DOCSLIB.ORG

Colorado's 303(D) List of Impaired Waters

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Colorado's 303(D) List of Impaired Waters COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 5 CCR 1002-93 REGULATION #93 COLORADO'S SECTION 303(D) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS AND MONITORING AND EVALUATION LIST 93.1 Authority These regulations are promulgated pursuant to section 25-8-101 et seq C.R.S. as amended, and in particular, 25-8-202 (1) (a), (b), (i), (2) and (6); 25-8-203 and 25-8-204. 93.2 Purpose This regulation establishes Colorado’s Lists of Impaired Waters. These waters include Water- Quality-Limited Segments Requiring Total Maximum Daily Loads (“TMDLs”), impaired waters that do not require a TMDL, and Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation List: (1) The list of Water-Quality-Limited Segments Requiring TMDLs fulfills requirements of section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act which requires that states submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a list of those waters for which technology-based effluent limitations and other required controls are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards. These segments are included in Section 93.3 with parameters included in the Clean Water Section 303(d) Impairment column. (2) Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation List identifies water bodies where there is reason to suspect water quality problems, but there is also uncertainty regarding one or more factors, such as the representative nature of the data. Water bodies that are impaired, but it is unclear whether the cause of impairment is attributable to pollutants as opposed to pollution, are also placed on the Monitoring and Evaluation List. This Monitoring and Evaluation list is a state-only document that is not subject to EPA approval. These segments are included in Section 93.3 with parameters included in the Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation column. (3) The list of Water-Quality-Limited Segments Not Requiring a TMDL identifies segments where data is available that indicates that at least one classified use is not being supported, but a TMDL is not needed. These segments and parameters are included in Section 93.4. 93.3 Water Bodies Requiring TMDLs or Identified for Monitoring and Evaluation Only those segments where a Clean Water Section 303(d) Impairment has been determined require TMDLs. For these segments, TMDLs are only required for those parameters that are identified as impairments. 1 Colorado’s Clean Water Act Monitoring & 303(d) WBID Segment Description Portion Section 303(d) Evaluation Priority Impairment Parameter(s) COAR Arkansas River Basin Fountain Creek and COARFO01a tributaries above Mainstem Fe(Trec), U E. coli, Mn, As, H/L/L Monument Creek Fountain Creek, COARFO02a Monument Creek to Hwy all Fe(Trec) E. coli H 47 Fountain Creek from E. coli (May- COARFO02b Hwy 47 to the Arkansas all H October) River Tributaries to Fountain Creek within the West National Forest or Air Aquatic Life COARFO03a Monument L Force Academy lands, (provisional) Creek from Monument Creek to the Arkansas River Bear Creek, and all tributaries, from the COARFO03b source to a point all Cu H immediately upstream of Gold Camp Road. All tribs to Fountain Creek, which are not on COARFO04 all E. coli H National Forest or Air Force Academy Land All tribs to Fountain Creek, which are not on COARFO04 Sand Creek Se L National Forest or Air Force Academy Land All tribs to Fountain Little Fountain Creek, which are not on Creek below COARFO04 Se National Forest or Air Deadman Force Academy Land Canyon Jimmy Camp Creek and unnamed tributary below COARFO05 all Fe(Trec) Fort Carson and surrounding marshlands 2 Colorado’s Clean Water Act Monitoring & 303(d) WBID Segment Description Portion Section 303(d) Evaluation Priority Impairment Parameter(s) E. coli (May- Monument Creek from October), COARFO06 National Forest to all Temperature, H/M/L Fountain Creek Aquatic Life (provisional) Arkansas River, Fountain Creek to COARLA01a all E. coli H Colorado Canal headgate Arkansas River, Colorado Canal COARLA01b all Se, As, Mn L headgate to John Martin Reservoir Arkansas River, John COARLA01c Martin Reservoir to all Se, U, As, Mn H/H/L/L stateline All tributaries to the Arkansas River from the COARLA02a Colorado Canal all SO4, Mn headgate to the Colorado/Kansas border Mainstem of the Apishapa River, COARLA03a all E. coli Temperature H including tribs from source to I-25 Apishapa River, Timpas COARLA04a all Se, SO L Creek 4 Apishapa River, Timpas COARLA04a Apishapa River Mn Creek Upper North Fork, Middle Fork, South Fork COARLA05a all As L of the Purgatoire River, including all tributaries. Lower North, Middle and South Fork of the Purgutoire River, and COARLA05b all Temperature As L the mainstem from source to Trinidad Reservoir. 3 Colorado’s Clean Water Act Monitoring & 303(d) WBID Segment Description Portion Section 303(d) Evaluation Priority Impairment Parameter(s) Lower North, Middle and South Fork of the Purgutoire River, and COARLA05b Long Canyon Mn the mainstem from source to Trinidad Reservoir. All Tributaries to the Purgatoire River from Apache Aquatic Life COARLA06a M the source to Interstate Canyon (provisional) 25 All Tributaries to the Purgatoire River from COARLA06a Reilly Canyon Temperature the source to Interstate 25 All Tributaries to the Purgatoire River from COARLA06a Sarcillo Canyon Temperature the source to Interstate 25 Wet Canyon and all tributaries from the COARLA06b all Temperature source to the confluence with the Purgatoire River Purgatoire River, I-25 to Sediment, E. COARLA07 all Arkansas River coli Mainstem of Adobe COARLA09a Creek and Gageby all Se, As L/H Creek… Mainstem of Adobe COARLA09a Creek and Gageby Horse Creek Mn, SO4 Fe(Trec) H Creek… Mainstem of Adobe COARLA09a Creek and Gageby Adobe Creek Fe(Trec) E. coli H Creek… Apache Creek, Breckenridge Creek, Little Horse Creek, Bob COARLA09b all Mn, SO Se L Creek, Wildhorse Creek, 4 Wolf Creek, Big Sandy Creek, Rule Creek… 4 Colorado’s Clean Water Act Monitoring & 303(d) WBID Segment Description Portion Section 303(d) Evaluation Priority Impairment Parameter(s) Apache Creek, Horse Creek, Breckinridge Creek, Little Horse Big Sandy COARLA09b Fe(Trec) M Creek, Bob Creek, Big Creek Sandy Creek, Rule Creek… Two Buttes Res., Two Buttes Pond, Hasty Lake, Holbrook Res., Burchfield Lake, Nee- Adobe Creek COARLA10 Skah (Queens) Res., As Se L Res Adobe Creek Res., Neeso Pah Res., Nee Nosha Res., Nee Gronda Res. Two Buttes Res., Two Buttes Pond, Hasty Lake, Holbrook Res., Burchfield Lake, Nee- Nee Gronda COARLA10 Skah (Queens) Res., Se L Res Adobe Creek Res., Neeso Pah Res., Nee Nosha Res., Nee Gronda Res. COARLA11 John Martin Reservoir all Se L Lake Henry, Lake COARLA12 Lake Henry Fe(Trec) Se L Meredith Lake Henry, Lake COARLA12 Lake Meredith Se L Meredith Trinidad Reservoir, Long Aquatic Life Use Trinidad COARLA15 Canyon Reservoir, and (Hg Fish Tissue), H Reservoir Lake Dorothey D.O. (Temperature) Mainstem of Arkansas River from the outlet of COARMA02 all Temperature H Pueblo Reservoir to Dry Creek arroyo 5 Colorado’s Clean Water Act Monitoring & 303(d) WBID Segment Description Portion Section 303(d) Evaluation Priority Impairment Parameter(s) Mainstem of the Arkansas Mainstem of Arkansas River from River from the outlet of COARMA02 Pueblo Mn L Pueblo Reservoir to Dry Reservoir to Creek Arroyo Blue Ribbon Creek Arkansas River from COARMA03 Wildhorse Creek to all Se, As H/L Fountain Creek COARMA04a Wildhorse Creek all NO2 E. coli H Mainstem of the Saint Charles River from a point immediately above the CF&I diversion canal COARMA06a all Mn, SO near Burnt Mill to a point 4 immediately upstream of the confluence with Edson Arroyo. Mainstem of the Saint Charles River from the COARMA06b confluence with Edson all SO4 Mn L Arroyo to the confluence with the Arkansas River. Greenhorn Creek, including all tributaries, from San Isabel National Forest boundary to COARMA07b all Temperature Greenhorn Highline Diversion Dam; Graneros Creek; North Muddy Creek Greenhorn Creek, including tributaries, COARMA09 from Greenhorn Highline all Mn As L Diversion Dam to the St. Charles River COARMA10 Sixmile Creek all Fe(Trec), Se L 6 Colorado’s Clean Water Act Monitoring & 303(d) WBID Segment Description Portion Section 303(d) Evaluation Priority Impairment Parameter(s) Huerfano River, including all tributaries, As, Mn, COARMA11b from 570 Road near all Fe(Trec) Malachite to Highway 69 at Badito Huerfano River, from COARMA12 Muddy Creek to the all Se L Arkansas River Cucharas River, from Walsenburg PWS COARMA14 all Fe(Trec) H diversion to the outlet of Cucharas Reservoir COARMA18a Boggs Creek all Mn, SO4 Se, Zn, U H Horseshoe Lake, Martin Lake (Ohem Lake) and Horseshoe Aquatic Life Use COARMA26 H Walsenburg Lower Town Lake (Hg Fish Tissue) Lake. Aquatic Life Use COARMA27 Teller Reservoir all (Hg Fish Tissue) Mainstem of the Arkansas River from the COARUA02c confluence with the Lake all As H Fork to the confluence with Lake Creek Mainstem of the Arkansas River from the COARUA04a Chaffee/Fremont County all Temperature Cu H Line to a point immediately above Lake Fork All tributaries to the below Arkansas River from the Sugarloaf Dam Aquatic Life, COARUA05 source to immediately to the Zn H Cd, Mn below the confluence confluence with with Browns Creek the Arkansas River 7 Colorado’s Clean Water Act Monitoring & 303(d) WBID Segment Description Portion Section 303(d) Evaluation Priority Impairment Parameter(s) All tributaries to the Arkansas River from the As, Cd, Cu, Zn H COARUA05 source to immediately Colorado Gulch Ag, Pb below the confluence Mn, Fe(dis) L with Browns Creek Mainstem of Lake Creek and all tributaries from COARUA10 all pH, D.O. H source to Arkansas River Mainstem of Chalk Creek from the source to COARUA12a all Cd H the confluence with the Arkansas River.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dolores River Restoration Partnership: a Private/Public Collaboration Dolores River Restoration Partnership
    DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP: A PRIVATE/PUBLIC COLLABORATION DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP • TIMELINE OF PARTNERSHIP • VISION AND GOALS OF PARTNERSHIP • WHY HAS THE DRRP BEEN SUCH A SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP? • WHY THIS PARTNERSHIP HAS BEEN IMPORTANT TO THE BLM ORIGINS AND HISTORY OF DRRP • INITIAL RIPARIAN WORK ON SAN MIGUEL RIVER IN EARLY 2000’S – LED BY TNC, PRECURSOR TO THE DRRP. • 2009 – TNC AWARDED CONTRACT TO TAMARISK COALITION TO DEVELOP A STRATEGY FOR THE DOLORES RIVER (DR-RAP) • 2010 - DR-RAP FINALIZED • 2010 - FIRST MOU SIGNED • 2010 – FIRST BLM ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT • 2012 – AGO BLUE RIVERS DESIGNATION • 2015 – TRANSITION PLAN FINALIZED • 2015 – DOLORES RIVER HEALTHY LANDS FOCAL AREA • 2015 – SECOND MOU SIGNED • 2016 – SECOND BLM ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION ACTION PLAN (DR-RAP) 1. IDENTIFIED A VISION: “A THRIVING DOLORES RIVER SYSTEM THAT IS ECOLOGICALLY, SOCIALLY, AND ECONOMICALLY SUSTAINABLE IN A MULTIUSE CONTEXT.” “A DOLORES RIVER WATERSHED DOMINATED BY NATIVE VEGETATION, WHERE THE THREATS FROM TAMARISK AND OTHER ASSOCIATED INVASIVE SPECIES HAVE BEEN MITIGATED AND THE RIPARIAN AREAS OF THE WATERSHED CONTINUE TO BECOME MORE NATURALLY FUNCTIONING, SELF-SUSTAINING, DIVERSE, AND RESILIENT OVER TIME.” DRRP MANAGEMENT GOALS Significantly increase the number of sustainable, healthy riparian plant Ecologic communities while reducing those dominated by tamarisk and other invasive, non-native plant species. Develop a professional, competitive, and efficient work force; improve Social aesthetic enjoyment;
    [Show full text]
  • See the Notice
    Notice Date: July 19, 2019 To: General Authorities; General Officers; Area Seventies; and the following leaders in the United States and Canada: Stake, Mission, and District Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents; Members of Stake and Ward Councils From: Priesthood and Family Department (1-801-240-2134) Subject: For the Strength of Youth (FSY) Conferences in the United States and Canada As part of the Children and Youth effort announced on May 8, 2018, the Church will begin holding For the Strength of Youth (FSY) conferences in the United States and Canada. These conferences have been held outside the U.S. and Canada for many years and have proven to be a strength to youth and also to the young single adults who serve as counselors. See the attached description of FSY conferences for more information. Beginning in 2021 and 2022, all stakes in the U.S. and Canada will participate in FSY conferences every other year. During 2020, a smaller number of FSY conferences will be held at locations in the U.S. and Canada to prepare for full implementation. Attached is the list of stakes participating in 2020. If your stake has been selected to participate in FSY in 2020, please do not plan treks or youth conferences to be held during that year. Young Women and Young Men camps may be held annually, as usual. If your stake has been selected but you believe your stake has an exceptional circumstance and cannot participate in FSY in 2020, please contact your Area Seventy. Dates, locations, financing arrangements, and other information, such as the calling of young single adults as counselors, will be shared at a later date.
    [Show full text]
  • Generalized Surficial Geologic Map of the Denver 1° × 2° Quadrangle, Colorado
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MISCELLANEOUS FIELD STUDIES MAP MF–2347 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Version 1.0 PAMPHLET GENERALIZED SURFICIAL GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE DENVER 1° × 2° QUADRANGLE, COLORADO Compiled by David W. Moore, Arthur W. Straub, Margaret E. Berry, Michael L. Baker, and Theodore R. Brandt 2001 CONTENT AND PURPOSE rock landslide deposit” and “stabilized dune sand.” Large areas (generally >1 km2; >0.4 mi2) of exposed This map locates surficial geologic deposits of bedrock, mostly devoid of surficial materials, are Quaternary age in the greater Denver area and mapped with a symbol “R.” surrounding region. Physical properties of the deposits are described. The physical properties PARTICLE SIZE AND COLOR include dominant grain size, composition, potential to expand upon sorption of water, and others. Origins TERMINOLOGY and ages of the deposits, and their inherent geologic hazards are identified. The properties of deposits and We used geological and soil textural terms to materials on and near the land surface affect its describe the size of particles in the surficial deposits. suitability for societal uses. Examples of such use Particle sizes ranged from microns to meters in include large-scale landfill sites, gravel pits and rock diameter. The combined use of geologic and soil quarries, large-scale residential developments, terminology resulted from a necessity to consult greenbelts, utility lines, and roads. Planners, zoning various data sources to characterize the materials. officials, builders, and interested citizens should have Clasts are particles larger than 2 mm in diameter. We a clear grasp of how the properties of surficial used geologic terms to describe clasts.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Memorandum
    Analysis and Technical Update to the Colorado Water Plan Technical Memorandum Prepared for: Colorado Water Conservation Board Project Title: Current and 2050 Planning Scenario Water Supply and Gap Results Date: September 18, 2019 Prepared by: Wilson Water Group Reviewed by: Jacobs, Brown & Caldwell Technical Update Water Supply and Gap Results Table of Contents Section 1 : Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 10 Section 2 : Definitions and Terminology ........................................................................................................ 11 Section 3 : SWSI 2010 Water Supply Methodology....................................................................................... 12 Section 4 : Technical Update Water Supply Methodology ............................................................................ 15 4.1 Current/Baseline Water Supply Methodology .......................................................................... 15 4.1.1 CDSS Basin Water Supply Methodology ..................................................................................... 16 4.1.2 Non-CDSS Basin Water Supply Methodology ............................................................................. 19 4.2 Planning Scenario A-E Water Supply Methodology .................................................................. 21 4.2.1 Planning Scenario Water Supply Adjustments ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 12B-01. Mountainous Volcanic Region
    108°W 106°W F Ancestral ron t Rang LARIMER Uinta Sand Upl e ift Little Snake River Wash Ba North Platte River MOFFAT s Yampa River in JACKSON Park-Gore Range Axial ROUTT Ba s in Up li h ft rc as A ek e Dougl Cr White River GRAND 40°N Whi EXPLANATION RIO BLANCO 40°N te Ri Neogene Volcanics ver Upli Neogene Sediments ft Paleogene Volcanics Eagle River Blue River Paleocene-Cretaceous Intrusives Piceance Basin Roaring ForkCentral River Colorado TroughEAGLE Cretaceous Seaway Sediment GARFIELD Eagle River Sawatch Range Aquifers SUMMIT Mesozoic Sediment Aquifers Ancestral Rockies Basins Colorado River Precambrian Basement PITKIN Arkansas River East Muddy Creek Mountainous Region MESA LAKE PARK Unc Mountainous Valleys ompa ghre Up Colorado Plateaus Region lif DELTA t Laramide Basin Outlines Laramide Uplift Axis Uncompaghre Uplift G un Taylor River CHAFFEE nison Laramide Basin Axis GUNNISON Upl Ancestral Rockies Uplift Axis Uncompahgre River South Arkansas River ift Ancestral Rockies Basin Axis Paradox Basin FREMONT MONTROSE San Lui CUSTER s OURAY Up San Miguel River li ft 38°N SAN MIGUEL SAGUACHE 38°N Animas River HINSDALE DOLORES SAN JUAN Rio Grande MINERAL ag Dolores River n S West Dolores River ua J RIO GRANDE ALAMOSA e San MONTEZUMA n Dom Jua Archuleta Anticlinorium San Los Pinos River LA PLATA COSTILLA San Juan Piedra River Basin CONEJOS Tusas Uplift COSTILLA ARCHULETA COSTILLA 108°W 106°W 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Geology modified from Tweto (1979); structural features from Hemborg (1996). 0 10 20 30 40 50 Kilometers Figure 12b-01.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River
    Volume 1 | Issue 2 | Summer 2015 Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River Inside this issue: With a fish exclusion barrier in place and a marked decline of catfish, the time was #TRENDINGNOW ................. 2 right for stocking Roundtail Chub into a remote eastern Arizona stream. New Initiative Launched for Southwest Native Trout.......... 2 On April 30, 2015, the Reclamation, and Marsh and Blue River. A total of 222 AZ 6-Species Conservation Department stocked 876 Associates LLC embarked on a Roundtail Chub were Agreement Renewal .............. 2 juvenile Roundtail Chub from mission to find, collect and stocked into the Blue River. IN THE FIELD ........................ 3 ARCC into the Blue River near bring into captivity some During annual monitoring, Recent and Upcoming AZGFD- the Juan Miller Crossing. Roundtail Chub for captive led Activities ........................... 3 five months later, Additional augmentation propagation from the nearest- Department staff captured Spikedace Stocked into Spring stockings to enhance the genetic neighbor population in Eagle Creek ..................................... 3 42 of the stocked chub, representation of the Blue River Creek. The Aquatic Research some of which had travelled BACK AT THE PONDS .......... 4 Roundtail Chub will be and Conservation Center as far as seven miles Native Fish Identification performed later this year. (ARCC) held and raised the upstream from the stocking Workshop at ARCC................ 4 offspring of those chub for Stockings will continue for the location. future stocking into the Blue next several years until that River. population is established in the Department biologists conducted annual Blue River and genetically In 2012, the partners delivered monitoring in subsequent mimics the wild source captive-raised juvenile years, capturing three chub population.
    [Show full text]
  • Eleven-Mile Canyon Demonstration Project
    Case Study 4 The Eleven-mile Canyon Demonstration Project Project Overview The Eleven-mile Canyon Demonstration Project is located on the South Platte River in Park County, Colorado (figure 1). This project area is located in a semiarid (less than 15 inches of precipitation per year) portion of the foothills zone of the Rocky Mountains (Pennak 1977). The bedrock underlying this canyon area is comprised primarily of biotite granite that produces highly erodible, unproductive soils. This condition also results in sparse ground cover, contributing to the area’s erosive nature. The landscape is bisected by relatively steep, narrow drainages with abundant erosional stream channels. Figure 1: Vicinity map of Eleven-mile Canyon. Study reaches are identified by reach numbers. (The inset map identifies the location of the canyon within the Pike National Forest.) In the late 1800s a railroad was built in the Eleven-mile Canyon, further narrowing the Eleven-mile Canyon floor. Large native trees were removed Eleven-mile Canyon Demonstration Project from the valley floor for use in the nearby metropolitan areas. In the early 1900s the city of Denver began building reservoirs and associated conduits for water storage in the South Platte River corridor, for use by the increasing population. The releases from these reservoirs have created a hydrograph considerably different than what would be expected under historic conditions (figure 2). The removal of trees, location and maintenance of the road corridor, and modified flow releases from upstream reservoirs has created a stream system considerably altered from pre-European settler conditions. 3—43 Developing Monitoring Plans— Chapter 3 Figure 2: Comparison of a hydrograph from a regulated section of the South Platte River downstream of Eleven-mile Canyon to a more natural flow regime in Tarryall Creek, a tributary to the South Platte River.
    [Show full text]
  • Adams County Total Funds - $1,146,099
    2015 MAINTENANCE WORK PLAN ADAMS COUNTY TOTAL FUNDS - $1,146,099 11/17/2014 2015 ROUTINE SERVICES WORK 2013 WORK PLAN DRAINAGEWAY NAME- LOCAL NEARBY WORK WORK PLAN NO. TRIBUTARY NAME GOVERNMENT STREETS DESCRIPTION TYPE BUDGET 1 BIG DRY CREEK- WESTMINSTER FROM U/S TO 200 L.F. D\S OF VEGETATION MANAGEMENT & --- 750 TANGLEWOOD CREEK 121ST AND DELAWARE DEBRIS REMOVAL 2 BIG DRY CREEK- ADAMS CO. 144TH AVENUE TO YORK VEGETATION MANAGEMENT & --- 1,500 LAKE ERIE TRIB. NO 1 STREET DEBRIS REMOVAL 3 BIG DRY CREEK- THORNTON BIG DRY CREEK TO YORK STREET VEGETATION MANAGEMENT & --- 1,500 WADLEY SOUTH CREEK DEBRIS REMOVAL 4 BRANTNER GULCH THORNTON FOREST DRIVE TO COLORADO DEBRIS REMOVAL --- 500 BLVD. SOUTH OF 124TH AVE 5 BRANTNER GULCH THORNTON HOLLY STREET DEBRIS REMOVAL --- 500 6 BRANTNER GULCH- THORNTON N.W. OF COLORADO BLVD. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT & --- 500 TRIBUTARY 5 AND 124TH AVE. DEBRIS REMOVAL (EASTLAKE RESVR. D'WAY) 7 BRANTNER GULCH - TRIB 3 THORNTON JASMINE STREET DEBRIS REMOVAL --- 500 LAKEVIEW TRIBUTARY 8 CITY PARK DRAINAGEWAY WESTMINSTER 800 LF D/S OF LOWELL TO 400 LF VEGETATION MANAGEMENT & --- 750 U/S OF LOWELL DEBRIS REMOVAL 9 CLEAR CREEK ADAMS CO. N.E. OF 56TH & LOWELL VEGETATION MANAGEMENT & --- 750 DEBRIS REMOVAL 10 CLEAR CREEK ADAMS CO. S.E.OF 78TH & WASHINGTON DEBRIS REMOVAL --- 750 METRO VIEW DETENTION 11 CLEAR CREEK- ADAMS CO. BROADWAY AND 70TH VEGETATION MANAGEMENT & --- 500 DEBRIS REMOVAL 12 DUPONT DRAINAGE ADAMS CO. 80TH AVE. AT BRIGHTON RD. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT & --- 2,000 80TH AVE DETENTION DEBRIS REMOVAL 13 GRANGE HALL CREEK THORNTON RIVERDALE ROAD TO VEGETATION MANAGEMENT & --- 1,000 COLORADO BLVD.
    [Show full text]
  • Packet, and Kailey Rosema, Our Water Quality Coordinator, Will Present on This Topic As Part of the Operations Report in April
    MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors FROM: Catherine Hayes, Board Secretary DATE: April 18, 2019 RE: April 25, 2019, Regular Board Meeting This memorandum shall serve as notice of the Regular Board of Directors Meeting of the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District: Thursday, April 25, 2019 11:30 a.m. Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Office Walter Kirch Room 846 Forest Road Vail, CO 81657 Cc public items: Board Materials via Email: ERWSD Managers Bob Armour, Vail resident Ken Marchetti, Marchetti & Weaver, PC Caroline Bradford, Independent Consultant Robert Lipnick, Vail resident Rick Sackbauer, Vail resident BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING April 25, 2019, 11:30 a.m. 1. Consultant/Guest Introduction 2. Public Comment• 3. Action Items 3.1. Meeting Minutes of March 28, 2019, Special Meeting☼ 3.2. Meeting Minutes of March 28, 2019, Joint Meeting with UERWA☼ 3.3. Resolution Consenting to Overlapping Boundaries – Jim Collins☼ 3.4. Resolution re Bighorn Terrace Sanitation Subdistrict Budget – James Wilkins☼ 3.5. Consent Agenda: Contract Log☼ 4. Strategy Items 4.1. Board Member Input 5. General Manager Report – Linn Brooks* 5.1. General Manager Information Items 5.1.1. Recruiting.com Video – Ali Kelkenberg and Amy Vogt 5.1.2. Climate Action Collaborative 2018 Annual Report* 5.1.3. Stillwater Update – James Wilkins 5.2. Operations Report* 5.2.1. Lead and Copper Sampling – Kailey Rosema* 5.3. Engineering Report – Jason Cowles* 5.3.1. Eagle Park Reservoir Comprehensive Dam Safety Evaluation* 5.4. Public Affairs Report – Diane Johnson* 5.5. Monthly Reports 5.5.1. Development Report* 5.5.2. Authority March Meeting Summary – draft* 5.5.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Chambers Creek
    Section 3 - Physical and Environmental Inventory 3.1 Chambers Creek – Clover Creek Drainage Basin 3.2 Puyallup River Drainage Basin 3.3 Sewer Service Basins in the Puyallup and White River Drainage Basins 3.4 Nisqually River Drainage Basin 3.5 Kitsap Drainage Basin 3.6 City of Tacoma - North End WWTP 3.7 Joint Base Lewis Mcchord Sewer System – Tatsolo Point WWTP Pierce County Public Works and Utilities – Sewer Utility Unified Sewer Plan Update Section 3 Section 3 – Physical and Environmental Inventory Section 3 documents the land-use and environmental tenants of the four major basins in Pierce County and are organized around those basins. Chambers Creek – Clover Creek Drainage Basin - Section 3.1 Puyallup River Drainage Basin – Section 3.2 Nisqually River Drainage Basin – Section 3.4 Kitsap Drainage Basin – Section 3.5 3.1 Chambers Creek – Clover Creek Drainage Basin The Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Drainage Basin (Basin) is located in central Pierce County, between Puget Sound on the west and the ridge above the Puyallup River Valley on the east. Point Defiance and the southwest shore of Commencement Bay serve as the basin’s northern boundary, and the City of DuPont lies on the southern boundary. The basin encompasses approximately 104,258 acres (117 square miles) of land including the Cities of DuPont, including Northwest Landing, University Place, Lakewood, and Northwest Tacoma, Fircrest, the Towns of Ruston, and Steilacoom, as well as portions of Fort Lewis and McChord Military Reservations, and the unincorporated communities of South Hill, Frederickson, Mid County, Graham, Parkland, and Spanaway. 3.1.1 Topography Lowland topography is generally flat to gently rolling.
    [Show full text]
  • Profiles of Colorado Roadless Areas
    PROFILES OF COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS Prepared by the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region July 23, 2008 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST ......................................................................................................10 Bard Creek (23,000 acres) .......................................................................................................................................10 Byers Peak (10,200 acres)........................................................................................................................................12 Cache la Poudre Adjacent Area (3,200 acres)..........................................................................................................13 Cherokee Park (7,600 acres) ....................................................................................................................................14 Comanche Peak Adjacent Areas A - H (45,200 acres).............................................................................................15 Copper Mountain (13,500 acres) .............................................................................................................................19 Crosier Mountain (7,200 acres) ...............................................................................................................................20 Gold Run (6,600 acres) ............................................................................................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • FIXING the UPPER COLORADO RIVER Paul Bruchez, Reeder
    FIXING THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER Paul Bruchez, Reeder Creek Ranch Mely Whiting, Colorado Counsel, Trout Unlimited Lurline Curran, former Grand County manager Grand County’s most famous tourist was President Dwight Eisenhower, who in the 1950s spent summer vacations snagging trout from the Fraser River. That river even then was significantly depleted by diversion to Denver. Nearby, at Grand Lake, the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) had begun a massive withdrawal of water from the Colorado River. Later, in the 1980s, came another major disruption to the local water-dependent ecosystems, a dam on the Colorado River near Windy Gap, where it is joined by the Fraser. It all adds up to what rancher and fishing guide Paul Bruchez described as death by a thousand cuts. The full extent of the problems became apparent in the 2002 drought and its aftermath. In old days, before all the diversions began, ranchers in the Kremmling area had just relied upon springtime snowmelt flooding by the river to deliver water to their hay fields. Because of the C-BT diversions, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation had installed pumps along the river, to ensure ranchers could get water into the fields. As river flows receded in the 21st century, those pumps had become inadequate even as Denver Water and Northern Water (beneficiary of the C-BT) pushed long-standing plans for further diversions. The net result: 80 percent of native flows in the Colorado River would be diverted across the Continental Divide. This could have gotten ugly, but Grand County instead chose a different approach.
    [Show full text]