4. Water Quality
Goal: To protect our rivers and streams from any further degradation of water quality and to restore the high water quality of this headwater watershed.
Objectives:
A. Meet state water quality standards in all of our rivers and streams.
B. Keep our rivers and streams free of human-induced pollutants, such as lawn chemicals and discharges from poorly maintained or failed septic systems.
C. Improve our community’s understanding of water quality issues by enhancing public education on the relationship between water quantity and water quality.
D. Improve our community’s ability to address water quality issues by upgrading technology at our wastewater treatment plants to address emerging contaminants.
E. Improve our community’s understanding and enforcement of federal, state and local regulations designed to protect water quality.
F. Obtain water quality data for key parameters on stream reaches where recent data is lacking.
G. Improve our water quality monitoring of lakes and reservoirs.
H. Preserve safe drinking water supplies.
I. Improve coordination of water quality monitoring, analyses, and reporting efforts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Commnets from 8/20/09 Public Meeting:
ReplyDeleteA. Meet state water quality standards in all of our rivers and streams.
Group Discussion/Recommended Actions: This was viewed as a long-term goal; the first step is to find the contamination source(s).
B. Keep our rivers and streams free of human-induced pollutants, such as lawn chemicals and discharges from poorly maintained or failed septic systems.
Group Discussion/Recommended Actions: This was identified as the most important Objective by the discussion group. Septic system maintenance and proper installation are important. Who are the experts in the Valley that can tell you if designs are adequate and systems functioning properly? Where is the regulatory authority on this issue?
C. Improve our community’s understanding of water quality issues by enhancing public education on the relationship between water quantity and water quality.
Group Discussion/Recommended Actions: This Objective was recognized as important.
D. Improve our community’s ability to address water quality issues by upgrading technology at our wastewater treatment plants to address emerging contaminants.
Group Discussion/Recommended Actions: This was also recognized as a very important Objective by the discussion group. Preventative measures need to be implemented to stop the contamination before it gets to the plant. People should not flush pharmaceuticals. It is very expensive to upgrade a plant. Education is more cost-effective/cheaper than a plant upgrade. We should target hospitals and other high-use entities for an educational effort (e.g., pharmacies could provide instruction on proper disposal of pharmaceuticals with prescriptions).
We need to investigate our ability to re-use some of the waste products from our plants (e.g., land application of sludge).
E. Improve our community’s understanding and enforcement of federal, state and local regulations designed to protect water quality.
ReplyDeleteGroup Discussion/Recommended Actions: The discussion group didn’t talk much about this Objective. The importance of the Clean Water Act was noted.
F. Obtain water quality data for key parameters on stream reaches where recent data is lacking.
Group Discussion/Recommended Actions: It was suggested that we begin by asking, “What do we need to measure for baseline data”? Water quality may be influenced by naturally occurring background conditions (e.g., local geology). We must identify whether we have a natural or a human-induced issue.
G. Improve our water quality monitoring of lakes and reservoirs.
Group Discussion/Recommended Actions: This Objective was noted as especially important for the Fryingpan – which has excellent water quality.
H. Preserve safe drinking water supplies.
Group Discussion/Recommended Actions: This was considered the second most important Objective by the discussion group. The group felt that the word “preserve” should be changed to “protect” in this Objective.
Basalt draws water from springs and wells. We should consider a wellhead protection program, as well as inventorying and protecting areas around springs.
I. Improve coordination of water quality monitoring, analyses, and reporting efforts.
Group Discussion/Recommended Actions: No specific comments noted.
The discussion group added the following as an Objective:
J. Identify future potential water quality threats.
Group Discussion/Recommended Actions: We should be looking 5-10 years out for other threats (e.g., the effects of beetle kill, fire, and oil and gas development on water quality).
Comments from 9/10/09 Public Meeting:
ReplyDelete1. Objective F was considered the most important Objective for Water Quality. Objective B was ranked second, and Objectives C and J were ranked third.
2. Coal Creek was identified as the primary source of pollution for the Crystal River. The group questioned whether the water quality has improved as a result of mine reclamation activities (i.e., how much of the problem is man-made, versus attributable to natural conditions/occurrences?). Private land reclamation could be better. The State is done with its reclamation, but that work could be better as well. An additional Objective was suggested - perform additional reclamation/restoration in the Coal Creek drainage.
3. Water quality data is needed for Thompson Creek and Avalanche Creek, among other streams in the watershed. It is particularly important that Thompson Creek water quality data be collected now (and collected frequently) so that we have a baseline for assessing future impacts from any oil and gas development. An additional Objective was suggested - ensure that adequate restoration/reclamation occurs in any area subject to oil and gas development.
4. We need to recognize that emerging contaminants can be treated at our municipal wastewater treatment plants, but that they cannot be treated by onsite wastewater treatment systems (septic systems) as development occurs in the watershed.
5. The Redstone Wastewater Treatment Plant needs to be upgraded.
6. Gunnison County’s onsite wastewater treatment system inspection program was noted as a “model” for other jurisdictions – however it is not consistently applied.
7. The Crystal River Trail’s impact on water quality needs to be addressed. The trail will generate “spider trails”, riparian degradation, human waste and garbage. There is a feeling that an adequate plan for addressing these impacts is not in place (e.g., there should be public restrooms associated with the development). A new Objective was suggested - require that the water quality impacts of any public development be addressed during the planning process.
8. Dispersed camping on public lands presents a water quality problem. The lack of enforcement of camping restrictions was cited as a significant problem.
9. It was suggested that improved signage in tourist areas could enhance visitors’ understanding of the relationship between water quantity and water quality.
10. An illustration of the hierarchy of regulators and regulations in the water quality area would be informative.
11. Our regulatory agencies operate in a reactive mode – they are not proactive in addressing water quality issues. We have a large number of regulatory entities involved in this watershed without any coordination of data collection and sharing of information. Funding for water quality data collection is a problem for everyone. A new Objective was suggested - improve communication and collaboration among regulatory agencies engaged in water quality monitoring in the Roaring Fork watershed to enhance cohesive data collection and sharing, as well as funding opportunities.
12. Future water quality threats were identified as: (i) oil and gas development, (ii) increased traffic and roads, (iii) greater recreational use, (iv) an increase in the number of residences, and (v) the inadequate Redstone Treatment Plant.
Comments from 9/24/09 public meeting in Woody Creek:
ReplyDelete1. The biggest priorities include B and C.
2. Filling the data gaps, future development issues (Snowmass Village), MgCl use on roadways, weed control and prevention were also seen as priorities.
3. Education should include websites, fliers, brochures, newspaper articles, peer pressure (neighborly), should not be punitive, and should encourage good projects/news. Education for septic system owners was discussed. Fliers and information with BMPs was suggested for community.
4. Stream Side buffers are needed to reduce pollutants into streams. Pollutants discussed included sediment from roadways and development projects and fertilizers on lawns.
5. Stormwater was discussed. It is challenging to go back and remediate after construction. Need to look into future development projects to remediate future problems. It was realized that stormwater wetland systems are expensive to implement.
6. Mining issues were discussed. Further information about local mining influences on water quality is needed.
Comments from 10/1/09 public meeting in Glenwood Springs:
ReplyDelete1. Headwaters diversions, climate change, and pressures on demand from increasing population are reducing quantity and ultimately reducing dilution.
2. Impacts of new and existing development was discussed.
3. Inspection and enforcement should be happening.
4. A new objective was proposed. Minimizing impacts of development.
a. Train development community leaders
b. Improved and expanded inspection and enforcement
c. Incorporate water quality goals into local land use plans and policies
d. Identify best areas to grow and not to grow.
e. Incentivize use of BMPs
5. Improve public engagement and support for water quality protection and improvement.
a. Increase the understanding of monetary value of healthy water quality
b. Stream segment adoption program (Adopt a Stream)
c. Collaborate with water utilities to communicate with public
d. Help public know what they can do to minimize their impacts (pet waste, conservation, car washing, paint and oil disposal, etc.)
e. Make disposal of potential contaminants like pharmaceutical, oil, paint, etc. available
f. Turn up the Heat! Advertise a crisis!
Comments from a 10/15/09 Public Meeting in Aspen:
ReplyDelete1. Meeting state water quality standards in all of our rivers and streams is important. We are fortunate to have generally good water quality in the watershed, especially upstream of Aspen. We need to continue our existing water quality monitoring and, perhaps, improve it.
2. Adequate treatment of storm water runoff is a significant issue. Aspen’s Jenny Adair project does not handle all of the City’s storm water runoff; there is room for additional storm water projects. All of the City’s storm water should be treated. Additionally, it will be important to share the data from this project with all of our watershed’s jurisdictions; they all need to address storm water problems. How effective has Jenny Adair been? It has been very effective – capturing tons of sediment (1 dump truck per day is kept out of the Roaring Fork River).
3. The water needs of our watershed must be quantified as they relate to water quality. We need to determine what quantities of water we need to maintain existing ecological characteristics (e.g., consider riparian zones, instream habitat, municipal needs). The report prepared by Grand River Consulting on opportunities for increasing flows in the Upper Roaring Fork did not identify many viable options. Thus, we need to maintain the health of our streams based on the flows we have. It is important to improve our community’s understanding of the relationship between water quantity and water quality with respect to the dewatering of the Roaring Fork River.
4. The impact of snow storage facilities (e.g., at T-Lazy 7) on water quality need to be addressed. Are there even issues associated with “closed snow storage systems”, such as the main storage area near the airport?
5. Thought needs to be given to how we can best educate Aspenites on “best management practices” (BMPs) for application of fertilizers, use and disposal of household chemicals, and the like. The use of impervious surfaces (resulting in increased surface runoff) is also an issue. People need to understand how their everyday activities impact the health of the watershed.
6. We should strive to increase our riparian areas – recognizing how important such areas are for filtering pollutants and improving water quality.
Comments from Dec 3, 2009 meeting with
ReplyDeleteGlenwood Springs City Council, River Commission, and Planning and Zoning Board.
Need to recognize that water quality impacts are cumulative. Glenwood Springs is at the bottom of the watershed and therefore subject to all the degradation that occurs upstream. There was mention of the need to sort out what is Glenwood's contribution to stream degradation vs. the contributions from upstream entities or phenomena. Example: Energy development in the watershed (Thompson Divide Area would impact downstream water quality).
Discussed water quality exceedances and the need to figure out causes and which one are the results of geology. What are the water quality targets? Are we trying to make things better than they were historically?
Non-Point source pollution is a big issue. “Package waste-water treatment plants” and ISDS. ISDS are a problem. Slimy green stuff on rocks in RF. 100+ ISDS within city limits. Expensive-need to look at how they might be connected. Need a regional funding mechanism ala the Energy Districts set up by Eagle and Pitkin counties. Perhaps need to look at funding for a regional collection system.
Salt Seeps-City is looking at geothermal opportunities and this might provide a good opportunity to deal with salt sources. Perhaps desalinate as pulling the heat out. Regional Funding is needed to explore this opportunity more.
WQ salinity affects all the municipalities on the Colorado west of GWS.
Discussed non-point source issues associated with irrigation and desire to use it or lose it. Perhaps more storage opportunities’ would help here.
Look at Region 12 Council of Governments water quality information.
Role of City regarding steep slopes and stormwater discharge. Promote passive systems for stormwater discharge-city has some control. Work being done in Aspen was mentioned.
Issue of CDOT storing snow next to river was discussed. They are no longed doing this. What is the effect of Mag Chloride application on roads on our rivers?
Suggestion was made for the River Commission to look at stormwater practices in other areas.
What is the impact of golf courses on water quality? Needs further info. Golf courses can be designed to improve water quality with the use of wetlands. Aspen Glen is a leader in this area.
Problem with pharmaceuticals? Are they tested for? Are they treated for?