cryptomonas TOTAL CRYPTOPHYTA 78 0 0 1713.6 0 460.8 0 2258 0.2 114.4 0 80 0 Phytoplankton Densities (cells/mL) SAMPLING DATE 4/21/2015 7/14/2015 8/18/2015 9/15/2015 10/13/2015 11/10/2015 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 53 6/9/2015 DINOPHYTA top bottom bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom Ceratium hirundinella 0.4 3.0 16.4 0.4 Gymnodinium aeruginosum Gymnodinium fuscum Peridinium lomnickii Peridinium willei Tovellia (Woloszynskia) coronata 0.8 TOTAL DINOPHYTA 00010003016000 EUGLENOPHYTA Euglena sp. Euglena viridis Lepocinclis acus Lepocinclis oxyuris Trachelomonas dybowskii Trachelomonas hispida Trachelomonas volvocina TOTAL EUGLENOPHYTA 0000000000000 PRASINOPHYTA Monomastrix sp. Pyramimonas sp. Scourfieldia sp. Tetraselmis cordiformis TOTAL PRASINOPHYTA 0000000000000 CHLOROPHYTA (green algae) Acutodesmus acuminatus Acutodesmus dimorphus Ankistrodesmus falcatus Ankyra judayi 20.0 140.0 800.0 8.0 20.0 2.0 Botryococcus braunii Chlamydomonas dinobryonis Chlamydomonas globosa 10.0 Chlamydomonas snowiae Chlamydomonas sp. 1 Chlamydomonas sp. 2 60.0 10/13/2015 11/10/2015 Phytoplankton Densities (cells/mL) SAMPLING DATE 4/21/2015 7/14/2015 8/18/2015 9/15/2015 54 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 6/9/2015 CHLOROPHYTA (green algae) continued top bottom bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom Chlamydomonas tetragama Chlorella minutissima 625.0 1750.0 125.0 Chlorella sp. Chloromonas sp. Choricystis minor 250.0 750.0 7875.0 8375.0 1625.0 10000.0 2250.0 6250.0 Closterium aciculare 0.2 0.2 Closterium acutum var. variabile 0.4 0.4 Closterium dianae Closterium moniliferum 0.8 Coelastrum indicum Coelastrum pseudomicroporum Coelastrum pulchrum 6.4 5.6 12.8 Coenochloris fottii 5.6 152.0 8.8 Cosmarium bioculatum Cosmarium candianum Cosmarium depressum var. achondrum Desmodesmus armatus Desmodesmus bicaudatus Desmodesmus communis Desmodesmus intermedius var. balatonicus Dictyosphaerium pulchellum var. minutum Elakatothrix viridis 5.6 0.4 Eudorina elegans 12.0 19.2 Gonatozygon kinahanii Heimansia pusilla Keratococcus sp. Kirchneriella obesa Micractinium pusillum Monoraphidium contortum Monoraphidium minutum Monoraphidium sp. Mougeotia sp. Nephrocytium limneticum Oocystis apiculata Oocystis borgei 8.0 1.6 Oocystis parva Phytoplankton Densities (cells/mL) SAMPLING DATE 4/21/2015 7/14/2015 8/18/2015 9/15/2015 10/13/2015 11/10/2015 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 55 6/9/2015 CHLOROPHYTA (green algae) continued top bottom bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom Oocystis pusilla Pandorina charkowiensis Pandorina smithii 7.2 Pediastrum boryanum 3.6 Pediastrum duplex Pediastrum tetras Pseudodictyosphaerium elegans Pseudodictyosphaerium sp. Pseudodidymocystis planctonica Quadrigula sp. Raphidocelis contorta Raphidocelis sp. Scenedesmus arcuatus Scenedesmus ellipticus Schroederia setigera 120.0 20.0 Staurastrum planctonicum 1.2 2.0 0.2 3.2 1.2 3.6 1.2 Tetraedron minimum Tetraspora lemmermannii Volvox sp. TOTAL CHLOROPHYTA 631 1,750 1 80 250 1,033 7,875 942 8,390 1,802 10,007 2,325 6,254 Phytoplankton Densities (cells/mL) SAMPLING DATE 4/21/2015 7/14/2015 8/18/2015 9/15/2015 10/13/2015 11/10/2015 56 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 57 ATTACHMENT 7 2015 UPPER CLP COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM GRAPHICAL SUMMARY 58 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 59 MAINSTEM & NORTH FORK CLP WATERSHEDS GENERAL PARAMETERS 60 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 61 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 25 20 15 10 5 0 degrees Celsius 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Temperature on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 25 20 15 10 5 0 degrees Celsius 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood NDC NBH NRC RC M 62 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 pH 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) pH on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 pH 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 63 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1000 100 10 uS/cm 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Specific Conductance on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1000 100 10 uS/cm 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M NFL NFG Site b) Specific Conductance on the North Fork CLP 64 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1000 100 10 mg/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Hardness on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1000 100 10 mg/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M NFL NFG Site b) Hardness on the North Fork CLP UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 65 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1000 100 10 mg/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Alkalinity on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1000 100 10 mg/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M NFL NFG Site b) Alkalinity on the North Fork CLP 66 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1000 100 10 1 0.1 NTU 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Turbidity on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1000 100 10 1 0.1 NTU 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 67 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 mg/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 mg/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood 68 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 20 15 10 5 0 mg/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 20 15 10 5 0 mg/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 69 MAINSTEM & NORTH FORK CLP WATERSHEDS NUTRIENTS 70 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 71 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 mg/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Ammonia as Nitrogen (NH3-N) on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 mg/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M 72 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 mg/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Nitrate as Nitrogen (NO3-N) on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 73 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 mg/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Nitrite as Nitrogen (NO2-N) on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 mg/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M 74 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 10 1 0.1 mg/L N 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 10 1 0.1 mg/L N 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M NFL NFG Site b) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) on the North Fork CLP UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 75 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 10 1 0.1 mg/L N 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Total nitrogen (TN) on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 10 1 0.1 mg/L N 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M NFL NFG Site b) Total nitrogen (TN) on the North Fork CLP 76 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 100 10 1 ug/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Ortho-phosphate (PO4) on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 100 10 1 ug/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M NFL NFG Site b) Ortho-phosphate (PO4) on the North Fork CLP UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 77 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1000 100 10 ug/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Total Phosphorus (TP) on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1000 100 10 ug/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M NFL NFG Site b) Total Phosphorus (TP) on the North Fork CLP 78 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 79 MAINSTEM & NORTH FORK CLP WATERSHEDS MAJOR IONS 80 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 81 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 mg/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Calcium (Ca) on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 82 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 9/1/2011 5/1/2011 1/1/2011 20 15 10 5 0 mg/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Magnesium (Mg) on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 9/1/2011 5/1/2011 1/1/2011 20 15 10 5 0 mg/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; NDC NBH NRC UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 83 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 9/1/2011 5/1/2011 1/1/2011 4 3 2 1 0 mg/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Potassium (K) on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 9/1/2011 5/1/2011 1/1/2011 4 3 2 1 0 mg/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood 84 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 20 15 10 5 0 mg/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Sodium (Na) on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 20 15 10 5 0 mg/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 85 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 40 30 20 10 0 mg/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Sulfate (SO4) on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 40 30 20 10 0 mg/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M 86 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 40 30 20 10 0 mg/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; PNF PBD CHR BMR JWC PJW LRT PSF SFM SFC PBR Site a) Chloride (Cl) on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 40 30 20 10 0 mg/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 87 MAINSTEM & NORTH FORK CLP WATERSHEDS MICROBIOLOGICAL 88 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 89 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1000 100 10 1 cfu/100 mL 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; PNF PBD PSF PBR Site a) E. coli on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1000 100 10 1 cfu/100 mL 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; NFL NFG Site b) E. coli on the North Fork CLP ( Recreational water quality standard: 126 cfu/100 mL) (- - - - FCWQL Reporting Limit; 0 cfu/100 ml) 90 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 10000 1000 100 10 1 cfu/100 mL 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood PNF PBD PSF PBR Site a) Total coliforms on the Mainstem CLP 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 10000 1000 100 10 1 cfu/100 mL 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood NFL NFG Site b) Total coliforms on the North Fork CLP (- - - - FCWQL Reporting Limit; 0 cfu/100 ml) UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 91 SEAMAN RESERVOIR DEPTH PROFILES 92 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 93 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18 Temp °C depth (m) 4/21/16 6/9/16 7/14/16 8/18/16 9/15/16 10/13/16 11/10/16 Month 0 2 4 6 8 10 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18 DO mg/L depth (m) ----- Water quality standard for cold water aquatic life: 22.5 degrees C ----- Water quality standard for cold water aquatic life: 6.0 mg/L D.O. 94 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18 pH depth (m) 100 150 200 250 300 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18 SpCond μS/cm depth (m) UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 95 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18 NTU depth (m) 96 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 97 SEAMAN RESERVOIR GENERAL PARAMETERS 98 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 99 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 250 200 150 100 50 0 mg/L CaCO3 Top Bottom Location Alkalinity in Seaman Reservoir (SER) 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 9/1/2011 5/1/2011 1/1/2011 250 200 150 100 50 0 mg/L Top Bottom Location Hardness in Seaman Reservoir (SER) 100 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 40 30 20 10 0 NTU Top Bottom Location Turbidity in Seaman Reservoir (SER) 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 250 200 150 100 50 mg/L Top Bottom Location Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in Seaman Reservoir (SER) UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 101 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 200 150 100 50 0 ug/L Top Bottom Location Chlorophyll-a in Seaman Reservoir (SER) 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 mg/L Top Bottom Location Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in Seaman Reservoir (SER) 102 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 103 SEAMAN RESERVOIR NUTRIENTS 104 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 105 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 mg/L N Top Bottom Location Ammonia as nitrogen (NH3-N) in Seaman Reservoir (SER) 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 mg/L N Top Bottom Location Nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N) in Seaman Reservoir (SER) (- - - - FCWQL Reporting Limit; 0.01 mg/L) (- - - - FCWQL Reporting Limit; 0.04 mg/L) 106 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 mg/L N Top Bottom Location Nitrite as nitrogen (NO2-N) in Seaman Reservoir (SER) 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 mg/L N Top Bottom Location Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) in Seaman Reservoir (SER) (- - - - FCWQL Reporting Limit; 0.04 mg/L) (- - - - FCWQL Reporting Limit; 0.100 mg/L) UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 107 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 mg/L N Top Bottom Location Total Nitrogen (TKN + NO3-N + NO2-N) in Seaman Reservoir (SER) 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 200 150 100 50 0 ug/L Top Bottom Location Ortho-phosphate (PO4) in Seaman Reservoir (SER) (- - - - FCWQL Reporting Limit; 5 ug/L) 108 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 ug/L Top Bottom Location Total Phosphorus (TP) in Seaman Reservoir (SER) (- - - - FCWQL Reporting Limit; 0.010 mg/L) UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 109 SEAMAN RESERVOIR MAJOR IONS 110 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 111 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 50 40 30 20 10 mg/L Top Bottom Location Calcium (Ca) in Seaman Reservoir (SER) 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 40 30 20 10 0 mg/L Top Bottom Location Magnesium (Mg) in Seaman Reservoir (SER) 112 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 mg/L Bottom Top Location Potassium (K) in Seaman Reservoir (SER) 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 50 40 30 20 10 0 mg/L Top Bottom Location Sodium (Na) in Seaman Reservoir (SER) UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 113 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 mg/L Top Bottom Location Chloride (Cl) in Seaman Reservoir (SER) 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 mg/L Top Bottom Location Sulfate (SO4) in Seaman Reservoir (SER) (- - - - FCWQL Reporting Limit; 5 mg/L) 114 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 115 MAINSTEM & NORTH FORK CLP WATERSHEDS MICROBIOLOGICAL 116 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 117 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 cfu/100 mL Top Bottom Location E. coli in Seaman Reservoir (SER) 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 cfu/100 mL Top Bottom Location Total coliforms in Seaman Reservoir (SER) ( Recreational water quality standard: 126 cfu/100 mL) 118 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 119 ATTACHMENT 8 2015 UPPER CLP COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM QUALITY ASSURANCE QUALITY CONTROL 120 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 121 UCLP MAINSTEM AND NORTH FORK FIELD BLANKSAND LAB FILTER BLANKS 122 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 123 1/1/2016 12/1/2015 11/1/2015 10/1/2015 9/1/2015 8/1/2015 7/1/2015 6/1/2015 5/1/2015 4/1/2015 3/1/2015 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 mg/L DL F ield Blank - Mainstem F ilter Blank-Mainstem F ilter Blank-North Fork Sodium (Na) 1/1/2016 12/1/2015 11/1/2015 10/1/2015 9/1/2015 8/1/2015 7/1/2015 6/1/2015 5/1/2015 4/1/2015 3/1/2015 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 mg/L DL Field Blank - North Fork F ield Blank - Mainstem F ilter Blank-Mainstem F ilter Blank-North Fork Calcium (Ca) 124 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1/1/2016 12/1/2015 11/1/2015 10/1/2015 9/1/2015 8/1/2015 7/1/2015 6/1/2015 5/1/2015 4/1/2015 3/1/2015 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 -0.05 mg/L DL F ield Blank - Mainstem F ilter Blank-Mainstem F ilter Blank-North Fork Potassium (K) 1/1/2016 12/1/2015 11/1/2015 10/1/2015 9/1/2015 8/1/2015 7/1/2015 6/1/2015 5/1/2015 4/1/2015 3/1/2015 0.2 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 mg/L DL F ield Blank - Mainstem F ilter Blank-Mainstem F ilter Blank-North Fork Magnessium (Mg) UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 125 1/1/2016 12/1/2015 11/1/2015 10/1/2015 9/1/2015 8/1/2015 7/1/2015 6/1/2015 5/1/2015 4/1/2015 3/1/2015 5 4 3 2 1 0 mg/L DL F ield Blank - Mainstem F ilter Blank-Mainstem F ilter Blank-North Fork Sulfate (SO4) 1/1/2016 12/1/2015 11/1/2015 10/1/2015 9/1/2015 8/1/2015 7/1/2015 6/1/2015 5/1/2015 4/1/2015 3/1/2015 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 mg/L DL Field Blank - North Fork F ield Blank - Mainstem F ilter Blank-Mainstem F ilter Blank-North Fork Chloride (Cl) 126 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1/1/2016 12/1/2015 11/1/2015 10/1/2015 9/1/2015 8/1/2015 7/1/2015 6/1/2015 5/1/2015 4/1/2015 3/1/2015 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 mg/L N DL Field Blank - North Fork F ield Blank - Mainstem F ilter Blank-Mainstem F ilter Blank-North Fork Nitrate as Nitrogen (NO3-N) 1/1/2016 12/1/2015 11/1/2015 10/1/2015 9/1/2015 8/1/2015 7/1/2015 6/1/2015 5/1/2015 4/1/2015 3/1/2015 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 mg/L N DL F ield Blank - Mainstem F ilter Blank-Mainstem F ilter Blank-North Fork Nitrite as Nitrogen (NO2-N) UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 127 1/1/2016 12/1/2015 11/1/2015 10/1/2015 9/1/2015 8/1/2015 7/1/2015 6/1/2015 5/1/2015 4/1/2015 3/1/2015 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 mg/L N DL Field Blank - North Fork F ield Blank - Mainstem F ilter Blank-Mainstem F ilter Blank-North Fork Ammonia as Nitrogen (NH3-N) 1/1/2016 12/1/2015 11/1/2015 10/1/2015 9/1/2015 8/1/2015 7/1/2015 6/1/2015 5/1/2015 4/1/2015 3/1/2015 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 NTU DL Field Blank - North Fork F ield Blank - Mainstem Turbidity 128 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 1/1/2016 12/1/2015 11/1/2015 10/1/2015 9/1/2015 8/1/2015 7/1/2015 6/1/2015 5/1/2015 4/1/2015 3/1/2015 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 mg/L DL Field Blank - North Fork F ield Blank - Mainstem Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 1/1/2016 12/1/2015 11/1/2015 10/1/2015 9/1/2015 8/1/2015 7/1/2015 6/1/2015 5/1/2015 4/1/2015 3/1/2015 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 mg/L DL Field Blank - North Fork F ield Blank - Mainstem Total Organic Carbon (TOC) UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 129 UCLP MAINSTEM PNF DUPLICATES 130 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 131 10 20 30 40 50 50 40 30 20 10 NORM DUPE Hardness abs mean = 0.42 mg/L p = 0.97 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.020 0.015 0.010 0.005 NORM DUPE NH3 abs mean = 0.002 mg/L p = 0.35 132 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 NORM DUPE NTU abs mean = 0.37 NTU p = 0.84 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 NORM DUPE o-Phos abs mean = 1.06 ug/L p = 0.80 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 133 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 NORM DUPE TDS abs mean = 7.36 mg/L p = 0.86 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 NORM DUPE TKN abs mean = 0.04 mg/L p = 0.84 134 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 0 2 4 6 8 10 10 8 6 4 2 0 NORM DUPE TOC abs mean = 0.03 mg/L 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 NORM DUPE TPHOS abs mean = 1.43 ug/L p = 0.84 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 135 UCLP EXO MULTI-PARAMETER SONDE 136 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 137 5/1/2015 6/1/2015 7/1/2015 8/1/2015 9/1/2015 10/1/2015 11/1/2015 0.2 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 diff 0.2 0 -0.2 pH 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.1 EXO pH Lab pH Scatterplot of Lab vs EXO abs mean = 0.09 138 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 5/1/2015 6/1/2015 7/1/2015 8/1/2015 9/1/2015 10/1/2015 11/1/2015 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 diff -1 0 1 Temp 8 10 12 14 16 18 18 16 14 12 10 8 EXO T emp (deg C) LabTemp(degC) abs mean = 0.55 deg C Lab vs EXO UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 139 5/1/2015 6/1/2015 7/1/2015 8/1/2015 9/1/2015 10/1/2015 11/1/2015 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 diff -0.5 0 0.5 NTU 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 EXO Turbidity (NTU) Lab Turbidity (NTU) abs mean = 0.33 NTU Lab vs EXO 140 UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 5/1/2015 6/1/2015 7/1/2015 8/1/2015 9/1/2015 10/1/2015 11/1/2015 5.0 2.5 0.0 -2.5 -5.0 diff 5 0 -5 Specific Conductivity 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 EXO Conductivity (uS/cm) Lab Conductivity (uS/cm) abs mean = 2.93 uS/cm Lab vs EXO UPPER CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER COLLABORATIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 141 5/1/2015 6/1/2015 7/1/2015 8/1/2015 9/1/2015 10/1/2015 11/1/2015 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 diff -0.2 0.2 0 Dissolved Oxygen 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 EXO DO (mg/L) Lab DO (mg/L) Scatterplot of Lab vs EXO abs mean = 0.16 mg/L 1 Area # Program Goal Metric Status Water Quality Monitoring 1 Upper Cache la Poudre (CLP) Monitoring Monitor water quality trends relevant to water treatment and indicative of Poudre River watershed health Chemical (e.g. alkalinity) Physical (e.g. dissolved oxygen) Microbiological (e.g. giardia) (11x/yr) Collaborators: Fort Collins, Greeley, Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Authority 2 Horsetooth Reservoir Monitoring Monitor water quality trends relevant to water treatment and indicative of Horsetooth watershed health Chemical (e.g. TOC) Physical (e.g. temp. depth profiles) Algal (e.g. phytoplankton, chlorophyll) (8x/yr) Collaborators: Fort Collins, Northern Water 3 Big Thompson Watershed Forum (BTWF) Monitor water quality trends relevant to water treatment and indicative of Big Thompson River watershed health Chemical (e.g. alkalinity) Physical (e.g. dissolved oxygen) Microbiological (e.g. giardia) (11x/yr) Collaborators: USGS, Loveland, Greeley, Fort Collins, Northern Water, Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Authority 4 Northern Water Emerging Contaminants Program Maintain baseline data of low-level compounds in the C-BT system that are indicative of upstream wastewater treatment, recreation, and/or land management, including Horsetooth Reservoir and Poudre River. Pharmaceuticals Personal care products Herbicides/pesticides Hormones (2x/yr) Collaborators: Northern Water, Boulder, Fort Collins, Greeley, Longmont, Loveland, Estes Park, Broomfield 5 Special Issues of Concern Taste & Odor occurrence, Wildfire effects, TOC characterization, cyanobacteria screening; early warning water quality alert system Geosmin, Metals, Disinfection By- 2 Utilities Watershed Program Staff: Jill Oropeza Jared Heath Watershed Program Manager Watershed Specialist joropeza@fcgov.com jheath@fcgov.com Watershed Protection 7 Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed (CPRW) Identify, prioritize and restore areas within the Poudre River watershed in need of post-fire restoration or future wildfire risk mitigation Poudre Watershed Resiliency Plan; Acres treated for forest fuels reduction; Number of erosion control / restoration projects Reserved Seat Funders: Fort Collins, Greeley Other Studies 8 Poudre River Monitoring Alliance (PRMA) Assist wastewater dischargers meet regulatory requirements for effluent and ambient water quality monitoring on the lower Poudre River from Fort Collins to below Greeley Chemical (e.g. nutrients) Physical (e.g. dissolved oxygen) Biological (e.g. aquatic macroinvertebrates,fish) (4x/yr) Collaborators: CSU, Fort Collins, Boxelder Sanitation District, South Fort Collins Sanitation District, Carestream, Windsor, Leprino Foods, Greeley 9 Halligan Reservoir Project: North Fork Poudre River and Reservoir Water Quality Monitoring Assist Water Resources Division with data collection for water quality studies in support of Halligan modeling and permitting processes Real-time temperature measurement (7 North Fork sites; reservoir profile) Metals, nutrients, general chem. (8x/yr) FC Lead: Water Resources Division; Support: Watershed Program 10 Rigden Reservoir Water Quality Monitoring Assist Water Resources Division with data collection for water quality studies in support of Rigden operational refinement Shoreline samples (chemical, physical); 1 April 25, 2017 Utilities Watershed Program Jill Oropeza, Watershed Program Manager ATTACHMENT 4 Direction Sought This presentation is for informational purposes. We are not seeking direction from Council at this time regarding the specific work projects. However, general input on the Watershed Program, its focus areas and future direction is welcomed. 2 3 Watershed Services Watershed Program Policy Guidance 4 • Fort Collins Drinking Water Quality Policy (1993) • Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (2012) • 2016 Strategic Plan – Environmental Health Watershed Program Mission 5 • Water quality monitoring programs • Watershed protection activities • Internal support for water quality-related studies 6 Horsetooth Reservoir Outlet Poudre River Intake FC Water Treatment Facility Fort Collins Source Watersheds 7 Water Quality Monitoring and Collaboration • Upper Cache la Poudre Collaborative Water Quality Monitoring Program • Horsetooth Reservoir Water Quality Monitoring Program 8 • Big Thompson Watershed Forum • Special studies & Issues of concern Water Quality Monitoring and Collaboration Source Water Quality Monitoring 9 Watershed Protection Source Water Protection Plan (SWPP, 2016) A roadmap for watershed protection Priority Issues • Forest health: wildfires • Historical and active mines 10 Watershed Protection Forest Health: Wildfires • Priority Treatment Areas - Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed (CPRW) Poudre Watershed Resiliency Plan (2016) • Protect infrastructure and facilities in the watershed • Maintain early-warning alert system for water treatment facility 11 Water Quality Studies Lower Poudre River Monitoring 12 Founding member of Poudre River Monitoring Alliance (PRMA) 13 Reservoir Water Quality Water Quality Studies Halligan Project Continuous Temperature Monitoring North Fork Poudre Water Quality 14 Water Resources Vulnerability Study State of the Poudre River Health Assessment 15 • Natural Areas and Utilities joint project • Holistic health assessment from lower Poudre Canyon to I-25 • To understand current and future stresses on the River • Technical report, river report card, and online GIS mapping tool • Public release event in May 2017 Collaboration • Northern Water 16 • City of Greeley • Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Authority • City of Loveland • Larimer County • Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed (CPRW) • USGS • Carestream Health • Colorado State University • Town of Windsor • Boxelder Sanitation District • Leprino Foods Direction Sought This presentation is for informational purposes. We are not seeking direction from Council at this time regarding the specific work projects. However, general input on the Watershed Program, its focus areas and future direction is welcomed. 17 Thank you Upper Cache la Poudre River Jill Oropeza Watershed Program Manager 970-416-2529 joropeza@fcgov.com fcgov.com/source-water-monitoring Reservoir depth profiles; Reservoir top & bottom samples (chemical, physical) (8x/yr) FC Lead: Water Resources Division; Support: Watershed Program Product formation potential, water quality alert system (turbidity) As-needed only Collaborators: Varies Watershed Protection 6 Forest Fuels Treatments/ Wildfire Risk mitigation Reduce the risks of large scale, high severity wildfires on water quality of the City’s source water supplies and to key water supply infrastructure. Source Water Protection Plan (2016); Key Facilities Treated; Number of priority acres treated annually 2017 Utilities Watershed Program Overview ATTACHMENT 3 NFL NFG Site b) Chloride (Cl) on the North Fork CLP NFL NFG Site b) Sulfate (SO4) on the North Fork CLP NFL NFG Site b) Sodium (Na) on the North Fork CLP NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M NFL NFG Site b) Potassium (K) on the North Fork CLP RC M SC M PC M NFL NFG Site b) Magnesium (Mg) on the North Fork CLP mg/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M NFL NFG Site b) Calcium (Ca) on the North Fork CLP (- - - - FCWQL Reporting Limit; 10 μg/L) (- - - - FCWQL Reporting Limit; 5 μg/L) (- - - - FCWQL Reporting Limit; 0.10 mg/L) (- - - - FCWQL Reporting Limit; 0.100 mg/L) NFL NFG Site b) Nitrite as Nitrogen (NO2-N) on the North Fork CLP (- - - - FCWQL Reporting Limit; 0.04 mg/L) 0.2 0.0 mg/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M NFL NFG Site b) Nitrate as Nitrogen (NO3-N) on the North Fork CLP (- - - - FCWQL Reporting Limit; 0.04 mg/L) NFL NFG Site b) Ammonia as Nitrogen (NH3-N) on the North Fork CLP (- - - - FCWQL Reporting Limit; 0.010 mg/L) NFL NFG Site b) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) on the North Fork CLP NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M NFL NFG Site b) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) on the North Fork CLP NFL NFG Site b) Turbidity on the North Fork CLP NDC NBH NRC RC M SC M PC M NFL NFG Site b) pH on the North Fork CLP SC M PC M NFL NFG Site b) Temperature on the North Fork CLP spring to early summer only N 40° 48.615 W 105° 17.146 240SCM Stonewall Creek Mouth Tributary to North Fork; drains area east of Hwy 287 N 40° 48.458 W 105° 15.195 230PCM Lone Pine Creek Mouth Tributary to North Fork; drainage area includes Red Feather Lakes; significant flows late spring to early summer only N 40° 47.696 W 105° 17.231 220NFL North Fork at Livermore At USGS gage N 40° 47.269 W 105° 15.130 210SER Seaman Reservoir Reservoir profiles; impacts to water quality from nutrient loadings N 40° 42.274 W 105° 14.210 200NFG North Fork below Seaman Reservoir At gage below Seaman Res; sample before flow enters Poudre main stem N 40° 42.143 W 105° 14.064 Hayman Fire, Colorado. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 20, 420-422. Tiedemann, A.R.; Conrad, C.E.; Dieterich, J.H.; Hornbeck, J.W.; Megahan, W.F.; Viereck, L.A.; Wade, D.D. 1979. Effects of fire on water: a state-of-knowledge review. National fire effects workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-10. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 28 p x Event-based Stormwater & Watershed Recovery Monitoring: Event-based stormwater monitoring will continue through the summer of 2016. An automated sampler located at the City of Fort Collin’s Intake Facility will capture stormwater samples during flooding and debris events when staff is unavailable to collect samples. x Little South Fork Streamflow Monitoring: Streamflow monitoring will continue on the South Fork (year 3). The U.S. Forest Service permitted the project for five years. The monitoring site will be evaluated prior to the cessation of the permit to determine if continued streamflow monitoring is necessary. x Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed: The City of Fort Collins Utilities and the City of Greeley provided financial support to the Coalition in 2015. Both entities hold reserved seats on the Board of Directors and participate on the Coalition’s Science and Technical Advisory Committee. The restoration and planning work performed by CPRW aims to protect water quality of the Poudre River against past and future wildfires. In general, nutrient concentrations were higher on the North Fork compared to the Mainstem. Increasing trends in background (non-storm event) NH3-N, PO4, and Total P have been observed watershed wide on the Mainstem and North Fork with more sites reporting values above the reporting limit throughout the monitoring season in recent years (2012-2015). The watershed-wide increases in these nutrients may be related to the flood event of 2013, and the increase is even more distinguished at sites impacted by the Hewlett Gulch and High Park Fires. The exception to this observation is at monitoring locations situated below Halligan and Seaman Reservoirs (NBH and NFG), suggesting that reservoirs can act as both a sink and source for nutrients within the watershed depending on the time of year. Storm events over the Upper CLP watershed that caused short-term impairments to water quality in previous years were limited in 2015 due to a relatively dry monsoon season. There were only two storm events in 2015 that caused short term water quality impairment. One notable event caused a rapid spike in turbidity, but the event was short-lived and river water quality returned to normal within 24 hours. Unfortunately, the automated sampler located at the City of Fort Collins raw water intake failed to collect samples during these events, but the significant increase in river turbidity indicates ongoing wildfire impacts. In addition, routine, non-storm event water quality data from wildfire impacted sites continues to show impacts of for entire temp range Turbidity NTU 0 to 4000 NTU 0-999 NTU: 0.3 NTU or ±2% of reading, whichever is greater; 1000- 4000 NTU: ±5% of reading Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 0 to 50 mg/L 0-20 mg/L: ±1% of reading or 0.1 mg/L Conductivity uS/cm 0 to 200,000 0 – 100,000 uS/cm: ±0.5% of reading or Temperature oCelsius -5 to +50 oC -5 to 35o C; ±0.01oC 35 to 50oC: ±0.05oC Table 6 – Acceptable margin of error for multi-parameter water quality sonde sensors. concentrations of environmental samples. Out of the 22 field blank samples analyzed, a total of three samples reported between 0.05 and 0.10 NTU, two samples reported above 10 mg/L for TDS, and nine samples Constituent Range in QAQC sample concentration Reporting Limit Absolute Mean Difference Relative Percent Difference (%) Percentile 25th 50th 75th Hardness (mg/L) 12.61 - 45.48 5 0.42 0.3 0.5 1.4 Ammonia (ug/L) 4 - 20 10 2.1 4.5 10.6 13.0 Turbidity (NTU) 0.36 - 13 0.05 0.37 1.8 3.4 9.3 ortho-Phosphate (ug/L) 2 - 12 5 1.1 3.1 7.8 13.8 TDS (mg/L) 31 - 93 10 7.36 3.4 4.7 9.8 TKN (mg/L) 0.05 - 0.61 0.1 0.04 4.0 8.6 16.5 TOC (mg/L) 2.21 - 9.48 0.5 0.03 0.2 0.2 0.6 Total P (ug/L) 11 - 61 0.01 1.44 1.1 2.8 5.1 Table 5 – Data quality assurance statistics calculated for duplicate samples collected at PNF monitoring location in 2015. 1.32 cells/L. The maximum cell count was measured at NFG on May 5th. Cell counts at NDC and NBH were also measured at an annual maximum on this date, which were the highest counts observed over the three year period at these sites. Cryptosporidium decreased following this date to below 0.5 cells/L and remained low at NDC and NHG for the remainder of the season. In contrasts, Cryptosporidium at NFG was observed above 1 cell/L by the end of the season. a) b) Figure 3.19 – Concentrations of a) giardia and b) Cryptosporidium on the Mainstem and North Fork CLP. 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.0 # cells/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; PNF NDC NBH NFG Site 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 30 20 10 0 # cells/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood PNF NDC NBH NFG Site E. coli counts on the Mainstem ranged from 0 to 96 cfu/100 mL with an annual median value of 7.5 cfu/100 mL. Cell counts approached, but did not exceed, the CDPHErecreational water quality standard of 126 cfu/100 mL at PNF and PBD during snowmelt runoff on May 4th a) b) Figure 3.18 – Counts of a) total coliforms and b) E. coli on the Mainstem and North Fork CLP. (- - - - - CDPHE water quality standard for E. coli, 126 cfu/100 mL.) 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 100000 10000 1000 100 10 1 cfu/100 mL 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood 0 CFU/100 mL PBR PNF PBD NFG Site 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 100000 10000 1000 100 10 1 cfu/100 mL 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; 0 CFU/100 mL 126 PBR PNF PBD NFG Site (Se), and zinc (Zn) were not detected in 2015. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 200 100 0 ug/L 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 200 100 0 ug/L 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 200 100 0 ug/L NDC NRC SCM NFL NBH RCM PCM NFG Figure 3.17 – Distribution of total phosphorus concentrations at monitoring locations throughout the North Fork watershed. highest concentrations were observed in late-April during the onset of snowmelt runoff, and steadily decrease during the early summer months before slightly increasing again by the end of the monitoring season. TN concentrationsin 2015 at NFL were slightly lower than previous years and ranged from 236 μg/L to a peak concentration of 753μg/L on May 21st (Figure 3.13). In comparison, TN at NFG ranged from 358 μg/L to a peak concentration of 876μg/L a) b) Figure 3.16 – Nutrient concentrations for a) ortho-phosphate and b) total phosphorus at key Upper CLP monitoring locations. (- - - - - CDPHE proposed cold water stream standard for TP, annual median of 110 μg/L with an allowable exceedance of 1-in-5 years.) 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 100 10 1 ug/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; 5 JWC PJW PBR PNF PBD NFL NFG Site 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1000 100 10 1 ug/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood 110 JWC PJW PBR PNF PBD NFL NFG Site 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 10000 1000 100 ug/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; JWC PJW PBR PNF PBD NFL NFG Site 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1000 100 10 ug/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood JWC PJW PBR PNF PBD NFL NFG Site Snowmelt pulse Figure 3.14 – Nitrate as nitrogen concentrations at key Upper CLP monitoring locations. 2012 2013 2014 2015 5 4 3 2 1 0 ug/L, in thousands Mainstem North Fork Site Figure 3.15 – Distribution of total nitrogen concentrations on the Mainstem and North Fork. diluted by flows in the Mainstem, as suggested by TOC comparisons betweenPNF and PBDduring those months. TOC concentrations were slightly elevated at PBD compared to PNF in November suggesting some influence from the North, however, concentrations still remained low. 3.5 NUTRIENTS Nutrients are an important component of source water quality monitoring. In high concentrations and under certain environmental conditions, nutrients can lead to algal growth. In extreme situations, nutrients can cause abundant growth of cyanobacteria, which are responsible for the production of cyanotoxins and other compounds that can affect the taste and odor of drinking water supplies. Potential sources of nutrients in aquatic systems include animal waste, leaking septic systems, fertilizer run-off, erosion, and atmospheric deposition. Ammonia (NH3), nitrate (NO3), nitrite (NO2), and ortho- phosphate (PO4) are dissolved forms of nitrogen and phosphorus that are readily available for plant uptake. Both Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen(TKN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) serve as aggregate measures of potential nitrogen and phosphorus availabilityto the system. Total nitrogen (TN) is the sum of TKN and inorganic nitrogen (NO3-N and NO2-N). TKN is a measure of ammonia plus organic nitrogen and comprises the largest fraction of TN, with inorganic nitrogen representing lesser fractions. Likewise, TP is a measure of dissolved phosphorus as well as phosphorus bound to sediments and organic matter. For the purpose of this report, the discussion of results only pertains to values above the reporting limits currently used by the FCWQL. Current reporting limits are 0.005 mg/L (5 μg/L) for PO4, 0.01 mg/L releases from these sources. In recent years, following the High Park Fire, debris flows and flooding from burned hillslopes caused temporary increases in TOC concentrations in July and August at wildfire impacted sites (PNF and PBD). Figure 3.12 – Total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations measured at key Upper CLP monitoring locations from 2012 through 2015. 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 15 10 5 0 mg/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; JWC PJW PBR PNF PBD NFL NFG Site 8/17 12:00 8/17 8:00 8/17 4:00 8/17 0:00 8/16 20:00 8 /16 16:00 8 /16 12:00 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 TURBIDITY (NTU) Cache la Poudre Turbidity at Manner's Bridge Figure 3.11 – Turbidity spike measured at the early warning turbidity sensor above the City of Fort Collins intake on August 16th. flows and flooding from burned hillslopestransportinghigh volumes of sediment and organic matter to the Mainstem. The impact of the wildfires was still evident in 2015 when storm event on August 16th caused turbidity values to Figure 3.10 –Turbidity levels measured at key Upper CLP monitoring locations from 2012 through 2015. 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 40 30 20 10 0 NTU 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood JWC PJW PBR PNF PBD NFL NFG Site PNF = 245 NTU PBD = 411 NTU 7/15/13 PNF = 98 NTU PBD = 54 NTU 7/14/14 Figure 3.9 – pH levels measured at key Upper CLP monitoring locations from 2011 through 2014. 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 9 8.5 8 7.5 7 6.5 6 pH 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; JWC PJW PBR PNF PBD NFL NFG Site 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1000 100 10 uS/cm 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; JWC PJW PBR PNF PBD NFL NFG Site 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1000 100 10 mg/L 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood JWC PJW PBR PNF PBD NFL NFG Site 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 1000 100 10 mg/L 6/Flood9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; JWC PJW PBR PNF PBD NFL NFG Site 0 acre-feet Mainstem North Fork Gage 34% 66% 25% 75% 11% 89% 100% Figure 3.7 – a) Average water temperature at key sites in the Upper CLP watershed from 2012 through 2015 and b) water temperature at key Upper CLP monitoring sites from 2012 through 2015. 1/1/2016 9/1/2015 5/1/2015 1/1/2015 9/1/2014 5/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2013 5/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 5/1/2012 1/1/2012 25 20 15 10 5 0 Degrees Celsius 6/9/2012; High Park Fire 9/12/2013; Flood JWC PJW PBR PNF PBD NFL NFG Site 2015 2014 2013 2012 2015 2014 2013 2012 2015 2014 2013 2012 2015 2014 2013 2012 2015 2014 2013 2012 2015 2014 2013 2012 2015 2014 2013 2012 25 20 15 10 5 0 Degrees Celsius JWC PJW PBR PNF PBD NFL NFG Site a) b) 6/9/2012 Hi h P k Fi 9/12/2013 Fl d 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Streamflow (cfs) AVG WY2012 WY2013 WY2014 WY2015 WY AF % AF % AF % AF % AF % AF % AF % Jan 103 1,230 - - - - -- Feb 137 7% 1,111 57% - - - 697 36% 1,945 Mar 144 3% 1,230 26% - - 744 15% 2,697 56% 4,814 ------ Apr - 0% 726 6% - - 3,091 24% 8,985 70% 12,802 ------ May - 0% 3,798 6% - - 12,527 20% 47,377 74% 63,702 ------ Jun - 15,356 12% 1,317 1% 10,303 8% 21,256 17% 77,871 62% 126,104 ------ Jul - 7,607 13% 5,574 9% 10,399 17% 13,894 23% 22,079 37% 59,553 ------ Aug - 5,320 20% 1,955 7% 6,228 24% 7,292 28% 5,704 22% 26,499 ------ Sep - 3,056 36% 321 4% 477 6% 1,927 22% 2,784 33% 8,564 ------ Oct - 461 14% - 46 1% 1,671 50% 1,187 35% 3,365 ------ Nov - - - - 984 36% 1,719 64% 2,703 ------ Dec - - - - --- Total 384 39,894 9,167 27,453 63,386 171,100 310,051 Poudre above Munroe Tunnel & North Fork Barnes Meadow Outflow (BMR ) Chambers Lake Outflow (CHR ) Laramie Tunnel (LRT) Other Mainstream Contributions Poudre above Joe Wright (PJW) Little South Fork Poudre (SFC) Water releases from Chambers Lake contributed 39,894 acre-feet of water in 2015 accounting for 8% of the total water in the Poudre River basin (Table 3 and Figure 3.4), and 85% of 2014 contributions. Streamflow below Chambers Lake follows a familiar snowmelt driven pattern with water contributions occurring from late-April through September. Barnes Meadow Reservoir is owned and operated by the City of Greeley and is typically used to supply water during the winter months. Water is released from Barnes Meadow into Joe Wright Creek, below Chambers Lake, before entering the Poudre River downstream. In 2015, Barnes Meadow Reservoir contributed 384 acre-feet of water, which represents less than 1% of annual Poudre River volume, compared to 20% in 2014. The greatest monthly contribution occurred in March (Table 3 and Figure 3.4). Figure 3.4 – Bar graph of tributary contributions by month to the Mainstem CLP above the Munroe Tunnel in 2015. Note that continuous flow measurements were not available for calculating “other” flow in January, February, and December. Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 acre-ft CHR BMR PJW LRT SFC Other Site brought several feet of snow to the lower elevations of the watershed, which resulted in a rapid rise in the snowmelt hydrograph through mid-May. Streamflow receded after another late spring snowstorm slowed the snowmeltcycle higher in the watershed. Multiple spikes in streamflow Figure 3.2 – Snow water equivalent measured at Joe Wright SNOTEL site near Cameron Pass over the 2012-2015 water years (October 1, 2014 – September 31, 2015). Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan Dec Nov Oct 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 SWE (inches) AVG WY2012 WY2013 WY2014 WY2015 WY Figure 3.3 – Streamflow measured over the 2012- 2015 water years at the CLP at Canyon Mouth near Fort Collins (CLAFTCCO) streamflow monitoring station. Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan Dec Nov Oct 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Streamflow (cfs) AVG WY2012 WY2013 WY2014 WY2015 WY NFG, as well as head gate flow values at the Poudre Valley Canal diversion. Poudre Valley Canal diversion discharge measurements were obtained from the Poudre River Commissioner, Mark Simpson. Discharge values for these sites are presented as daily averages. Cache la Poudre Basin Snowpack To understand the timing and magnitude in discharge, spatial and temporal trends in snowpack, snow water equivalent, and temperature need to be considered, as snowmelt is the dominant driver of discharge in the Upper CLP. Snow water equivalent (SWE) represents the depth of liquid water contained in the snowpack. The snow telemetry (SNOTEL) network includes approximately 600 automated monitoring sites located in remote mountain watersheds throughout the United States that measure SWE, accumulated precipitation, and air temperature. Snow course monitoring sites require manual surveying of snow depth and SWE, generally on the first of every month throughout the duration of the winter season. were only two storm events in 2015 that caused short term water quality impairment. One notable event was recorded on August 16th from early warning instrumentation upstream of the City’s raw water intake structure. Prior to the event, river turbidity was 2 NTU. Over a two hour period, turbidity increased to a peak value of 805 NTU. Turbidity values returned to pre-storm values within 24 hours of the observed peak. Unfortunately, the automated stormwater sampler failed to collect samples during this event. The elevated background nutrient concentrations and stormflow response on August 16th demonstrate that after- effects of the 2012 wildfires are still occurring. The Upper CLP Collaborative Monitoring Program will continue to sample event-based storm water quality in 2016 to track watershed recovery. Storm events over the Upper CLP watershed, causing short term impairments to water quality, were limited in 2015 due to a relatively inactive monsoon season. commonly used PCPs/pharmaceuticals and 64 herbicides/pesticides. The Low Level detection method (Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry/Mass Spectrometry, LC/MS/MS) has been used since 2010 to quantify concentrations of herbicides/pesticides, PCPs/pharmaceuticals andEDCs. In 2015, samples were analyzed for 29 herbicides/pesticides and personal care products/pharmaceuticals (subset from the LC/TOF-MS method) and 8 EDCs (hormones and hormone-mimicking compounds). The Poudre River is largely free of land use practices that cause pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and endocrine disrupting compoundstoenter surface waters. These compounds are typically linked to wastewater effluent. Emerging contaminants that have been detected in the Upper CLP since 2009 include 2,4-D, atrazine, caffeine, DEET and triclosan, which are connected to recreation and/or weed management along canals and roadways. The only compound detected during the 2015 monitoring season was 2,4-D (<10 ng/L) in August at NFG (Northern Water, 2015). . All tributaries to the North Fork of the Cache la Poudre from Halligan Reservoir to the Cache la Poudre all E. coli COSPCP09 Rabbit Creek and Lone Pine Creek all pH As L COSPCP10a Mainstem of the Cache la Poudre River from the Munroe Gravity Canal Headgate to the Larimer County Ditch diversion all Temperature, As M/L COSPCP20 Lakes and reservoirs tributary to the North Fork of the Cache la Poudre from Halligan Reservoir to the Cache la Poudre River Seaman Reservoir D.O. M Table 2 – Segments of Upper CLP waters listed on the State of Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of impaired waters and Monitoring and Evaluations (M&E) Lists. sampling season. In contrast, geosmin concentrations were below the reporting limit at Poudre above the North Fork (PNF) monitoring site from April through July before increasing to a maximum concentration of 2.47 ppt on August 17th. Geosmin decreased at PNF following this date to near the reporting limit. There were no reported geosmin-related customer odor complaints. Table 1 – Poudre River geosmin concentrations (ppt or ng/L) in 2015 at Poudre above the North Fork (PNF) and Poudre below Rustic (PBR) monitoring locations. Date Poudre below Rustic (PBR) Poudre above North Fork (PNF) 4/6/2015 1.94 BDL 5/4/2015 1.05 1.06 6/8/2015 1.04 BDL 7/13/2015 BDL BDL 8/17/2015 BDL 2.47 9/14/2015 BDL 2.4 10/12/2015 BDL 1.62 11/9/2015 BDL 1.13 and water quality information for the current year, provide a comparison with water quality from the preceding three years, describe notable events and issues, and summarize the results of special studies. The five-year report provides a more in-depth analysis of both spatial and temporal trends in watershed hydrology and water quality. The first five-year report was completed for the years 2008-2012 (Oropeza & Heath, 2013). Upper CLP updates and reports are available on the City of Fort Collins Utilities Source Water Monitoring website: (www.fcgov.com/ source-water-monitoring). 1.2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION AND SAMPLING LOCATIONS Sampling efforts are divided between the Mainstem (including the Little South Fork Cache la Poudre River) and North Fork Cache la Poudre River watersheds. Collectively these drainages encompass approximately 645,500 acres of forest, other natural land types, and agricultural land (see Attachment 1). An additional 4,700 acres, representing less than 1% of land surface, is developed for commercial, industrial, utility, urban or residential purposes. The 2015 monitoring network consists of 19 sampling locations selected to characterize the headwaters, major tributaries and downstream locations of the Upper CLP River near the City of Fort Collins, Tri-Districts and City of Greeley raw water intake structures (Figure 1.1). The 20 sampling sites include one reservoir - Seaman Reservoir. CONCERN & SPECIAL STUDIES Geosmin Geosmin is a naturally occurring organic compound that can impart an earthy odor to water and occurs episodically in the Mainstem. In 2015, geosmin concentrations remained below the odor threshold at both sampling locations on the Poudre River. There were no reported geosmin-related customer odor complaints in 2015. Emerging Contaminants The Upper CLP watershed is largely free of land use practices that cause pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and endocrine disrupting compounds to enter surface waters. Emerging contaminants that have been detected in the Upper CLP since 2009 include 2,4-D, atrazine, caffeine, DEET and triclosan, which are associated with recreation and/or weed management along roadways near the river. The only compound detected during the 2015 monitoring season was 2,4-D on the North Fork. Post-wildfireWatershed Recovery Observable changes in water quality continued to occur during and following storm events at wildfire impacted monitoring sites. These events were limited in 2015 due that strengthen the management and sustainability of the SWPP. City of Fort Collins; Larimer CO, Tri-Districts, City of Greeley, Northern Water, US Forest Service, Colorado State Forest Service