Pine Brook Water District Source Water Protection Plan

Transcription

1 Pine Brook Water District Source Water Protection Plan Boulder County, Colorado October 16, 2014 Written by: Mark Williams Coordinated by: Dylan Eiler Source Water Specialist Colorado Rural Water Association For the Community Water Provider: Pine Brook Water District: ID # CO

2 2 Cover Photo courtesy Pine Brook Water District

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 6 INTRODUCTION... 7 Purpose of a Source Water Protection Plan... 7 Protection Plan Development... 8 Stakeholder Participation in the Plan Process... 9 Development and Implementation Grant... 9 WATER SUPPLY SETTING Location and Description Physical Characteristics Geology Climate Ecological Regions Land Ownership and Use WATER QUALITY Hydrologic Setting Water Quality Standards Water Quality Monitoring Drinking Water Supply Operations OVERVIEW OF COLORADO S SWAP PROGRAM Source Water Assessment Phase Source Water Protection Phase SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT Source Water Assessment Report Review Defining the Source Water Protection Area Potential Contaminant Source Inventory Priority Strategy DISCUSSION OF ISSUES OF CONCERN Communication and Outreach Mining Transportation on Roads Private Fuel Storage Tanks Public Land Use Wildland Fires Flooding Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Herbicides

4 Residential Practices SOURCE WATER PROTECTION MEASURES Best Management Practices Evaluating Effectiveness of Best Management Practices Source Water Best Management Practices REFERENCES APPENDICES A. Emergency Response Plan B. Source Water Assessment Report C. Source Water Assessment Report Appendices D. CRWA s SWAP Risk Assessment Matrix E. Table A-1 Discrete Contaminant Types F. Table A-2 Discrete Contaminant Types (SIC Related) G. Table B-1 Dispersed Contaminant Types H. Table C-1 Contaminants Associated with Common PSOC s I. Wildfire Effects on Source Water Quality J. Water Chemistry of Surface Waters Affected by the Fourmile Canyon Wildfire K. Saint Vrain Wildfire/Watershed Assessment L. Four Mile Fire Protection District Community Wildfire Protection Plan 4

5 ACRONYMS AST BLM BMP CDOT CDPHE CRWA DRMS DOC EERT EPA GIS GPD GPM MCL NTU OWTS PBWD PSOC SDWA SWAA SWAP SWPA SWPP USFS USGS WBID WTP WQCC Aboveground Storage Tank Bureau of Land Management Best Management Practice Colorado Department of Transportation Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Colorado Rural Water Association Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety Dissolved Organic Carbon Environmental Emergency Response Team Environmental Protection Agency Geographic Information System Gallons per Day Gallons per Minute Maximum Contaminant Level Nephelometric Turbidity Units Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Pine Brook Water District Potential Source of Contamination Safe Drinking Water Act Source Water Assessment Area Source Water Assessment and Protection Source Water Protection Area Source Water Protection Plan United States Forest Service United States Geological Survey Water Body Identification Water Treatment Plant Water Quality Control Commission 5

6 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 implement to decrease 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 Pine Brook Water District 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 and individual meetings with water operators during the months of July, 2013 through October, 2014 at the Pine Brook Water District s office in Boulder County, Colorado. During the development of this Plan, a Steering Committee was formed to develop and implement this Source Water Protection Plan. Colorado Rural Water Association was instrumental in this effort by providing technical assistance in the development of this Source Water Protection Plan. The Pine Brook Water District s main source of drinking water is from a surface water intake off of Fourmile Creek that fills Pine Brook Reservoir. This Source Water Protection Area is the area that the District has chosen to focus its source water protection measures to reduce source water susceptibility to contamination. The Steering Committee conducted an inventory of potential contaminant sources and identified other issues of concern within the Source Water Protection Area that may impact the District s drinking water sources. Through this process, it was determined that the highest priority potential contaminant sources and/or issues of concern are: mining, decommissioning of wells, residential issues, dam failure, and road spills. Other noted water quality threats include: septic systems, public land use, Glacier Summer City ditch, the new Four Mile Fire Protection District fire station, illegal dumping, storage tanks, herbicide application, road maintenance, forest fire, and flooding. The Steering Committee developed several best management practices that may help 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. At the completion of this plan, members of the Steering Committee will meet to develop an Action Plan of BMPs to implement during It is further recommended that this Plan be reviewed at a frequency of once every three years or if circumstances change resulting in the development of new water sources and source water protection areas, or if new risks are identified. 6

7 INTRODUCTION Pine Brook Water District operates a community water supply system that supplies drinking water to over 400 homes within Boulder County, Colorado. Pine Brook Water District obtains their drinking water from a diversion on Fourmile Creek which is then pumped to their storage reservoir in Pine Brook Hills. The District recognizes the potential for contamination of the source of their drinking water, and realizes that it is necessary to develop a protection plan to prevent the contamination of this valuable resource. Proactive planning and implementing contamination prevention strategies are essential to protect the long-term integrity of their water supply and to limit their costs and liabilities. 1 Table 1. Primary Contact Information for Pine Brook Water District PWSID PWS Name Name Title Address Phone CO Pine Brook Water District Bob de Haas Manager 1903 Linden Drive Boulder, CO Purpose of the Source Water Protection Plan The Source Water Protection Plan (SWPP) is a tool for Pine Brook Water to ensure clean and high quality drinking water sources for current and future generations. This Source Water Protection Plan is designed to: Create an awareness of the community s drinking water sources and the potential risks to surface water and/or groundwater quality within the watershed; Encourage education and voluntary solutions to alleviate pollution risks; Promote management practices to protect and enhance the drinking water supply; 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 district) 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. 1 The information contained in this Plan is limited to that available from public records and Pine Brook Water District 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. 7

8 Protection Plan Development The Colorado Rural Water Association s (CRWA) Source Water Protection Specialist, Dylan Eiler, helped facilitate the source water protection planning process. The goal of the CRWA s Source Water Protection Program is to assist rural and small communities served by public water systems to reduce or eliminate the potential risks to drinking water supplies through the development of Source Water Protection Plans, and provide assistance for the implementation of prevention measures. The Pine Brook Water District s source water protection planning effort consisted of a series of public planning meetings and individual meetings. Information discussed at the meetings helped Pine Brook Water develop an understanding of the issues affecting source water protection for the community. The Steering Committee then made recommendations for management approaches 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, s, and field trips to the protection area. A summary of the meetings is represented below. Table 2. Planning Meetings Date Purpose of Meeting July 7, 2013 August 19, 2013 First Planning Meeting - Presentation on the process of developing a Source Water Protection Plan; review of the State s Source Water Assessment; began delineation of Source Water Protection Area; began Potential Contaminant Source Inventory. Second Planning Meeting Finalize delineation of Source Water Protection Area; expert presentation from Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety on area mines, finalize Potential Contaminant Source Inventory. April 29, 2014 Third Planning Meeting Prioritize Potential Contaminant Source Inventory, begin development of Best Management Practices. May 27, 2014 Fourth Planning Meeting - Ranked and prioritized potential sources of contamination, and began discussions on Best Management Practices. June 10, 2014 Fifth Planning Meeting - Finalized the relevant BMP s for priority contaminant sources. October 2, 2014 Sixth Planning Meeting Review and edit Draft Plan. 8

9 Stakeholder Participation in the Planning Process 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 where local stakeholders have actively participated in the development of their Protection Plan. The Pine Brook Water District s source water protection planning process attracted interest and participation from 16 stakeholders including local citizens and landowners, water operators, local and county governments, and agency representatives. During the months of July, 2013 through October, 2014, six stakeholder meetings were held at the District s office in Pine Brook Hills to encourage local stakeholder participation in the planning process. Input from these participants was greatly appreciated. At the end of the planning process, a Steering Committee was formed from the stakeholder group to implement this Protection Plan. Table 3. Table of Stakeholder Participants Stakeholder Title Affiliation Bob de Haas General Manager Pine Brook Water District Shawn Beauprez Water Operator Pine Brook Water District Sheila Murphy Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey Eric Schroeder Soil Scientist U.S. Forest Service Arapaho & Roosevelt National Forest Silvia Clark District Ranger U.S. Forest Service Boulder Ranger District Mark Williams Water Quality Program Boulder County Public Health Coordinator (former) Ted Plank Road Supervisor Boulder County Transportation Department Bret Gibson Fire Chief Four Mile Fire Protection District Eddie Gentry LTC OP 1 Colorado Department of Transportation Isaac Lopez TM III Colorado Department of Transportation Michael Cunningham Mined Land Reclamation Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety Rob Beebe Fourmile Canyon Resident Dylan Eiler Source Water Specialist Colorado Rural Water Association Development and Implementation Grant The Pine Brook Water District was awarded a $5,000 Development and Implementation Grant from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) on December 5, This funding is available to public water systems that are committed to developing and implementing a source water protection plan. The District intends on using this funding to develop the plan and implement management approaches that are identified in this Plan. 9

10 WATER SUPPLY SETTING Location and Description The Pine Brook Water District provides drinking water to the Pine Brook Hills subdivision, an unincorporated mountain community of Boulder County. Pine Brook Hills is located west of the City of Boulder in the foothills of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains in north central Colorado (Fig. 1). Access to Pine Brook Hills is via Linden Drive, one mile west of North Broadway in north Boulder, Colorado. The Pine Brook Water District is managed by a Board of Directors elected from citizens who live in the Water District s area. Land use decisions for this unincorporated area are made by the Boulder County Commissioners. The county seat for Boulder County is located in the City of Boulder, Colorado. The Source Water Protection Area (SWPA) for the Pine Brook Water District is located within the western portions of Boulder County. Location of Boulder County, Colorado Figure 1. Regional setting map. 10

11 Physical Characteristics The Pine Brook Water District s source water protection area, the Fourmile Creek watershed, is located at Latitude N, Longitude W (Fig. 2). It lies within the southern Rocky Mountains Physiographic Province that encompasses the center of the state and runs its entire north-south length. The Fourmile Creek watershed originates from the high mountain peaks of Niwot Mountain and Niwot Ridge at elevations of 11,471 feet west of Highway 72 and trends easterly to the intake for Pine Brook Water District near Poorman Road at an elevation of approximately 6,200 feet. The mountains and foothills of the Fourmile Creek watershed were formed during the uplifting of the granites and gneisses about 70 million years during the Laramide orogeny. Subsequent erosion has created the ridges and valleys of today s landscape. Figure 2. Topographic map of the Source Water Protection Area. 11

12 Geology The oldest rocks in the Source Water Protection Area are Precambrian, estimated to be approximately 4.6 billion years old to 543 million years old (Fig. 3). The Precambrian-aged rocks are primarily composed of metamorphic gneiss and igneous granite. The Paleozoic era, spanning the time period from 543 to 248 million years ago, resulted in widespread shallow seas and depositions of sandstone. During the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary time, mountain building began again in Colorado. As the mountains were uplifted, swiftly flowing streams carried floods of debris downward to the plains. Hot magma invaded the older rocks of the mountains, and the forces of mountain building caused the rocks to be greatly deformed. Rich deposits of metallic ores were precipitated as hot mineralizing waters flowed from the magmas through the cracks in the rocks. It was at this time, early and middle Tertiary Period, that most of the valuable deposits of metallic ores were formed in Colorado. During the most recent period of geologic time, the Quaternary Period (lasting 2 million years), cooler climates produced alpine glaciers in many of the mountain ranges of Colorado. The glacial meltwater created erosional downcutting leaving terrace deposits in mountain valleys (Topper et al, 2003) (BASIN, 2007). Geology of the SWPA Unit Age & Rock Type Quaternary - glacial drift Tertiary-Cretaceous - granitoid Triassic-Pennsylvanian - siltstone Early Proterozoic - biotite gneiss Early Proterozoic - granite Middle Proterozoic - granite INTERVALS OF TIME ERA PERIOD QUATERNARY CENOZOIC TERTIARY CRETACEOUS MESOZOIC JURASSIC TRIASSIC PALEOZOIC PRECAMBRIAN PERMIAN PENNSYLVANIAN MISSISSIPPIAN DEVONIAN SILURIAN ORDOVICIAN CAMBRIAN PROTEROZOIC Figure 3. Geologic map of the Source Water Protection Area. 12

13 Climate The climate within the Source Water Protection Area is dependent on elevation and location. Average annual precipitation ranges from about 20 inches in the lower reaches to 40 inches in the highest reaches (Fig. 4). Monthly maximum precipitation usually occurs in May, with secondary peaks in July and August reflecting the influence of summer convection thunderstorms. Much of the precipitation at the higher altitudes is in the form of snow during the winter and spring, which can accumulate to more than 120 inches per year in the mountains. Temperature also varies depending on elevations with average high temperature during July around 75 to 82 0 Fahrenheit and January lows 14 to 16 0 Fahrenheit. Most of the precipitation that falls on the land surface during storm events flows directly into drainages, streams, and rivers as runoff. Some of the water will infiltrate the soil and recharge the underlying fractured rock aquifers. The average runoff for the watershed is 20 inches at the top of the ridges and inches in the lower watershed (Topper et al, 2003). Figure 4. Average annual precipitation map of the Source Water Protection Area. 13

14 Ecological Regions The source water protection area lies within the Alpine, Subalpine and Mid-Elevation Forests, and Foothills Shrublands (Fig. 5). The Alpine Zone, the highest mountain zone, includes alpine meadows as well as steep, exposed rock and glaciated peaks. Vegetation includes low shrubs, cushion plant, and wildflowers and sedges in wet meadows. The subalpine zone lies immediately below treeline, generally found between 10,000 and 11,500 feet in elevation. Engelmann spruce and Subalpine fir dominate the higher elevations of the zone and Limber and Lodgepole pine and aspen in the lower elevations. Riparian areas are vegetated with willows and sedges. The Mid-Elevation Forests are found mostly in the 7,000 to 9,000 feet elevation range in the eastern half of the Southern Rockies. Natural vegetation includes aspen, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and areas of Lodgepole pine and Limber pine. The Foothill Shrublands ecoregion is a transition from the higher elevation forests to the drier and lower Great Plains to the east. This semiarid region has rolling to irregular terrain of hills, ridges, and footslopes with elevations generally 6,000 to 8,500 feet (Omwenik & Griffith, 2008). Figure 5. Ecoregions of the Source Water Protection Area. 14

15 Land Ownership and Use The Source Water Protection Area lies within both public and private lands. The private land includes land within the unincorporated areas of Boulder County. The public lands include U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and State lands. The Roosevelt National Forest Lands are managed by the Boulder Ranger District. The Bureau of Land Management land is managed by the Royal Gorge Field Office. Land use on private land includes rural residential development, recreation (camping, hiking, climbing, fishing, mountain biking, x-county skiing), and old mine sites (Fig. 6). Figure 6. Landowners map of the Source Water Protection Area. 15

16 WATER QUALITY Hydrologic Setting The Pine Brook Water District obtains its drinking water supply from Fourmile Creek, tributary of Boulder Creek which flows into St. Vrain Creek and the South Platte River. The source water protection area includes the Fourmile Creek watershed upstream from the district s intake which drains approximately square miles (16, acres) and the Pine Brook Reservoir square miles ( acres). The Fourmile Creek watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code ) is a subwatershed of the Boulder Creek watershed, both of which are tributaries to the South Platte River. The South Platte River Basin is part of Colorado Water Division One with the office of the Division Engineer in Greeley (Fig. 7) (Topper et al, 2003). The headwaters of Fourmile Creek originate from Ruby Gulch which begins at an elevation of 10,000 feet just south of Niwot Mountain and Glacier Lake via Pennsylvania Gulch at an elevation of approximately 9,100 feet. The stream distances from the District s intake near Poorman Road are approximately 12 miles and 10.3 miles respectively. Fourmile Creek flows generally easterly. Peak flows in Fourmile Creek occur during the months of May and June when runoff flows from the snowpack are at a maximum. Intense thunderstorms may temporarily increase flow during the summer months. SOURCE: GROUND WATER ALTLAS OF COLORADO Figure 7. Map of the South Platte River Basin. 16

17 Water Quality Standards Under the Clean Water Act, every state must adopt water quality standards to protect, maintain and improve the quality of the nation s surface waters. The State of Colorado s Water Quality Control Commission 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 (Table 4). Standards are designed to protect the associated classified uses of the streams (Designated Use). Stream classifications can only be downgraded if it can be demonstrated that the existing use classification is not presently being attained and cannot be attained within a twenty year time period (Section 31.6(2)(b)). A Use Attainability Analysis must be performed to justify the downgrade. All water bodies within the source water protection area of the Fourmile Creek watershed have fully attained their designated use. Table 4. Stream Segments within the Source Water Protection Area and Their Designated Use Segment WBID Portion of Segment Designated Use COSPBO02b COSPBO014 SOURCE: CDPHE WQCC REGULATION 38 TABLES. Mainstem of Boulder Creek, including all tributaries and wetlands, from a point immediately below the confluence with North Boulder Creek to a point immediately above the confluence with South Boulder Creek. All lakes and reservoirs tributary to Boulder Creek from the source to a point immediately above the South Boulder Creek confluence, except as specified in Segment 13. Aquatic Life Cold 1 Water Supply Agriculture Recreation E Aquatic Life Cold 1 Water Supply Agriculture Recreation E Definitions of Designated Uses The following definitions are paraphrased from WQCC Regulation 31, January 31, 2013: Aquatic Life Cold 1: Refers to waters that are capable of sustaining a wide variety of cold water biota, including sensitive species, or could sustain such biota in correctable water quality conditions. Water Supply: These surface waters are suitable or intended to become suitable for potable water supplies. After receiving standard treatment (defined as coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection with chlorine or its equivalent), these waters will meet Colorado drinking water regulations and any revisions, amendments, or supplements. Agriculture: These surface waters are suitable or intended to become suitable for irrigation of crops usually grown in Colorado and which are not hazardous as drinking water for livestock. Recreation E: Class E - Existing Primary Contact Use. These surface waters are used for primary contact recreation or have been used for such activities since November 28, Primary Contact recreation refers to waters suitable for full-body contact and ingestion. Class E also includes a Water Quality Standard for E.coli not to exceed 126/100 ml (WQCC, 2013). 17

18 Water Quality Monitoring States are required by Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act to assess and report on the quality of waters within their State. The Colorado 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (305(b) report) summarizes water quality conditions in the State of Colorado. This report provides the State s assessments of water quality that were conducted during the past five years. Specifically, it compares the classified uses of all surface waters within the State to the corresponding standards in order to assess the degree to which waters are in attainment of those standards. Under the Clean Water Act, States are required to submit to Congress their list of impaired waters that do not meet the state s water quality standards for their designated and existing uses. There are no water body segments within the Pine Brook Water District s Source Water Protection Area on the 2012 Colorado Section 303(d) list of impaired waters (WQCD, 2012). Water quality monitoring within the Source Water Protection Area is currently or has been conducted by the following entities/organizations: Pine Brook Water District - Treated water quality is monitored by the District on a regular basis for a number of parameters in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Results are published in the District s annual Consumer Confidence Report ( U.S. Geological Survey Following the September 2010 Fourmile Canyon Fire that burned 23% of the watershed, the U.S. Geological Survey took a strong interest in what affects that wildland fire would have on drinking water quality. Water samples were collected from five sites along Fourmile Creek (above, within, and below the burned area) monthly during base flow, twice weekly during snowmelt runoff, and at higher frequencies during storm events. Stream discharge was also monitored. Water-quality samples were collected less frequently from an additional 6 sites on Fourmile Creek, from 11 tributaries or other inputs, and from 3 sites along Boulder Creek (McCleskey et al, 2012). There has been additional interest in the impacts of historic mining operations within the watershed. The Fourmile canyon area had a significant production history from gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, and uranium mining. The aftereffects of that activity have lingered in the watershed for over a century with some slightly elevated levels of dissolved solids detected during monitoring (Murphy et al, 2003). 18

19 Drinking Water Supply Operations Water Supply and Infrastructure The Pine Brook Water District is a quasi-municipal entity created in 1963 that provides drinking water to 1,200 residents of the Pine Brook Hills subdivision. Originally, when the water system was constructed, it consisted of five groundwater wells. Around 1980 the District purchased surface water rights on Fourmile Creek and in 2005 constructed a reservoir within the District boundaries (PBWD, 2014). The current water system consists of a surface water intake from Fourmile Creek piped into the adjacent Penfold Pond. Water from Penfold Pond is then pumped to and stored in the Pine Brook Reservoir. The 4.06 acre reservoir, brought on line in 2007, has a normal storage capacity of acre feet (Ac-Ft). Pine Brook Water District s five groundwater wells are used for emergency backup supply. However, two were inundated by floodwater during the September 2013 flood, 2 wells are without power, and the other 2 have Arsenic above the EPA s Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL). (Frachetti, 2014). An evaluation is underway at this writing that will determine whether the wells should be abandoned, as work to improve them as a water resource, post-flooding, may be less efficient than focusing FEMA sponsored work projects on the surface water resource. Raw water from the Pine Brook Reservoir is piped to their surface water treatment plant. The District s water treatment consists of a coagulant and sodium permanganate chemical system for raw water conditioning, an Evoqua submerged microfiltration system for particulate and Giardia/Cryptosporidium removal, and a sodium hypochlorite system (liquid chlorine) for disinfection. Virus inactivation is provided by chlorine residual and contact time. Historically, the water treatment plant (WTP) operated at >94% efficiency, where efficiency is defined as gallons of potable water produced by the WTP divided by the gallons of raw water delivered to the WTP (Frachetti, 2014). After treatment, the water is pumped into 5 storage tanks with a total capacity of 1,000,000 gallons. There are 3 additional storage tanks that are rarely brought online with a storage capacity of 640,000 gallons. The treated water is distributed to their customers via a network of about 26 miles of underground pipes to 407 service connection or taps. The size of the service area is approximately 3 sq. miles. The average daily demand is 85,000 gallons. Peak use is during the summer with an average of 140,000 to 168,000 gallons per day (de Haas, 2014). The Pine Brook Water District provides an Annual Drinking Water Quality Report to the public which provides information on the results of their water monitoring program. The 2013 report is available at the Pine Brook Water District s office located at 1903 Linden Drive, Boulder, 19

20 Colorado or online at The District is currently in compliance with all State water quality regulations and has no current violation. Water Supply Demand Analysis Two recent natural disasters have had an impact on PBWD s drinking water production capacity. While the water treatment plant itself was not significantly physically impacted by the 2013 flooding, or the Fourmile Canyon fire of 2010, the raw water quality from those events within the Fourmile Creek watershed was significantly impacted, and has had an impact on the districts capacity for producing potable water. Total organic carbon from the fire, and large volumes of sediment from both events have combined to decrease filter efficiencies, and generally to increase operation and maintenance needs. Before the fire and the flood PBWD was able to produce 145 gallons per minute (gpm), with a maximum daily capacity of 187,920 gallons per day (gpd). The Fourmile Canyon Fire reduced that capacity by 15%, and the post-flood reduction was an additional 15%. The production rate now is 115 gpm or a daily capacity of 132,480 gallon per days. The current maximum daily demand reaches up to 168,000 gpd. When compared to the maximum daily capacity even without considering lost WTP production time due to the operation and maintenance challenges, the existing WTP cannot meet current demands due to the impact of the fire and flood.. As a result of the lessons learned from the Fourmile fire and the September 2013 flooding that resulted in some compromised source waters, PBWD is in the process of evaluating its ability to meet the average daily demand and the average peak daily demand of its customers in the event that there are future interruptions in their water supply from those, or other sources of potential contamination. The evaluation was done in a Flood Recovery Report performed by Frachetti Engineering of Greenwood Village, Colorado, and considered a number of alternatives that would bring the districts capacity back to pre-flood conditions. The recommendations following that evaluation are to: 1) Improve the WTP efficiency and mitigate the lost raw water storage in the reservoir that was a result of sediment accumulation. 2) Construct an interconnect; including a pressure control tank between the lower pressure zone and zone2 which would mitigate the loss of lower pressure zone wells. 3) Replace the pipeline along S. Linden between N. Cedar Brook and S. Cedar Brook, which replaces the pipeline that was impacted by the flood, causing more than normal pipe failures. The approximate costs would be $2.5 million (Frachetti, 2014). 20

21 OVERVIEW 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. The 1996 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. The SWAP program protection plan is integrated with the Colorado Wellhead Protection Program that was established in amendments made to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, Section 1428) in 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 8, respectively. Figure 8. Source Water Assessment and Protection Phases 21

22 Source Water Assessment Phase The Assessment Phase for all public water systems consists 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; 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. The Assessment Phase involves understanding where the Pine Brook Water District s source water comes from, what contaminant sources potentially threaten the water sources, and how susceptible each water source is to potential contamination. Source Water Protection Phase The Protection Phase is a voluntary, 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. 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 as indicated in Figure 8. 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. 22

23 SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT Source Water Assessment Report Review The Pine Brook Water District received their Source Water Assessment Report from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in November During the Source Water Protection stakeholder meetings, the assessment report was reviewed and used as a starting point to guide the development of this Source Water Protection Plan. A copy of the Source Water Assessment Report for PBWD can be obtained by contacting the District or by downloading a copy from the CDPHE s SWAP program website located at: Defining the Source Water Protection Area The State s Assessment Report included a delineated Source Water Assessment Area (SWAA) for the PBWD s surface water and groundwater sources. Delineation is the process used to identify and map the drainage basin or watersheds that supplies water to a water source. The delineated source water assessment area provides the basis for understanding where the community s source water and potential contaminant threats originate. The Steering Committee reviewed the State s delineated Source Water Assessment Area for PBWD s water sources and the District decided to focus the source water protection efforts on their surface water resources. The Source Water Protection Area for PBWD includes the Fourmile Creek watershed upstream from the intake and the drainage area into the Pine Brook Reservoir, totaling approximately square miles (Fig. 9). This protection area is 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. Source Water Protection Zones The Source Water Protection Area includes the following protection zones: Primary Zone is located 1,000 feet on either side of the surface water drainage network and a 750 feet radius circle around the intake. The Primary Zone is the most sensitive and important area to protect from potential sources of contamination. This area is where nonpoint source contaminants are most likely to reach the water source. Secondary Zone includes the rest of the watershed, upstream of PBWD s intake on Fourmile Creek plus an additional 750 feet to incorporate the mines located on the watershed boundary. 23

24 Figure 9. Map of the Pine Brook Water District s Source Water Protection Area. 24

25 Potential Contaminant Source Inventory and Other Issues of Concern Many types of land uses have the potential to contaminate source waters: spills from tanks, trucks, and railcars; leaks from buried containers; failed septic systems, buried or injection of wastes underground, use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, road salting, as well as urban and agricultural runoff. While catastrophic contaminant spills or releases can wipe out a water resource, groundwater degradation can result from a plethora of small releases of harmful substances. According to the USEPA, nonpoint-source pollution (when water runoff moves over or into the ground picking up pollutants and carrying them into surface and groundwater) is the leading cause of water quality degradation (GWPC, 2008). Figure 10. Schematic drawing of the potential source of contamination to surface and groundwater. In , 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 contaminant sources (point sources) were inventoried using selected state and federal regulatory databases including: mining and reclamation, oil and gas operations, above and underground petroleum tanks, Superfund sites, hazardous waste generators, solid waste disposal, industrial and domestic wastewater dischargers, solid waste sites, and water well permits. Dispersed contaminant sources (nonpoint sources) were inventoried using then recent land use / land cover and transportation maps of Colorado, along with selected state regulatory databases. A table of Contaminants Associated with Common PSOCs as well as Contaminants Associated with Discrete and Dispersed Contaminant Sources is included in the Appendices of this report. 25

26 The State s contaminant source inventory consisted of draft maps, along with a summary of the discrete and dispersed contaminant sources inventoried within the source water assessment area. The Pine Brook Water District 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 Pine Brook Water District is reporting its findings to the CDPHE. After much consideration, discussion, and input from local stakeholders, the Pine Brook Water District and the Steering Committee have developed a more accurate and current inventory of contaminant sources located within the Source Water Protection Area. Upon completion of this contaminant source inventory, the Pine Brook Water District has decided to adopt it in place of the original contaminant source inventory provided by the CDPHE. Contaminant Source Inventory (in no particular order): Abandoned Mines / Mine Tailings Mines and Mineral Resources Residential Issues (propane tanks, herbicides, hazardous waste, etc.) Road Spills Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS including vaults) Illegal Dumping Storage Tanks (Regulated and Unregulated) Herbicide Application In addition to the discrete and dispersed contaminant sources identified in the contaminant source inventory, the Steering Committee has also identified other issues of concern that may impact the Pine Brook Water District s drinking water sources. Additional Issues of Concern (in no particular order): Dam Failure at Glacier Lake Public Land Use and Increased Exposure (recreational impacts) Glacier Summer City Ditch Four Mile Fire Protection District s new fire station Road maintenance Forest Fire Flooding Efficiency of Water System from Decommissioning of Wells Communication and Outreach 26

27 Priority Strategy After developing a contaminant source inventory and list of issues of concern that is more accurate, complete, and current, the Steering Committee utilized Colorado Rural Water Association s SWAP Risk Assessment Matrix (Appendix D) to assist with the prioritization of this inventory for the implementation of the Best Management Practices outlined in this Source Water Protection Plan. The Pine Brook Water District and Steering Committee considered the following criteria when estimating the risk of contaminant sources and issues of concern (See Table 7). 1. 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: Migration Potential or Proximity to the Water Source - The migration potential generally has the greatest influence on whether a contaminant source could provide contaminants in amounts sufficient for the source water to become contaminated at concentrations that may pose a health concern to consumers of the water. Shorter migration paths and times of travel mean less chance for dilution or degradation of the contaminant before it reaches water sources. The proximity of a potential contaminant source of contamination to the Pine Brook Water District s water sources was considered relative to the sensitivity zones in the Source Water Protection Area (i.e. Primary and Secondary Zones). Contaminant Hazard - The contaminant hazard is an indication of the potential human health danger posed by contaminants likely or known to be present at the contaminant source. Using the information tables provided by CDPHE (see Appendices), the Steering Committee considered the following contaminant hazard concerns for each contaminant source: o Acute Health Concerns - Contaminants with acute health concerns include individual contaminants and categories of constituents that pose the most serious immediate health concerns resulting from short-term exposure to the constituent. Many of these acute health concern contaminants are classified as potential cancer-causing (i.e. carcinogenic) constituents or have a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) set at zero (0). o Chronic Health Concerns - Contaminants with chronic health concerns include categories of constituents that pose potentially serious health concerns due to long-term exposure to the constituent. Most of these chronic health concern contaminants include the remaining primary drinking water contaminants. 27

28 o Aesthetic Concerns - Aesthetic contaminants include the secondary drinking water contaminants, which do not pose serious health concerns, but cause aesthetic problems such as odor, taste or appearance. Potential Volume - The volume of contaminants at the contaminant source is important in evaluating whether the source water could become contaminated at concentrations that may pose a health concern to consumers of the water in the event these contaminants are released to the source water. Large volumes of contaminants at a specific location pose a greater threat than small volumes. 2. Probability of Occurrence The risk to the source waters increases as the relative probability of damage or loss increases. The regulatory compliance history for regulated facilities and operational practices for handling, storage, and use of contaminants were utilized to evaluate the likelihood of release. The Pine Brook Water District and Steering Committee determined whether each PSOC or issue of concern is in the water system's Direct Control (i.e. water system can take direct measures to prevent), Indirect Control (i.e. water system cannot directly control the issue, but can work with another person or entity to take measures to prevent) or No Control (i.e. PSOC or issue of concern is outside the control of the public water system and other entities) (Table 5). This determination of control in conjunction with the estimation of risk to the source water(s), helped guide the prioritization of the issues of concern in a way that best fits the needs and resources of the community. The Pine Brook Water District and Steering Committee ranked the potential contaminant source inventory and issues of concern in the following Table 5. 28

29 Table 5. Potential Contaminant Source Prioritization using SWAP Risk Assessment Matrix Potential Source of Contamination or Issue of Concern Controllable (Direct, Indirect, No) Impact to Water System (Minor, Moderate, Major) Probability of Occurrence (Unlikely, Possible, Likely, Very Likely) Risk (Very Low, Low, Intermediate, High, Very High) Priority Ranking Abandoned Mines / Mine Tailings Efficiency of Water System from Decommissioning of Wells Mines and Mineral Resources Residential Issues (propane tanks, herbicides, hazardous waste, etc.) Indirect Major Very Likely Very High 1 Direct 1 Indirect Major Possible High 2 Indirect Minor Possible Low 2 Dam Failure at Glacier Lake Indirect Major Unlikely Intermediate 3 Road Spills No Moderate Possible Intermediate 3 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS - including vaults) Public Lands Use and Increased Exposure Indirect Minor Possible Low 4 Indirect Minor Possible Low 4 Glacier Summer City Ditch Indirect Moderate Unlikely Low 4 New Fire Station Indirect Moderate Unlikely Low 4 Illegal Dumping No Moderate Unlikely Low 4 Storage Tanks (Regulated and Unregulated) Indirect Minor Unlikely Very Low 4 Herbicide Application Indirect Minor Unlikely Very Low 4 Road Maintenance Indirect Minor Unlikely Very Low 4 Forest Fire No Major Likely Very High 5 Flooding No Major Very Likely Very High 5 29

30 DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES AND ISSUES OF CONCERN The following section provides a description of the issues of concern that have been identified in this plan, describes the way in which they threaten the water sources and outlines best management practices. The purpose of this section is as a guidance document to understand the issues. Communication and Outreach One cannot overemphasize the importance of engaging the local community in the protection of the water quality of the source waters. One of the goals of this Source Water Protection Plan is to create an engaged community that will want to become stewards of their watershed. Providing opportunities to the public to become informed on the workings of the District has been identified as an ongoing need. Vehicles for providing information can include: Webpostings on the District s website, community gatherings and special meetings. Fostering good public relations can prevent local citizens from becoming disenfranchised from the District s objectives and thereby creating negative feelings toward the District. Many homes in the source water protection area of Fourmile Creek are on private wells. It s important to emphasize with them that there is a common value and purpose in protecting that water resource that also protects their water supply. Providing opportunities at local meetings for citizens to voice their concerns and participate in the decision making can help to create a healthy empowered community. Communications and Outreach Recommendations: 1. Pine Brook WD will develop and maintain an internal contact list which identifies scenarios that may be of concern, the department responsible for regulating the issue, and the current contact information for the contact at that department. 2. Consider installing Source Water Protection Area signs at strategic locations throughout the source water protection area. 3. Develop a list of property owners / residents within the Source Water Protection Area. This can be obtained by providing Boulder County with the GIS shape file of the SWPA. 4. Develop a public outreach brochure to send to property owners / residents within the SWPA that includes information about the SWPA and how they can help with preventing contaminants from entering the source waters. 5. Mail the brochure along with a cover letter from the Water District asking for help with protecting the water resources. 30

31 Mining The source water protection area for the Pine Brook Water District lies within the Gold Hill Mining District, one of the major gold-producing areas of Boulder County, Colorado. The Gold Hill Mining District comprised about 12 square miles and included the small mining camps or settlements of Crisman, Salina, Sunset, Summerville, Wallstreet and Gold Hill. Mining in the Gold Hill District was set off by placer discoveries starting in December of Lode gold was discovered the following summer and the district grew as thousands of miners moved in. Figure 11. Cash Mine, late 19 th century. The rush didn't last long, and scaled back mining was rejuvenated by the discovery of gold tellurides in Later bursts of activity occurred in 1898 (when a railroad was completed between Boulder and Ward) and in Nearly all mining ended by 1942, except for some strong interest in the late 1970 s and early 1980 s (CGS, 2014). This historic mining activity has resulted in a potential for heavy metal and other mining-related contamination to occur throughout the Source Water Protection Area. 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 emanating from inactive mines and waste rock piles has a potential to impair aquatic life in Fourmile Creek upstream from the District s drinking water intake, and to a lesser degree threaten human drinking water. Compliance Issues The 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. The current active mines permitted within the Source Water Protection Area have had compliance issues which raise concern with the operator s capacity to comply with the environmental protection laws. 31

32 Examples of these issues include: Failure to obtain a discharge permit, Failure to submit annual water monitoring reports, Inappropriate disposal of mill tailings without a permit, Inability of operator to show that they were licensed to do business in Colorado, and Failure to submit an annual mining report to DRMS. Abandoned Mine Land Mining practices during the early days allowed the mine owners to simply abandon their 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. In 1993, the Colorado Geological Survey completed an inventory of abandoned mine land for the Boulder Ranger District. Within the Source Water Protection Area, there are 209 abandoned mines and 151 mine hole openings (3 are considered extremely dangerous and 19 dangerous) and 13 draining adits. There are 127 tailings piles identified within the SWPA of which 16 sites are in contact with the stream and 8 sites have water draining across the surface (Fig. 12). Figure 12. Map of the abandoned mines, mine tailings piles and mine hole openings in the SWPA. 32

33 Active Permitted Mines Hundreds of claims and small exploratory mining operations existed throughout the source water protection area, many of which were never recorded in state or local government offices. It was not until 1973 that the State of Colorado required mines to be permitted. Current mining permit data for the source water protection areas were obtained from the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety. Within the protection area there are eight permitted mines and four active mining operations (Table 6) (Fig. 13). Table 6. Permitted Mines within the Source Water Protection Area Mines (Permittee) ID Number Commodities Mined Permit Status Boulder Dumps (Logan Mill Ranch) M Gold/silver Withdrawn Nancy Dump (The Venture) M Gold Terminated Oxbow Placers (Oxbow Mining Corp) M Gold Active Phil Sheridan Lode (Harry Covey) M Gold/silver Active Black Cloud Mine (Gold hill Ventures) M Unknown Not Mining Aurum Claim (William P. Manning/Schiafano) M Gold/silver Not Mining Cash & Who Do Mines (Mount Royale Ventures, LLC) M Gold/silver Active Gold Hill Mill (Mount Royale Ventures, LLC) M Gold/silver Active SOURCE: COLORADO DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY Figure 13. Map of the status of permitted mines within the Source Water Protection Area. 33

34 Mineral Resource Extraction There are unpatented mining claims being filed on public and private land within the watershed. As of May 2014, there are 47 unpatented mining claims filed with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the Source Water Protection Area (Fig. 8, Active BLM claims). Both the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM have authority on both federal surface and federal mineral interests (subsurface) with the BLM being the permitting agency. The unpatented claims on public lands are handled by the Bureau of Land Management, while the ones on private lands are handled by the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The potential for future minerals development in Boulder County depends on the future economic and resource needs on both public and private lands. In addition to the federal and private land s minerals that could be developed, the State Land Board managed land within the SWPA has also been designated for mineral extraction (Fig. 14). Figure 14. Map of areas on public land where future mineral development may occur. 34

35 Abandoned Mines and Mine Tailings Recommendations 1. Reference existing studies, the Four Mile BAER Assessment, the USGS Mineral Resources Data Set and other existing inventories of abandoned mines and tailings piles, and DRMS inventories to help determine which are impaired and a threat to the source waters. 2. Develop notification procedures with organizations that might first notice the problems (e.g. Boulder County, Fire Department, USGS, USFS, BLM, and/or Private Landowners). 3. Report any issues or threats that arise to the appropriate agencies. (E.g. Pine Brook and USGS have identified a streamside tailings pile in Salina and will report it to the EPA and/or County for investigation.) 4. Develop and maintain an effective contact list to report and collaborate on any issues that may arise. 5. Regularly exchange water quality data with the USGS and other entities that are monitoring within the SWPA. Mines and Mineral Resources Recommendations: Mines and Mineral Resources Recommendations: 1. Coordinate with the agencies who can further identify potential risks in the sensitivity zones and help determine appropriate BMP strategies (ex. CDPHE, DRMS, BLM, etc.), and to create a list of potential BMP approaches that may be implemented once a target mine is identified. 2. Establish contacts with Boulder County Public Health, Boulder County Land Use departments, Fire Department, and DRMS to get notified on any new permits/public notices related to proposed future mining areas and re-processing areas. 3. Regularly exchange water quality data with the USGS and other entities that are monitoring within the SWPA. 4. Develop and maintain an effective contact list to report and collaborate on any issues that may arise. 35

36 Transportation on Roads The source water protection area is accessed by a network of paved and native surface roads. The paved roads include Highway 72 and a portion of County Road 118 up to Salina. The twolane native surface roads include County Roads 118, 52, 79, 93J, and 89. County Road 118 runs parallel to Fourmile Creek for much of its length. The junction of County Roads 79 & 118 is near the raw water intake for the PBWD. Most of the roads in the protection area are maintained by the Boulder County Transportation Department, except for Highway 72 which is maintained by the Colorado Department of Transportation. The County Road Department s annual road maintenance on their County Roads consists of grading the road surface. A popular off-road vehicle recreation route and mountain biking destination is County Road 93J, or the Switzerland Trail ; a former narrow gauge railroad grade that served many of the mining camps in the county. The roads in the protection area are used for residential, industry, utility, tourism and recreational access. Chemicals and petroleum products are transported via trucks along the roadways to area residents and industry. County Road 118 is used to access popular recreation sites. Contaminants of Concern The construction and maintenance of roads has been recognized as a potential source of contaminants in forested watersheds. Roads can change natural run-off patterns by increasing the amount of imperious surface in a watershed, intercepting overland flow, and routing this water directly into stream. Stormwater runoff over these roads can deliver contaminants from the road surface into nearby surface waters including: vehicular leaks, spills and sediment. Motor vehicles leaks are a major source of water pollution to both surface and ground water. Vehicular leaks on the roadway may runoff during storm events and deliver contaminants from the road surface into Fourmile Creek. Runoff from roads may have a high concentration of toxic metals, suspended solids, and hydrocarbons, which originate largely from automobiles (Gowler and Sage, 2006). Vehicular spills may occur along the transportation route within the source water protection area from trucks that transport fuels, septic waste and other chemicals that have a potential for contaminating the source waters. Accidental spills of small amounts of contaminants may not be detected or reported and are often diluted with rain water or snowmelt, potentially washing the chemicals into the soil or nearby waterways. Large spills require immediate emergency response from the local fire department to ensure contaminants do not enter the source waters. 36

37 Native surface roads along creek corridors are often sources of sediment into the creek. Sediment has the potential for entering Fourmile Creek during high-water events or flooding, storm water runoff over native surface roads and upland areas within the watershed. Native surface roads that are improperly engineered and maintained can result in erosion and delivery of sediment into nearby streams, thus impacting the ecological health of the stream system. Heavy traffic along these routes can cause damage to the road surface and erosion. Roadways are also frequently used for illegal dumping of hazardous or other types of waste. Transportation Corridor Recommendations: 1. Rely on Boulder County s 24/7 Environmental Emergency Response Team (EERT) response in coordination with 1 st Responders. 2. Distribute PBWD Emergency Response Cards to all local emergency responders and keep the information on the emergency response cards updated. 3. Rely on CDOT and the County Transportation Department to follow their current protocol for preventing contamination of waterways from road maintenance operations. 4. Rely on Boulder County to notify PBWD of any potentially hazardous waste that is discovered. Figure 15. Placing signage along the road corridor within the source water protection area is one way of educating travelers on how to notify emergency personnel if a contamination should occur. 37

38 Private Fuel Storage Tanks Rural residents of the source water protection area may have private aboveground storage tanks (AST) containing gasoline for vehicular fuel. The private aboveground storage tanks are a concern because they may be old, subject to leakage and not properly contained. It only takes a small amount of petroleum to contaminate the ground or surface water. The Steering Committee recommends maintaining a contact list of residents within the source water protection area who have fuel storage tanks used for vehicular fuel. Figure 16. An aboveground fuel storage tanks with secondary containment. Fuel tanks should be inspected visually on a regular basis and properly seated on a type of secondary containment structure to prevent spills, allow leaks to be easily detected, and prevent spills from reaching the ground. The containment area should be able to hold 110% of the tank capacity plus freeboard for precipitation. Secondary containment for ASTs must be impermeable to the materials stored (Fig. 16). Methods include berms, dikes, liners, vaults, and double-walled tanks. A manually controlled sump pump should be used to collect rain water that may accumulate in the secondary containment area. Any discharge should be inspected for petroleum or chemicals prior to being dispersed/released. Accumulated minor spillage, over time, may result in a film or sheen on collected rain water, making it unsuitable for discharge to the soil or drains. Periodic cleanup of the containment areas (e.g., sweeping with a broom and using limited absorbent) can prevent unnecessary dirt and contaminant buildup. Fuel Storage Tank Recommendations: 1. Maintain a current inventory and information on the status of regulated above and underground storage tanks in the source water protection area using the Colorado Storage Tank Information (COSTIS) website at Storage tank information from this site includes: facility, tank, owner, and events. 2. Identify Leaking Underground Storage Tank events that have occurred within the SWPA using the COSTIS database, and monitor progress on any remedial action conducted for the known contamination sites. PBWD can contact the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Division of Oil and Public Safety ( ) for information regarding leaking underground storage tanks events within the SWPA. PBWD can also contact the Public Records Center at (303) or (303) for a file review. 3. Encourage private unregulated tank owners within the SWPA to construct secondary containment areas under their storage tanks. 38

39 Public Land Use Public lands within the Source Water Protection Area are owned by the federal government with lands managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture s Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and State Land Trust Board. The source waters for the Fourmile Creek watershed originate on Roosevelt National Forest land managed by the Boulder Ranger District in Boulder, Colorado. These source waters have the greatest potential to be directly affected by land use or forest management activities. Protecting Water Resources A principal purpose for which the Forest Reserves (predecessor to the National Forest System) were established was to secure favorable conditions of water flows. Throughout its history, the Forest Service has had a very diverse and broad mission of multiple use management outlined by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. This means that they balance outdoor recreation and preservation of wildlife habitat, air and water, and other scenic and historical values with environmentally responsible commercial development of the land and its resources. The Forest Service's mandate to manage lands for multiple-use requires balancing present and future resource use with domestic water supply needs as well as many other needs. It is the desired condition of the National Forest System land managers to "maintain favorable conditions of flow and sustain supplies of high quality raw water while providing for multiple-use management" (GMUG, 2006). One of the long-term management goals of the Rocky Mountain Region is to manage the forest for water resources: Protect the resource. Maintain, and where opportunities exist, restore watershed and forest health to ensure full watershed function exhibiting high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity. Ensure that forest management activities occur in a manner that adequately protects the integrity of watersheds (USFS, 2010). The Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region and the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to establish a framework to work together on issues regarding the management and protection of water quality on state defined Source Water Assessment Areas on National Forest System lands in Colorado. Under this agreement, the Forest Service recognizes a CDPHE-delineated Source Water Area as a Municipal Supply Watershed per definition in FSM 2542 (MOU, 2009). Future revisions to the Forest Plan will include SWAAs as Municipal Supply Watersheds. Water Quality Concerns The Steering Committee identified activities on public land within the source water protection area that have a potential for impacting the water quality of Fourmile Creek. These include: dispersed camping along the riparian corridor with lack of sanitation facilities for campers; 39

40 forest health conditions; wildland fires; and mining and vehicular travel (previously addressed in this report). Forest Plan At the District level, the Boulder Ranger District adheres to the management directives established under the 1997 Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland. The current 1997 Forest Plan identifies management area prescriptions with directions for activities and management practices to be followed within the specified area. The Forest Service land within the source water protection area has the following management area prescriptions (new code): 1.3 Backcounty Recreation, 3.1 Special Interest Area, 3.5 Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats, 4.2 Scenery, 4.3 Dispersed Recreation, 7.1 Intermixed (Fig. 17). Figure 17. Map of the Forest Plan management area prescriptions. Forest Health Conditions 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 U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region 2 conducts aerial and ground surveys annually over western conifer and aspen forest to detect damage caused by defoliating insects. The 40

41 aerial detection survey conducted in 2013 provides us with current information on insect damage in the SWPA and surrounding areas as indicated in Fig. 18 (USFS, 2014). Although Mountain Pine Beetle is considered an epidemic throughout the west, the spread of the mountain pine beetle epidemic has slowed dramatically (Fig. 18). In Colorado, the Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosa) was active on 97,000 acres in 2013 and 32,000 of that was in ponderosa pine. Mountain pine beetle activity occurred primarily in the northern Front Range counties of Larimer with 85,000 acres, and Boulder with 1,600 acres. Tree mortality is a continuing problem in high-elevation subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa). The 2013 survey showed small pockets of Subalpine Fir Mortality in the SWPA and surrounding area. The Subalpine Fir Mortality in these areas is from both insects and disease. Mortality is attributed to a combination of the western balsam bark beetle (Dryocoetes confuses) and two species of root decay fungi (Armillaria sp. and Heterobasidion annosum) (Harris et al, 2011). Figure 18. Map of the location of Mountain Pine Beetle and Subalpine Fire Mortality in and surrounding the Source Water Protection Area in 2012 and Public Land Recommendations 1. Discuss specific issues and concerns with the relevant public land managers (USFS, County, and BLM). Identify restoration opportunities for severely impacted areas. 2. Keep informed and participate in public land management issues/activities at the district and regional level including: Forest Plan Revisions, Fuels Reduction Plan, Timber Management Plan, Wilderness designations, and other outreach opportunities. Provide written comments to public land managers on source water protection concerns. 41

42 Wildland Fires 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 it was historically. Most of Colorado s wildfires are caused by lightning strikes from the many thunderstorms that pass through the state on a regular basis during the summer months. Wildfire/Watershed Assessment In 2010, the Saint Vrain Wildfire/Watershed Assessment was completed which was designed to identify and prioritize sixth-level watersheds based upon their hazards of generating flooding, debris flows and increased sediment yields following wildfires that could have impacts on water supplies. The assessment followed a procedure prescribed by the Front Range Watershed Protection Data Refinement Work Group titled Protecting Critical Watersheds in Colorado from Wildfire: A Technical Approach to Watershed Assessment and Prioritization. The Assessment analysis resulted in a ranking of one through five, with five being the highest ranking. The Fourmile Creek watershed was ranked five due to the high flooding/debris flow hazard and composite hazard post-fire. It was also ranked as category four for wildfire hazard and soil erodability (JWA, 2010) (Fig. 19). Figure 19. Map of Priority Watershed Ranking for fire risk in the St. Vrain watershed. 42

43 There are relatively few areas within the Fourmile Creek zone of concern that have slopes less than 40%. As a result, mechanical treatment opportunities are very highly constrained within the watershed by the extensive steep slopes and the resultant poor access. However, the information from this assessment could be used to identify areas to incorporate forest management treatments that could minimize adverse hydrologic responses following intense wildfires (JWA, 2010). Community Wildfire Protection Plan In 2006, the Four Mile Fire Protection District completed their Community Wildfire Protection Plan with a majority of the district at that time at a moderate risk for a Wildland Urban Interface fire. (FMFPD, 2006) Fourmile Canyon Fire The Fourmile Canyon fire in Boulder County, Colorado (September 6 10, 2010) burned 23 percent of the Fourmile Creek Watershed (10 square miles), destroyed more than 160 homes, and at the time was one of the costliest wildfires in Colorado history. The wildfire left the area at risk of substantial erosion (Ruddy et al, 2010), potentially degrading the water supply of the community of Pine Brook Hills which draws water from Fourmile Creek. Water Quality Effects from Fire The degree to which wildfire degrades water quality and supply depends on wildfire extent and intensity, post-wildfire precipitation, watershed topography, and local ecology. Potential effects of wildfire on municipal water supplies and downstream aquatic ecosystems include the following: Changes in the magnitude and timing of snowmelt runoff, which influence filling of water-supply reservoirs, Increased loading of streams by nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, major ions, and metals, Post-fire erosion and transport of sediment and debris to downstream water-treatment plants, water-supply reservoirs, and aquatic ecosystems, and Changes in source-water chemistry that can alter drinking water quality (Writer & Murphy, 2012). Water-quality monitoring sites were established on Fourmile Creek at 5 locations, 2 upstream and 3 downstream of the burned area. Because water quality is closely tied to the hydrologic cycle, water samples were collected monthly during base flow, twice weekly during snowmelt runoff, and more frequently during storm events. Water samples were analyzed for dissolved organic carbon (DOC), nutrients, turbidity, major ions, and metals associated with mine waste (such as cadmium, lead, iron, manganese, and zinc). Water level, temperature, and specific conductivity were continuously monitored. Variable source-water quality presents challenges for drinking-water providers. Drinking-water treatment processes operate more effectively when source-water quality is constant, DOC 43

44 concentrations are below 5 milligrams per liter (mg L 1), and turbidity (an indicator of suspended material) is less than 20 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). Elevated nitrate concentrations can promote algal growth in water supply reservoirs, which can increase DOC concentrations and lead to disagreeable taste and odor. Post-fire impacts to water quality occurred during first flush storm events, snowmelt, and high intensity thunderstorms. Thunderstorms on July 7 and July 13, 2011, transported substantial amounts of sediment from hillslopes to Fourmile Creek. Large increases in concentrations of DOC (greater than 70 mg L 1) and of nitrate (greater than 9 mg L 1) and in turbidity (as much as 50,000 NTU) were measured downstream of the burned area. The total loading (defined as concentration times discharge) of nutrients and DOC transferred from burned areas to the stream was 1 to 2 orders of magnitude as great as loading from unburned areas. This large increase in sediment, carbon, and nutrient loading from burned watersheds has the potential to profoundly influence downstream water treatment processes, water-supply reservoirs, and aquatic ecosystems. Metal concentrations increased but did not exceed primary drinking-water standards. Iron and manganese exceeded secondary drinking-water standards during storm events, and concentrations of manganese remained elevated for several weeks after the storms (Writer & Murphy, 2012). Water and sediment yields increased as more of the forest floor was affected by fire. Even though PBWD s treatment is capable of removing the sediment, it has increased the cost of operations and could require more advanced treatment technologies if sediment levels stay too high. The main source of supply for PBWD is a flow right. The District has already experienced a changing flow regime post-fire that has impacted their impoundment near Fourmile Creek by filling it with flood debris and sediment. Mine tailings and waste rock from historical placer and lode mining are widely distributed in the Fourmile Creek watershed, and increased erosion could potentially transport these materials into downstream water bodies. Wildland Fire Recommendations: 1. Share maps, GIS shapefiles, and Emergency Notification Cards with the USFS and Boulder County and coordinate with the USFS and Boulder County on fuels reduction opportunities. 2. Identify post wildfire risks and threats to identify high priority areas (similar to the USFS BAER areas). 3. Provide resource information to inform fire suppression efforts. 4. Refer to Boulder County and other local Community Wildfire Protection Plans. 44

45 Flooding The importance of the flood hazard issue in source water protection was evident in the catastrophic flooding that occurred not only in the Fourmile Creek watershed, but throughout the Front Range of Colorado. The area experienced a rain event of historic proportions beginning on September 9, 2013, that dropped a record-breaking 17+ inches of precipitation over a widespread area in just a few days. The unrelenting rain triggered flash floods and landslides in the County s mountain drainages, resulted in massive flooding with associated slides and debris flows throughout the foothills and plains, so overloaded water channels that many substantially changed course, and excessively saturated soils on properties that were not overrun by floodwaters. This extraordinary weather event led to President Barack Obama declaring the County a federal major disaster area, and prompted emergency disaster declarations at the state and local levels. The 2013 Extreme Rain and Flood Event caused loss of life, catastrophic property damage, and the substantial destruction of key infrastructure including major roads, sewer systems, water systems, and trails and park lands. The amount of rain that the watershed received in that short period of time was close to its annual average precipitation. Nolan Doesken, State Climatologist, said that we got the better part of a year s worth of precipitation in a week, with the bulk of that in a day and a half (Coleman, 2014). Most likely the effects were intensified in the Fourmile Canyon watershed from the precipitation falling on hillsides deforested from the Fourmile Fire just three years earlier Flood damaged water resource infrastructure within the PBWD system included the sediment and debris deposition in the Penfold Pond and the Pine Brook Reservoir, and the loss of some groundwater wells. The District is currently in the process of evaluating that damage and assessing the most efficient repairs for future needs. Extreme precipitation events may become more frequent, and source water protection planning can include developing resilient infrastructure in case there is ever a repeated weather pattern like the one experienced in September, Pine Brook Water District s strategic positioning and current resilience allowed for no interruptions in service. Sustaining that capacity into the future is the topic of the evaluation performed in May, (Frachetti, 2014) Flooding Recommendations 1. Continue to rely on the Fire Departments, the Sheriff Department, and local emergency responders to notify Pine Brook WD when there is a high potential for flooding. 45

46 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Within the source water protection area there are a few properties that rely on Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS or septic systems) to dispose of their sewage. A septic system is a type of onsite wastewater treatment 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. 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, to surface on the ground, or to seep into groundwater. If managed improperly, these residential septic systems can contribute excessive nutrients, bacteria, pathogenic organisms, and chemicals to the groundwater. SOURCE: STATIC.HOWSTUFFWORKS.COM Figure 20. Schematic of a septic tank system. In Boulder County onsite wastewater treatment systems are permitted by their Public Health Agency. The County administers and enforces the minimum standards, rules, and regulations outlined in the state of Colorado s Revised Statutes (CRS ). These regulations include among other requirements minimum setback requirements from streams, ditches and other waterways. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Recommendations 1. Work to implement a cross referral process with the Pine Brook WD on upstream OWTS permitting. 2. Work with Boulder County Public Health to implement active managerial controls and outreach on unapproved/unpermitted OWTS within the SWPA. 3. Develop a GIS layer with septic systems identified along with prioritizing which OWTS are the most immediate threat (Zone 1). 4. Use public outreach to educate specific OWTS owners about how to maintain and check their systems. (e.g.: Are you aware that not operating your septic system properly could affect your drinking water quality?) 46

47 Herbicides Herbicides are used by Boulder County to control noxious weeds on county maintained road right-of-way within the source water protection area. The County Weed Coordinator is responsible for implementing the Boulder County Noxious Weed Management Plan which is consistent with the State mandate for managing noxious weeds. The County uses herbicides with the lowest rates recommended for effective weed control that have the lowest toxicity and volatility, and are spot sprayed whenever possible, instead of broadcast on weed infestations. Almost all herbicides used are selective for control of broadleaf weed species. Grasses are unaffected. Notification of herbicide applications in areas with public access are posted daily at All employees in the weed group, full-time and seasonal, are certified with the Colorado Department of Agriculture under Pesticide Application. Application equipment is regularly calibrated to insure accurate delivery. Herbicide label information provides precautionary information relating to proximity to water, sensitive vegetation, re-entry intervals, etc. Product labels are referenced and present with applicators in the field. Right-of-way herbicide applications made by Boulder County west of Highways 36 and 93 or within 200 feet of a County-owned trail are approved by the Board of County Commissioners prior to application. The State requires mandatory eradication of the following List A species known to exist in Boulder County: Cypress spurge (Euphorbia cyparissias), Dyer s woad (Isatis tinctoria), Mediterranean sage (Salvia aethiopis), Myrtle spurge (Euphorbia myrsinites), Orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum), Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)(boulder County, 2014). Herbicidal Use Recommendations: 1. Encourage the safe use of herbicides in accordance with U.S. EPA label instructions and restrictions. Label information and requirements include: personal protective equipment; user safety; first aid; environmental hazards; directions for use; storage and disposal; general information; mixing and application methods; approved uses; weeds controlled and application rates. 2. Encourage timing herbicide application in relation to soil moisture and anticipated weather conditions. Monitor the weather (temperature, wind speed, wind direction, and humidity) and avoid application of herbicide when heavy rains are forecast to prevent runoff of herbicide into nearby waterways. Avoid application during windy weather to prevent drift of herbicide into waterways or buffer zone. 3. Provide the County Weed Manager, private landowners, USFS, and other agencies who may apply herbicides in the SWPA a copy of the source water protection plan, a map of the source water protection area and location of water intakes. Encourage the use of non-herbicide alternatives within the Primary Zone of the Pine Brook WD s SWPA. 47

48 Residential Practices The Pine Brook Water District s Source Water Protection Area includes rural residential dwellings that use chemicals in their home or operations. Common household practices may cause pollutants to runoff residential property and enter the surface or groundwater as indicated in the picture below (Fig. 16). Prevention of surface water and groundwater contamination requires education, public involvement, and people motivated to help in the effort. Public education will help people understand the potential threats to their drinking water source and motivate them to participate as responsible citizens to protect their valued resources. Source water protection is of mutual benefit to both the Pine Brook Water District and residents in the Fourmile Creek area who are on private wells. SOURCE: COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Figure 21. Common household practices may cause pollutants to runoff residential property and enter the surface or groundwater. Residential Impacts Recommendations: 1. Encourage private landowners in the Four Mile Creek watershed and the Pine Brook Hills Community to notify Pine Brook WD of any activities that may threaten the quality or quantity of the water supply. 2. Work with the Colorado Division of Water Resources to distribute educational materials about Colorado Water Law to the residents of the Four Mile Creek watershed. 3. Maintain communication between Pine Brook WD and the Fire Departments to notify Pine Brook of emergency situations in the Four Mile Creek watershed. 4. Consider installing Source Water Protection Area signs at strategic locations throughout the source water protection area. 48