To: Emily Hunt, Metro Round Table From: Maya MacHamer, Boulder Watershed Collective Date: March 15, 2021 Re: Proposal description for James Peak Wilderness Area Water Quality Monitoring ______The Boulder Watershed Collective (BWC) intends to submit a grant application to the Metro Round Table for James Peak Wilderness Area Water Quality Monitoring in the amount of $29,271. In 2020 the BWC (formerly the Fourmile Watershed Coalition) received funding from the SPBRT for water quality monitoring above and below high priority recreation areas in and around the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area in the Boulder Creek watershed. The project was in partnership with the city of Boulder, Boulder Ranger District (BRD) and Trout Unlimited to collect baseline water quality samples in smaller tributaries to monitor whether recreation and camping were negatively affecting water quality in streams as a result of human waste impacts.
2020 sampling indicated that some areas had elevated E coli levels and that there was a correlation with camping at specific sites. However, it was inconclusive whether E coli levels were human caused. Recreational use in headwater areas increased significantly due to the pandemic. Observations of public land use and impacts in 2020 reaffirmed that collecting baseline data in source water areas that are also popular recreational areas is critical to future protection.
In 2021 the BWC intends on expanding our program into the James Peak Wilderness Area. The BRD reported that this area experienced significant increases in recreation in 2020 because there is no permit system, ample parking, it is easily accessible from the metro area and provides numerous trails provide around the Continental Divide. The James Peak area is a source water area for Denver Water who provide drinking water to 1.5 million people on the Front Range. For the expanded sampling we will be partnering with the Indian Peaks Wilderness Alliance who have volunteers to assist with sample collection and stream flow measurement. Requested funds will allow for geographical expansion, the cost of additional water sample lab analysis and reporting, and staff time for sample collection and volunteer management.
This project addresses multiple MRT priorities including: 1) protect & enhance environmental and recreational attributes, 2) manage risks of climate change, and 3) effective communications and outreach. Increased water quality data which targets small order streams will inform management planning for the protection of environmental and recreational attributes. The headwaters of South Boulder Creek are identified in the 2010 SWSI South Platte Focus Area Map as a recreational focus area. Better understanding stream flow fluctuations of headwater tributaries as a result of climate change will aid in managing risks associated with shifting weather patterns. The integration of a reputable volunteer organization like the Indian Peaks Wilderness Alliance and data collection through a local watershed group like the Boulder Watershed Collective contributes to effective communications and outreach which support the larger objectives of the Roundtables and the Colorado Water Plan. Place based programs like this are designed to engage and educate the community and to generate a lasting baseline of public awareness and support for the protection of water resources, forests and responsible recreation.
The proposed project will take place from June through September in 2022. Tasks include site prioritization, collection and analysis of water quality samples, stream flow measurement and volunteer training, engagement and education.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this project. Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Maya MacHamer Director, Boulder Watershed Collective
Last Update: September 18, 2020 Colorado Water Conservation Board Water Supply Reserve Fund Grant Application
Instructions All WSRF grant applications shall conform to the current 2020 WSRF Criteria and Guidelines.
To receive funding from the WSRF, a proposed water activity must be recommended for approval by a Roundtable(s) AND the approved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). The process for roundtable consideration and recommendation is outlined in the 2020 WSRF Criteria and Guidelines. The CWCB meets bimonthly.
If you have questions, please contact the WSRF Grant Program Manager (for all Roundtables) or your Roundtable Liaison: Ben Wade Sam Stein [email protected] [email protected] 303-866-3441 x3238 (office) 303-866-3441(office)
WSRF Submittal Checklist (Required) YES NO This request was recommended for CWCB approval by the sponsoring roundtable. YES xx NO I have read and understand the 2020 WSRF Criteria and Guidelines. YES x NO Grantee will be able to contract with CWCB using the Standard Contract.1
Application Documents included: YES xNO Exhibit A: Statement of Work2 (Word – see Template) YES x NO Exhibit B: Budget & Schedule2 (Excel Spreadsheet – see Template) YES xNO Letters of Matching and/or Pending 3rd Party Commitments2 YES x NO Map2 YES x NO Photos/Drawings/Reports YES NO Letters of Support Contracting Documents3 YES NO Detailed/Itemized Budget3 (Excel Spreadsheet – see Template) YES NO Certificate of Insurance4 (General, Auto, & Workers’ Comp.) YES NO Certificate of Good Standing(4) YES NO W-9 Form4 YES NO Independent Contractor Form4 (If applicant is individual, not company/organization) YES NO Electronic Funds Transfer (ETF) Form4 1Click “Grant Agreements”. For reference only/do not fill out or submit/required for contracting 2 Required with application if applicable. 3 Additional documentation providing a Detailed/Itemized Budget maybe required for contracting. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate with the CWCB Project Manager to determine specifics. 4 Required for contracting. While optional at the time of this application, submission can expedite contracting upon CWCB Board approval.
WSRF Grant Application |1
Last Update: September 18, 2020 Schedule CWCB Meeting Application Submittal Dates Type of Request January October 1 Basin Account Basin/Statewide Account/Water March December 1 Plan Grant Match1 May February 1 Basin Account July April 1 Basin Account September June 1 Basin/Statewide Account November August 1 Basin Account 1 If either the basin or statewide match includes matching funds from a pending Water Plant Grant, both must be submitted by December 1st deadline for March Board meeting review.
Water Activity Summary
Name of Applicant Boulder Watershed Collective
Name of Water Activity James Peak Wilderness Water Quality Monitoring Approving Roundtable(s) Basin Account Request(s)1 Metro Roundtable $20,771
Basin Account Request Subtotal $20,771 Basin Account Request Subtotal Approved by Roundtable $ Statewide Account Request(1) $ Total WSRF Funds Requested (Basin & Statewide) $20,771 Total Project Costs $29,271 1 Please indicate the amount recommended for approval by the Roundtable(s)
Grantee and Applicant Information Name of Grantee(s) Boulder Watershed Collective Mailing Address 1740 Fourmile Canyon Drive FEIN 84-2674914
WSRF Grant Application |2
Last Update: September 18, 2020 Grantee and Applicant Information Grantee’s Organization Contact1 Maya MacHamer Position/Title Director Email [email protected] Phone 303-817-2261 Grant Management Contact2 Catherine Price Position/Title Program Manager Email [email protected] Phone 903-235-7754 Name of Applicant
(if different than grantee) Mailing Address Position/Title Email Phone 1 Person with signatory authority 2 Person responsible for creating reimbursement invoices (Invoice for Services) and corresponding with CWCB staff.
Description of Grantee Provide a brief description of the grantee’s organization (100 words or less). The Boulder Watershed Collective’s (BWC) mission is to protect and restore the health and function of the Boulder Creek watershed, and support watershed-related collaboration statewide. The BWC strives to be a stewardship driven watershed organization that cultivates environmental leadership while creating community resiliency and vitality. Program areas include water quality, river health, resilient forests, wildlife and education and engagement.
Type of Eligible Entity (check one) Public (Government): municipalities, enterprises, counties, and State of Colorado agencies. Federal agencies are encouraged to work with local entities. Federal agencies are eligible, but only if they can make a compelling case for why a local partner cannot be the grant recipient. Public (Districts): authorities, Title 32/special districts (conservancy, conservation, and irrigation districts),
and water activity enterprises Private Incorporated: mutual ditch companies, homeowners associations, corporations
WSRF Grant Application |3
Last Update: September 18, 2020 Type of Eligible Entity (check one) Private Individuals, Partnerships, and Sole Proprietors: are eligible for funding from the Basin Accounts but
not for funding from the Statewide Account. x Non-governmental organizations: broadly, any organization that is not part of the government Covered Entity: as defined in Section 37-60-126 Colorado Revised Statutes
Type of Water Activity (check one) x Study Implementation
Category of Water Activity (check all that apply) x Nonconsumptive (Environmental) x Nonconsumptive (Recreational) Agricultural Municipal/Industrial Needs Assessment Education & Outreach
Other Explain:
Location of Water Activity Please provide the general county and coordinates of the proposed activity below in decimal degrees. The Applicant shall also provide, in Exhibit C, a site map if applicable. County/Counties Gilpin/Boulder Latitude 39° 51' 7'' N Longitude 105° 41' 25'' W
Water Activity Overview Please provide a summary of the proposed water activity (200 words or less). Include a description of the activity and what the WSRF funding will be used for specifically (e.g. studies, permitting, construction). Provide a description of the water supply source to be utilized or the water body affected by the activity. Include details such as acres under irrigation, types of crops irrigated, number of residential and commercial taps, length of ditch improvements, length of pipe installed, area of habitat improvements. If this project addresses multiple purposes or spans multiple basins, please explain.
The Applicant shall also provide, in Exhibit A, a detailed Statement of Work, Budget, and Schedule.
WSRF Grant Application |4
Last Update: September 18, 2020 Water Activity Overview In 2020 the BWC conducted water quality monitoring above and below high priority recreation areas in and around the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area in the Boulder Creek watershed to better understand whether recreation and camping were negatively affecting stream water quality as a result of human waste impacts. 2020 sampling indicated that some areas had elevated E coli levels and that there was a correlation with camping at specific sites. However, it was inconclusive whether E coli levels were human caused. Recreational use in headwater areas increased significantly due to the pandemic. Observations of public land use and impacts in 2020 reaffirmed that collecting baseline data in source water areas that are also popular recreational areas is critical to future protection.
In 2021 the BWC intends on expanding our program into the James Peak Wilderness Area. The Boulder Ranger District reported that this area experienced significant increases in recreation in 2020 because there is no permit system, ample parkink, it is easily accessible from the metro area and it is trailsystem provides access to beautiful locations along the Continental Divide. The James Peak Wilderness is at the headwaters of South Boulder Creek, a source water area for Denver Water. Denver Water provides drinking water to 1.5 million people. Requested funds will support the cost of water sample lab analysis, consulting services for data analysis and reporting and staff time for sample collection, volunteer management and education.
BWC intends to apply to the SPBRT for funds to continue the Peak to Peak Sampling Program in the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area for 2022 & 2023. This will compliment the James Peak Sampling for a holistic evaluation of the Boulder Creek Watershed.
Measurable Results To catalog measurable results achieved with WSRF funds please provide any of the following values. New Storage Created (acre-feet) New Annual Water Supplies Developed or Conserved (acre-feet), Consumptive or
Nonconsumptive Existing Storage Preserved or Enhanced (acre-feet) Length of Stream Restored or Protected (linear feet) Efficiency Savings (indicate acre-feet/year OR dollars/year) Area of Restored or Preserved Habitat (acres) Length of Pipe/Canal Built or Improved (linear feet)
x Other Explain: # of water samples collected, # of volunteers engaged
Water Activity Justification
WSRF Grant Application |5
Last Update: September 18, 2020 Water Activity Justification Provide a description of how this water activity supports the goals of Colorado’s Water Plan, the most recent Statewide Water Supply Initiative, and the respective roundtable Basin Implementation Plan and Education Action Plan (1). The Applicant is required to reference specific needs, goals, themes, or Identified Projects and Processes (IPPs), including citations (e.g. document, chapters, sections, or page numbers).
For applications that include a request for funds from the Statewide Account, the proposed water activity shall be evaluated based upon how well the proposal conforms to Colorado’s Water Plan criteria for state support (CWP, Section 9.4, pp. 9-43 to 9-44;) (Also listed pp. 4-5 in 2020 WSRF Criteria and Guidelines). Colorado Water Plan:
Executive Order D 2013-005 states that, “Colorado’s water quantity and quality questions can no longer be thought of separately….and a strong environment that includes healthy watersheds, rivers and streams and wildlife,” is a core Colorado value (CO Water Plan Ch 7.3). This core value underlies this project and the values of BWC stakeholders and partners.
This project grew from discussions with many stakeholders, landowners and agencies who have voiced concerns about increased camping and recreation in headwater areas. These concerns have become magnified during the pandemic. It is not expected that new recreational use patterns decrease as the pandemic wanes. The project is a partnership with the Boulder Ranger District of the US Forest Service who has provided GIS data for sample site selection by mapping camp fire rings within the Arapahoe Roosevelt Forest. They have requested continued partnership and program expansion into the James Peak Wilderness to inform long-term management strategies. Other existing partners include the city of Boulder and Trout Unlimited. The BWC looks forward to building new partnerships through this project with Denver Water, Gilpin County, CSU Extension for Gilpin County and the Indian Peaks Wilderness Alliance.
Colorado’s Water Plan includes measurable objectives and adaptive management. Watershed health, environment and recreation is included as a measurable objective (Ch 10.3:F). This project contributes to the following listed objectives: • Enhance Environmental and Recreational Economic Values: Protect and enhance river-based environments and recreational opportunities that support local and statewide economies and are important for the enjoyment of current and future generations of Coloradans. o Recreational activities like camping, hiking and fishing are increasing in the Boulder Creek watershed. These activities contribute heavily to the local economy, but also tax environmental and management resources of public lands. Water quality data collection can enhance and sustain environmental and recreational economic values. • Protect Healthy Environments: Understand, protect, maintain, and improve conditions of streams, lakes, wetlands, and riparian areas to promote self-sustaining fisheries and functional riparian and wetland habitat to promote long-term resiliency. o Additional data is needed to increase collective understanding of recreational impacts to small streams and tributaries. Data driven management activities can help reduce recreational impacts can lead to implementation projects that further protect the headwater areas. o Water quality data collection can help inform water resource management strategies to improve and/or protect drinking water sources. • Promote Protection and Restoration of Water Quality: The protection and restoration of water quality should be a key objective when planning for Colorado’s current and future consumptive, recreational, and environmental water needs. • This project strives to evaluate multiple water quality parameters to provide a baseline understanding of current condition. This understanding will be imperative to evaluating future impacts from population growth and climate change and working toward restoration projects or management decisions that can improve water quality. • Protect and Restore Critical Watersheds: Protect and restore watersheds critical to water WSRF Grant Application |6
Last Update: September 18, 2020 Water Activity Justification infrastructure, environmental or recreational areas. o The headwaters of South Boulder Creek provides water for is a catchment of Denver Water. South Boulder Creek also has many other agricultural diversions that have recently been evaluated through Stream Management Planning with Trout Unlimited.
Statewide Water Supply Initiative:
The Statewide Water Supply Initiative’s key findings (2010) state that municipal demands will continue to increase as the South Platte Basin continues to be one of the most populous areas in Colorado. Municipal needs within the Boulder Creek watershed include clean drinking water sources as well as nonconsumptive recreational and environmental needs. The Statewide Nonconsumptive Needs Assessment Map includes multiple segments within the Boulder Creek watershed identified as environmental and recreational focus areas.
South Platte Basin Implementation Plan:
The South Platte Basin Implementation Plan (SPBIP) Executive Summary recognizes that nonconsumptive recreation and environmental uses are critical aspects of Colorado’s economy and quality of life (S.3.6). This is particularly true in Boulder County where much of the population and economic growth is attributed to the availability and accessibility of the natural areas. The SPBIP also highlights that there are significant water quality challenges for domestic and municipal water use within the South Platte Basin. This project recognizes these challenges and is convening a localized, collaborative effort to be responsive to potential water quality issues and recreational challenges that are increasing. Data collection will assist project partners in developing implementation projects, acquiring funding, making land use decisions and creating long-term plans to address the growing population and the natural resource management issues that accompany this growth.
This project is responsive to the diverse demands placed upon water resources including economic, cultural and environmental (S.4.1). This project was developed in response to multiple issues raised by a diverse group of stakeholders. Social issues related to increased camping have been raised by local communities, increased fire risk and public safety is a concern for local fire districts, water quality issues from camping near streams has been discussed by communities and water providers and land management issues are recognized by the US Forest Service.
Appendix D- Environmental and Recreational Assessment Methodology and Framework- discusses various project types that may enhance or protect environmental or recreational attributes. These include: • Stewardship (4.3)- A better understanding of how recreation and camping affects water resources will help the USFS develop stewardship projects like restoration of camp sites and future deterance and protection of sensitive riparian areas. The BWC is in the process of conducting a Feasibility Study at Tolland Ranch (east of the Moffat Tunnel). This study will provide guidance on raising threatened Greenback Cutthroat Trout in the off-channel ponds at Tolland. Water quality is an important component of this project. • Cooperative or multi-purpose projects (4.5)- This project is multi- purpose in that different sampling parameters can be evaluated for heavy metals, nutrients and E. Coli. These data could lead to very different implementation projects, yet a similar goal is accomplished: improved water quality.
This project is cooperative in that it supports a larger partnership between the BWC, USFS, city of Boulder, Trout Unlimited, the Indian Peaks Wilderness Alliance and interns from the University of Colorado, Boulder. Additionally, this project is responsive to a seemingly intractable social issue in the headwaters of Boulder Creek that includes residents and fire districts concerned about increased camping/recreation and increasing levels of trash, human
WSRF Grant Application |7
Last Update: September 18, 2020 Water Activity Justification waste and unattended campfires.
Appendix E- Water Quality- characterizes Boulder Creek as, “one of the more critical subwatersheds (3.9 pg 19),” when describing existing data for the St Vrain Creek watershed. Appendix E further states that, “Sustainable management for environmental and recreational attributes is interrelated with water supply complexities and land use changes affecting water quality and land cover, the latter factor being especially critical in the forested, mountain tributary streams flowing into the South Platte River (pg 1).”
The forested watersheds, in which the project will occur, provide natural water quality filtration systems through forests and riparian areas. Simultaneously, these areas are affected by past and current land use decisions that pose potential threats to human and aquatic health. This project intends to build on previous data collection to further refine data sets that can provide a path toward water quality improvement implementation projects.
1 Access Basin Implementation Plans or Education Action Plans from Basin drop down menu.
Matching Requirements: Basin Account Requests Basin (only) Account grant requests require a 25% match (cash and/or in-kind) from the Applicant or 3rd party and shall be accompanied by a letter of commitment as described in the 2020 WSRF Criteria and Guidelines (submitted on the contributing entity’s letterhead). Attach additional sheet if necessary. Amount and Form of Match (note Contributing Entity cash or in-kind) Indian Peaks Wilderness Alliance (80hrs of sample collection) $2,000 (in-kind)
WSRF Grant Application |8
Last Update: September 18, 2020 Matching Requirements: Basin Account Requests CU Boulder Interns (2 interns/6 hrs per day/15 days @$25/hr) $4,500 (in-kind)
Boulder Watershed Collective $2,000 (cash)
Total Match $8,500 If you requested a Waiver to the Basin Account matching requirements, indicate the percentage you wish waived.
Matching Requirements: Statewide Account Requests Statewide Account grant requests require a 50% match as described in the 2020 WSRF Criteria and Guidelines. At least of 10% of the required Statewide Account Grant request match shall be cash from Basin Account funds whether that is from one or multiple basins; and the remaining 40% of the required match may be provided from any source, including other grants, cash from the Basin Account, or any combination of cash, in-kind services, or in-kind materials.and shall be accompanied by a letter of commitment. Attach additional sheet if necessary.
Amount and Form of Match Contributing Entity (note cash or in-kind):
Total Match $ If you requested a Waiver to the Statewide Account matching, indicate % you wish waived. (Max 50% reduction of requirement).
Related Studies Please provide a list of any related studies, including if the water activity is complimentary to or assists in the implementation of other CWCB programs.
WSRF Grant Application |9
Last Update: September 18, 2020 Related Studies State of the Watershed: Water Quality of Boulder Creek, Colorado. (2006)
• Discusses water quality and potential impacts within the watershed.
Source Water Protection Plans: City of Boulder (2017), Town of Nederland (2014), Pine Brook Water District (2014).
• Source Water Protection Plans highlight mining impacts as a potential source of drinking water contamination.
Saint Vrain Watershed Plan (2015)
• The Watershed Plan provides helpful background on geology, soils, hydrology and other watershed characteristics that impact water supply, watershed health and water quality.
Saint Vrain Wildfire/Watershed Assessment (2012)
• Prioritization of watershed based risks to water supplies.
Previous CWCB Grants List all previous or current CWCB grants (including WSRF) awarded to both the Applicant and Grantee. Include: 1) Applicant name; 2) Water activity name; 3) Approving RT(s); 4) CWCB board meeting date; 5) Contract number or purchase order 1) The BWC was formerly known as the Fourmile Watershed Coalition. Four Mile Fire Protection District was the fiscal agent.
2) EWP Stream Restoration Projects, Monitoring and Adaptive Management, Forest Health Planning & Education and Outreach.
3) South Platte Basin RT
4) January 2019, May 2019.
5) The following projects were contracted with the Four Mile Fire Protection District as the fiscal agent for the Fourmiel Watershed Coalition. The BWC, as a new 501c3, does not yet have cantracts through CWCB.
• Ingram Gulch- EWP match (CTGG1 2018*661), EWP TA design: (POGG PDAA 201700000775). • Wall Street- EWP match (CTGG1 12017*1819 CMS#101032) • Fire Station Pond- EWP match (POGG1 PDAA 201700000935(SB-179)) • Monitoring and Adaptive Management (PDAA, 201900002117). • Boulder County Forest Collaborative (POGG1,PDAA,202000002417) • Boulder County Forest Collaborative Education & Outreach (same contract as above) • Tolland Ranch Feasibility Study (POGG1,PDAA,202100002317) • Debris Flow Early Warning System (POGG1,PDAA,202100002179) • Ingram Gulch Mine Waste Study (POGG1,PDAA,202100002180) • Healthy Headwaters: Defining Purpose & Scope for a Watershed Plan (awarded, no contract yet)
WSRF Grant Application |10
Last Update: September 18, 2020
Tax Payer Bill of Rights The Tax Payer Bill of Rights (TABOR) may limit the amount of grant money an entity can receive. Please describe any relevant TABOR issues that may affect the applicant. The Boulder Watershed Collective is not aware of any relevant TABOR issues that might affect the an application for funds.
WSRF Grant Application |11
Last Update: March 17, 2020 https://cwcb.colorado.gov/ Colorado Water Conservation Board Water Supply Reserve Fund Exhibit A - Statement of Work Date: 5.5.21 Water Activity James Peak Wilderness Area Water Quality Monitoring Name: Grant Recipient: Boulder Watershed Collective Funding Source: Metro Roundtable WSRF Water Activity Overview: (Please provide brief description of the proposed water activity (no more than 200 words). Include a description of the overall water activity and specifically what the WSRF funding will be used for. (PLEASE DEFINE ALL ACRONYMS). In 2020 the Boulder Watershed Collective (BWC) conducted water quality monitoring above and below high priority recreation areas in and around the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area in the Boulder Creek watershed to better understand whether recreation and camping were negatively affecting stream water quality as a result of human waste impacts. 2020 sampling indicated that some areas had elevated E coli levels and that there was a correlation with camping at specific sites. However, it was inconclusive whether E coli levels were human caused. Recreational use in headwater areas increased significantly due to the pandemic. Observations of public land use and impacts in 2020 reaffirmed that collecting baseline data in source water areas that are also popular recreational areas is critical to future protection.
In 2021 & 2022 the BWC intends on expanding our program into the James Peak Wilderness Area. The Boulder Ranger District reported that this area experienced significant increases in recreation in 2020 because there is no permit system, ample parking, it is easily accessible from the metro area and provides numerous beautiful trails to the Continental Divide. The James Peak Wilderness is at the headwaters of South Boulder Creek, a source water area for Denver Water. Denver Water provides drinking water for 1.5 million people. Requested funds will support the cost of water sample lab analysis, consulting services for data analysis and reporting and staff time for sample collection and volunteer management.
Objectives: (List the objectives of the project. (PLEASE DEFINE ACRONYMS). 1. To build new partnerships and leverage existing partnerships to increase watershed stewardship and restoration opportunities in the future. 2. To better understand human impacts to water quality related to populated dispersed camping and/or other recreational areas. 3. To contribute data that may assist local communities as they address the social, economic and environmental impacts of population growth and recreational impacts in headwater areas. 4. To be responsive to issues of emerging concern including Covid-19 related increases in headwater recreation. 5. To acquire baseline data in headwater streams to monitor climate related changes.
WSRF Exhibit A - Statement of Work |1 of ___
Last Update: March 17, 2020 https://cwcb.colorado.gov/
Tasks Provide a detailed description of each task using the following format: (PLEASE DEFINE ACRONYMS) Task 1- Sample Collection Description of Task: This task includes sample collection at five locations within the South Boulder Creek headwater area in or near the James Peak Wilderness Area. Each location will include sample collection above and below the site to capture a “control” area above the recreation site and the potentially affected area below the site. E.coli sampling will occur one time per week June 1st through September 1st. Other parameters to be collected weekly include pH, conductivity and temperature. Nutrient sampling with a suite of eight parameters will occur at each site one time per month for a total of 40 nutrient samples throughout the summer. Stream flow monitoring may occur at select sites.
Water quality samples will be collected by BWC staff, CU interns and volunteers from the Indian Peaks Wilderness Alliance. BWC staff will train volunteers on sample collection protocols, stream flow monitoring and provide general education on water quality.
Method/Procedure: 1. Train volunteers. 2. Confirm sample locations with partners (attached map shows campsite density and potential locations). 3. Collect weekly and monthly samples 4. Deliver samples to a qualified lab within required timeframes (E. coli must be at the lab within 6 hours of collection). Colorado Analytics is the lab that has been used in the past.
Grantee Deliverable: Deliverable includes a brief report including a map of the sample locations, water quality results analysis, descriptions of the level of engagement and services provided by volunteers and a synopsis of learning objectives with interns and volunteers.
Tasks Provide a detailed description of each task using the following format: (PLEASE DEFINE ACRONYMS) Task 2- Lab Analysis Description of Task: This task includes analysis of the water samples collected. BWC has previously used Colorado Analytics for sample analysis. E.coli samples will be analyzed weekly and nutrient sampling will be analyzed monthly. Other parameters such as pH, conductivity and temperature will be collected by volunteers with a hand held multi-meter and results will be available immediately without lab analysis.
WSRF Exhibit A - Statement of Work |2 of ___
Last Update: March 17, 2020 https://cwcb.colorado.gov/ Tasks
Method/Procedure: 1. Follow appropriate collection protocols. 2. Have samples analyzed at a lab.
Grantee Deliverable: Deliverable includes all raw data from labs and a spreadsheet of multi-meter data.
CWCB Deliverable: (Describe the deliverable the grantee will provide CWCB documenting the completion of this task) Same as above.
Tasks Provide a detailed description of each task using the following format: (PLEASE DEFINE ACRONYMS)
WSRF Exhibit A - Statement of Work |3 of ___
Last Update: March 17, 2020
https://cwcb.colorado.gov/ Tasks Task 3 – Administration and Reporting Description of Task: This task includes the synthesis and analysis of sample results and grant administration. A consultant will be hired to analyze the sample results and provide a narrative report that discusses results. The report will include recommendations for further actions. This is a very important task as it provides groundwork for future project planning, potential information for land use planning and management decisions and potential restoration projects. Observations from BWC staff, volunteers and partners will also be integrated into the report.
The task also includes match funds for grant administration for BWC staff.
Method/Procedure: 1. Hire a consultant 2. Review and analyze sample results 3. Develop a report 4. Share data and report
Grantee Deliverable: (Describe the deliverable the grantee expects from this task) The deliverable will be the final report.
CWCB Deliverable: (Describe the deliverable the grantee will provide CWCB documenting the completion of this task) Same as above.
Repeat for Task 3, Task 4, Task 5, etc.
WSRF Exhibit A - Statement of Work |4 of ___
Last Update: March 17, 2020 https://cwcb.colorado.gov/ Budget and Schedule Exhibit B - Budget and Schedule: This Statement of Work shall be accompanied by a combined Budget and Schedule that reflects the Tasks identified in the Statement of Work and shall be submitted to CWCB in excel format. A separate excel formatted Budget is required for engineering costs to include rate and unit costs.
Reporting Requirements Progress Reports: The grantee shall provide the CWCB a progress report every 6 months, beginning from the date of issuance of a purchase order, or the execution of a contract. The progress report shall describe the status of the tasks identified in the statement of work, including a description of any major issues that have occurred and any corrective action taken to address these issues. The CWCB may withhold reimbursement until satisfactory progress reports have been submitted. Final Report: At completion of the project, the grantee shall provide the CWCB a Final Report on the grantee's letterhead that: • Summarizes the project and how the project was completed. • Describes any obstacles encountered, and how these obstacles were overcome. • Confirms that all matching commitments have been fulfilled. • Includes photographs, summaries of meetings and engineering reports/designs.
Payments Payment will be made based on actual expenditures, must include invoices for all work completed and must be on grantee’s letterhead. The request for payment must include a description of the work accomplished by task, an estimate of the percent completion for individual tasks and the entire Project in relation to the percentage of budget spent, identification of any major issues, and proposed or implemented corrective actions. The CWCB will pay the last 10% of the entire water activity budget when the Final Report is completed to the satisfaction of CWCB staff. Once the Final Report has been accepted, and final payment has been issued, the water activity and purchase order or contract will be closed without any further payment. Any entity that fails to complete a satisfactory Final Report and submit to CWCB within 90 days of the expiration of a purchase order or contract may be denied consideration for future funding of any type from CWCB. Performance Requirements Performance measures for this contract shall include the following: (a) Performance standards and evaluation: Grantee will produce detailed deliverables for each task as specified. Grantee shall maintain receipts for all project expenses and documentation of the minimum in- kind contributions (if applicable) per the budget in Exhibit B. Per Grant Guidelines, the CWCB will pay out the last 10% of the budget when the final deliverable is completed to the satisfaction of CWCB staff. Once the final deliverable has been accepted, and final payment has been issued, the purchase order or grant will be closed without any further payment. (b) Accountability: Per the Grant Guidelines full documentation of project progress must be submitted with each invoice for reimbursement. Grantee must confirm that all grant conditions have been complied with on each invoice. In addition, per the Grant Guidelines, Progress Reports must be submitted at least once every 6 months. A Final Report must be submitted and approved before final project payment. (c) Monitoring Requirements: Grantee is responsible for ongoing monitoring of project progress per Exhibit A. Progress shall be detailed in each invoice and in each Progress Report, as detailed above. Additional inspections or field consultations will be arranged as may be necessary. (d) Noncompliance Resolution: Payment will be withheld if grantee is not current on all grant conditions. Flagrant disregard for grant conditions will result in a stop work order and cancellation of the Grant Agreement.
WSRF Exhibit A - Statement of Work |5 of ___
BR ^_ Peak to Peak Water Quality Sampling Project Area of Interest Location Map
GL ^_
RG ^_
GG RL ^_ ^_
CFP ^_
WR LL ^_ ^_ WM RPW ^_ ^_ RPE ^_
MG ^_
^_ Sampling Areas of Interest USFS Surveyed Sites
0 1 2 4 6 8 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCOB,o UuSldGeSr, CFArOee, NkP WS,a NteRrCsAhNe,d Miles GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) ¹ OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Letter of Match Commitment
The purpose of this letter is to outline match funding for the Boulder Watershed Collective’s (BWC) James Peak Water Quality Monitoring Project. For 2021 sampling the BWC has engaged two undergraduate interns from the University of Colorado’s Environmental Science’s Department who will collect samples. Additionally, the Indian Peaks Wilderness Alliance will provide volunteers for sample collection and stream flow monitoring. Volunteer hours were estimated at $25/hr. Total estimated cost for interns and volunteers is $6,500. The BWC intends to follow the same model for 2022 sampling with Metro Round Table funds. New interns and volunteers would be engaged, but the relationships with the agencies are already established.
The BWC will contribute $2,000 cash match for the administration task. BWC intends to apply for South Platte Basin Round Table WSRF funds to expand the original Peak to Peak Water Quality Sampling Program in the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area. If awarded, the funds would continue the sampling program through 2023 and holistically evaluate the forested headwaters of the Boulder Creek Watershed.
2020 Peak to Peak Water Quality Monitoring Project Report Boulder, CO
By: Amber Lidell & Maya MacHamer
0
Project Background
The headwaters of Boulder Creek, where the Peak to Peak Water Quality Monitoring project occurred, is a mixture of US Forest Service lands, City of Boulder and Boulder County Open Space and private lands. The James Peak and Indian Peaks Wilderness Areas flank the western edge of the Boulder Creek watershed. These areas are critical drinking water sources for numerous Front Range water providers including Denver Water, The City of Boulder and towns of Nederland, Lafayette, Louisville and Erie. The James Peak and Indian Peaks Wilderness Areas are easily accessible from the Denver Metro area making them some of the most visited recreation areas in the state. Recreational impacts are not new to this area. The increasing population along the Front Range paired with the cultural and economic priorities of the Boulder community invite numerous and varied recreational activities. Designated and dispersed camping areas, long-term homeless encampments and recreational impacts have long been topics of conversation in mountain communities surrounded by National Forest lands. Issues of concern range from unattended campfires and wildfire risk to trash and human waste impacts that negatively impact the surrounding forested and riparian areas. Local communities and land managers have been diligently working on addressing these concerns and developing innovative methods to adapt to issues of concern. The Boulder Ranger District of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest and Pawnee National Grasslands has collected data on the locations of campfire rings in dispersed camping areas. These data can be used by land managers to inform restoration and maintenance of camping areas, as well as better understanding use patterns within the forest. In partnership with the Boulder Ranger District, the City of Boulder and Trout Unlimited’s Abandoned Mine Lands team, the Boulder Watershed Collective was awarded grant funds to sample priority streams above and below heavily used recreational and camping areas. The goal of the study is to evaluate whether elevated E. coli levels are present below recreational areas which could be attributed to human waste impacts.
1
Fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria provide an indication of the possible presence of pathogens. E. coli is a sub-group of fecal coliform, and is typically present in water along with fecal coliform to some extent. Factors affecting bacteria levels include seasonal weather, stream flow, water temperature, distance from pollution sources, livestock management practices, wildlife activity, age of fecal material, sewage overflows, and rainfall. Determining if E. coli is related to human or animal impacts is not possible without DNA lab testing which was not completed as part of this study. Site Selection and Descriptions
Peak to Peak water quality sites were selected based on proximity above or below day-use recreation areas, and proximity above or below dispersed, designated, or developed camping areas, known or suspected water quality issues, public concern or significance, accessibility and resources available. Due to Covid-19 many camping areas and roads on U.S. Forest Service lands were closed until late June. For this reason, the Peak to Peak sampling project did not begin until all sample areas were open and accessible. The nine sites selected for 2020 were northwest of Boulder, CO within the Boulder Creek watershed and in or near the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area. All sites are displayed in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. The nine selected Peak to Peak Water Quality Project site locations for 2020. Note that both Below Caribou Creek and Below Rainbow Lakes sites occupy the same black legend square at this scale, as these sites are within 25 feet of one another on the ground. 2
Caribou Creek
Caribou Creek has 11 designated campsites off of National Forest Service Road (NFSR) 505 within its watershed (Figure 2), though other dispersed camp sites are likely used throughout the area. Types of recreation include hiking, biking, snow sports, fishing, camping and 4x4 driving. There are some campsites above the upper Caribou Creek sample location, but accommodations had to me made to allow for getting samples to the lab within the six hour period required for E. coli analysis. Flows were extremely low at this site in late summer, and the stream was braided in some locations.
The townsite of Caribou was a productive silver mining area in the late 1800’s. The majority of the mining was located near the upper Caribou Creek sample site. The 303(d) and M&E List Changes section later in this report discusses known water quality issues at Caribou Creek involving dissolved iron, arsenic, nitrite, nitrate, cadmium, copper, and lead. Many of these issues are for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) stream classification code of COSPBO02a (the larger area including Caribou Creek and other streams). The water quality issues that are of concern specifically for Caribou Creek include dissolved iron, copper, and lead.
Water quality impairments for North Boulder Creek from Caribou Creek to the confluence with Como Creek include dissolved iron and copper. This stream segment was added to the 303(d) list due to exceedances of water quality standards for copper. This segment was already on the 303(d) list and uses the table value standard (TVS) (5 CCR 1002-31) for dissolved iron. This section of stream is immediately below lower Caribou Creek. Both Upper Caribou Creek as well as the stream below Rainbow Lakes contribute to this section of lower Caribou Creek, which then feeds into North Boulder Creek.
Water quality impairments for North Boulder Creek to the confluence of Caribou Creek include copper and lead. This stream segment is below lower Caribou Creek. Upper Caribou Creek and the stream below Rainbow Lakes are tributaries of lower Caribou Creek, which then feeds into North Boulder Creek.
Rainbow Lakes
The Rainbow Lakes campground is a developed camping area with 18 campsites and pit toilets managed by the Boulder Ranger District. The above Rainbow Lakes sample location is immediately upstream of the developed campground. Recreation include hiking, biking, snow sports, fishing, camping, 4x4 driving and more (potential swimming). There is a trail near the upper Rainbow Lakes site that goes to the Rainbow Lakes themselves, in the Peak to Peak Wilderness Area. The 303(d) and M&E List Changes section later in this report discusses known water quality impairments at the stream below Rainbow Lakes involving dissolved iron, arsenic, nitrite, nitrate, cadmium, copper, and lead. Many of these issues are for the Colorado Department 3
of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) stream classification code of COSPBO02a (the larger area including the Rainbow Lakes area and other streams). The stream below Rainbow Lakes combines with upper Caribou Creek to form lower Caribou Creek. Lower Caribou Creek flows northeast after this confluence. In Figure 2, the confluence occurs just south of the junction of road 116 and NFSR 505, near to where the northernmost NFSR 505 label occurs.
The water quality issues that are of concern specifically for lower Caribou Creek include dissolved iron, copper, and lead. The previous section on Caribou Creek describes these issues. Figure 2 displays the Rainbow Lakes developed campground north of the Caribou townsite area.
Figure 2. The Caribou townsite and Rainbow Lakes developed campground. Designated campsites, roads, land ownership, wilderness, topography, and seasonal gates are also displayed (US Forest Service Boulder RD). 4
Gordon Gulch
Gordon Gulch is a relatively small stream which flows into North Boulder Creek. The drainage is fed by numerous wetland complexes and smaller tributaries. The first wetland area is surrounded by a dispersed camping area managed by the Boulder Ranger District. Fencing was recently constructed to protect the wetlands and multiple campsites nearby were decommissioned. The area is locally known to be used for long-term camping by the unhoused community although there is a fourteen-day camping limit. The second wetland complex is accessed from the Switzerland Trail. The Switzerland Trail is a heavily used recreational area for mountain biking, off-road vehicles and dispersed camping. It also should be noted that there are numerous private homes throughout the Gordon Gulch watershed.
The Gordon Gulch sample site is at the intersection of Sugarloaf Road and Switzerland Park Drive. There was not a single thread channel available to capture all of the items described above. For this reason, there was no upstream sample site to function as a control site for comparison with downstream results.
Ruby Gulch (Fourmile Creek)
Ruby Gulch is a dispersed camping area off of Forest Service Roads 328A and 328 B off Peak to Peak Highway. Types of recreational use include hiking, biking, snow sports, fishing, hunting, shooting, camping, and potential swimming. The above Ruby Gulch site is immediatley above a fen west of Peak to Peak highway. This site was selected because it is above a majority of the accessible dispersed camping sites. The below Ruby Gulch sample site was selected because it is downstream of most of the known campsites. There are multiple legacy mining waste rock piles immediately adjacent to Fourmile Creek between the above Ruby Gulch and below Ruby Gulch sampling sites. There is a waste rock pile and visible orange drainage into the creek at low flows adjacent to the below Ruby Gulch site. Moose are regularly seen at this site.
The 303(d) and M&E List Changes section later in this report discusses known water quality issues at Boulder Creek segment 2b (COSPBO02b) which includes Fourmile Creek and other streams. The parameters of concern are arsenic, nitrite, nitrate, and E. coli. The COSPBO02b segment was added to the 303(d) List for exceeding the arsenic standard. COSPBO02b was removed from the M&E List due to attainment of current water quality standards for cadmium and copper. The larger Boulder Creek segment 2b (COSPBO02b) that Fourmile Creek is tributary to was added to the 303(d) List for exceeding the arsenic standard. E. coli had previously been an issue for the South Platte, Boulder Segment 2b, Boulder Creek from 13th Street to the confluence with South Boulder Creek (COSPBO02b), but has since been removed from the 303(d) List.
5
Hessie (Middle Boulder Creek)
The above Hessie site location is less than one mile upstream of the Hessie trailhead parking area, along the North Fork of Middle Boulder Creek. The Hessie Trail is an extremely popular area for hiking, backpacking, dispersed camping, fishing, and potentially swimming. This trailhead provides access to numerous trails and lakes in the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area. Camping occurs upstream of the above Hessie site, but there is no road access nearby. Many small log and stick dams occur between the parking area and the above Hessie site, which creates a large wetland complex and may be evidence of beaver activity. A 4x4 road goes through the middle of this high water area and stops just before the above Hessie site, where there is a bridge. Many different tributaries feed the above Hessie site (the North Fork of Middle Boulder Creek), with headwaters in the wilderness, contributing to relatively high flows as compared to the other Peak to Peak water quality sites.
The below Hessie site location is right off of road 130 on the eastern portion of Eldora city limits, on a small section of US Forest Service land, surrounded by private land. A large wetland complex exists on private land just downstream of the below Hessie site, on the south side of road 130. There is water outflow from this wetland both seeping out of the ground just upstream of a small bridge and also via a culvert downstream of this. High flows are difficult or impossible to attain at this site, as this site location has higher flows than any other. Both the South Fork and the North Fork of Middle Boulder Creek contribute to the flows at this site. There are also many tributaries that flow into the South Fork of Middle Boulder Creek that have not been examined for accessibility reasons.
Middle Boulder Creek (Hessie) is of great importance to the public as this is a large contributor to public water supply.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Standards
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) designates water quality standards based on Regulation #38 stream classifications (5 CCR 1002-38 p 342-343). If water quality standards are not listed here, they are listed in the tables found in Regulation #31 Code of Colorado Regulations, Water Quality Control Commission (5 CCR 1002-31). All peak to peak water quality sites are a part of the Boulder Creek Basin.
Five of the sampling locations (three streams) fall within COSPBO02A. This is described as the mainstem of Boulder Creek, including all tributaries and wetlands, from the boundary of the Indian Peaks Wilderness area to a point immediately below the confluence with North Boulder Creek, except for the specific listings in Segment 3. Above and below Rainbow Lakes, above and below Caribou Creek, and Gordon Gulch are the sampling sites that fall within
6
COSPBO02A. These have the following use classifications: Agriculture, Aquatic Life: Class 1 Cold Water Biota, Recreation: Class E (Existing Primary Contact), and Water Supply.
There are also many segments of stream in this study that have been placed on the 303(d) or M&E list under category 5. Above and below Rainbow Lakes, above and below Caribou Creek, and Gordon Gulch are in the following Category 5 Lists: 303(d) for As-T (Arsenic), M&E: Cu-D (Copper). Above and Below Rainbow Lakes is GIS Stream Segment 44309, (1.12 miles), Above Caribou is GIS stream segment 43907 (1.62 mi), Below Caribou is GIS stream segment 44076 (0.9 mi), and Gordon Gulch is GIS stream segment 44507 (2.30 mi).
Two of the sampling locations (above and below Fourmile Creek) fall within COSBO02B. This is described as the 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. The Fourmile Creek sampling locations have the following use classifications: Agriculture, Aquatic Life: Class 1 Cold Water Biota, Recreation: Class E (Existing Primary Contact), and Water Supply.
The final two sampling locations (above and below Hessie) fall within COSPBO03. This is described as the Mainstem of Middle Boulder Creek, including all tributaries and wetlands, from the source to the outlet of Barker Reservoir, except for specific listings in segment 1. Both Hessie sampling locations have the following use classifications: Agriculture, Aquatic Life: Class 1 Cold Water Biota, Recreation: Class E (Existing Primary Contact), and Water Supply.
In Class E recreational waters, Colorado’s accepted level of risk of illness from E. coli in recreational waters is potential illness in 36 out of 1,000 swimmers. E. coli is measured in colony forming units (CFU). Using E. coli epidemiology data this was translated into the 126 CFU/100 mL geomean standard used today. The E. coli standard for domestic water supply is 630 CFU/100 mL. In waters that are used for both Class E recreation as well as for water supply, the more stringent recreation standard of 126 CFU/100 mL should be used (CDPHE, 2020: 5 CCR 1002-38 and 5 CCR 1002-31).
Ammonia Nitrogen, Nitrate Nitrogen, Nitrate/Nitrite Nitrogen, pH, Total Phosphorus, Total Dissolved Solids, Total Inorganic Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, and Total Nitrogen were sampled for at all site locations in July and August 2020. Regulation #38 Table Value Standards (TVS) are the same for all 2020 site locations for pH, Ammonia, Nitrate, Nitrite, and Phosphorous. The standard for pH ranges between 6.5-9. The standard for Nitrate is 10 mg/L and for Nitrite is 0.05 mg/L. For Phosphorous the standard is 0.11 mg/L.
The standard for Ammonia can be calculated using Regulation #31 Table II – Inorganic Parameters for Class 1 Cold Water Biota, and the chronic value depends on the species and life stage of fish present. The acute Ammonia standard is not applicable because there are no
7
salmonoids present at any 2020 sites. To calculate the chronic standard where fish of early life stages are present, the following equation should be used to calculate the standard:
0.0577 2.487 ( + ) ∗ 푀퐼푁(2.85, 1.45 ∗ 100.028(25−푇)) 1 + 107.688−푝퐻 1 + 10푝퐻−7.688
To calculate the chronic standard for Ammonia where fish of early life stages are absent, the following equation should be used:
0.0577 2.487 ( + ) ∗ 1.45 ∗ 100.028∗(25−푀퐴푋(푇,7)) 1 + 107.688−푝퐻 1 + 10푝퐻−7.688
The chronic Ammonia standards will not be calculated this year, as sampling results indicated no possible concerns over elevated levels of Ammonia Nitrogen (all samples under 0.03 mg/L).
All summer 2020 site locations are classified for Class 1 Cold Water Biota use. Temperature standards (5 CCR 1002-31) for this aquatic life use designation come in two different tiers. Rivers and streams have Tier 1 temperature standards if cutthroat trout and brook trout are expected to occur, or if mountain whitefish spawning and sensitive early life stages occur. From June to September, the acceptable temperature maximum for Tier 1 is 17 °C. Tier 2 temperature standards are for where other cold-water aquatic species occur, excluding cutthroat trout and brook trout, and including where mountain whitefish spawning and sensitive early life stages occur (where applicable). From April to October, the acceptable temperature maximum for Tier 2 is 18.3 °C.
303(d) and M&E List Changes
Dissolved Iron and Manganese within COSPBO02a
Although dissolved iron and manganese were not sampled this year, some background information about these metals is provided in this section from 5 CCR 1002-93 (2018). The table value standard (TVS) was used as the standard for the 303(d) listings below.
1. Boulder Creek segment 2a, Como Creek to the confluence of North Boulder Creek: dissolved iron. 2. Boulder Creek segment 2a, North Boulder Creek from Caribou Creek to the confluence with Como Creek: dissolved iron. 3. Boulder Creek segment 2a, from the outlet of Barker Reservoir to Longitude: 105.475577°Latitude: 39.971275°: manganese.
8
Arsenic and Nitrite within COSPBO02a, COSPBO02b, and COSPBO03
The 2016 303(d) listing methodology was modified based on Regulation #31 changing the assessment of arsenic, nitrite and nitrate to be conducted throughout the entire segment, rather than solely at the point of intake. Arsenic was not sampled for this summer, while Nitrite samples were collected at all sites twice this summer. The Commission added the following segments to the 303(d) List for exceedances of the arsenic standard:
1. Boulder Creek segment 2a (COSPBO02a) 2. Boulder Creek segment 2b (COSPBO02b) 3. Boulder Creek segment 3 (COSPBO03)
Cadmium and Copper within COSPBO02a, COSPBO02b, and COSPBO03
The Commission removed the following segments and parameters from the M&E List due to attainment of current water quality standards:
1. Boulder Creek segment 2a: cadmium, copper (COSPBO02a) 2. Boulder Creek segment 2b: cadmium, copper (COSPBO02b) 3. Boulder Creek segment 3: cadmium, copper (COSPBO03)
Copper, Iron and Lead within COSPBO02a
The following segments or parameters were added to the 303(d) List due to exceedances of water quality standards not identified above:
1. Boulder Creek segment 2a, North Boulder Creek from Caribou Creek to the confluence with Como Creek: copper (COSPBO02a) 2. Boulder Creek segment 2a, Como Creek to the confluence of North Boulder Creek: total recoverable iron (COSPBO02a) 3. Boulder Creek segment 2a, North Boulder Creek to confluence of Caribou Creek: copper and lead (COSPBO02a)
E. Coli within COSPBO02b
The Division submitted 26 total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to EPA in the last biennium that were approved. The following segment has been removed from the 303(d) List:
1. South Platte, Boulder Segment 2b, Boulder Creek from 13th Street to the confluence with South Boulder Creek: E. coli (COSPBO02b)
9
E. Coli Data
Weekly water samples were collected at all site locations and analyzed by the City of Boulder in June, July, and August 2020. Lower flows later in the summer (see Stream Discharge Appendices) likely concentrate bacteria, which may have resulted in higher E. coli concentrations due to the reduced flow. 2020 E. coli data for all water quality sites are displayed in the following raw (not geometrically averaged) box-and-whisker plots (Figure 3) and the raw five-number summary statistics table (Table 1). In the box-and-whisker plots, the center line represents the median and the whiskers represent the minimum and maximum values. The red line at 126 is a geometric mean CDPHE standard and the box-and-whisker plots are from raw E. coli data that has not been geometrically averaged.
Caribou Creek minimum, quartile 1, and median E. coli CFU are only slightly higher at the below Caribou Creek site compared to above Caribou Creek. However, the quartile 3 and maximum E. coli CFU/100 mL become much higher for below Caribou Creek compared to above. Both above and below Caribou Creek have third quartiles and maximum E. coli CFU that exceed the recreation standard of 126 CFU per 100 mL (this standard is a geomean standard). Geomean exceedances will be discussed in the following sections.
E. coli levels below Rainbow Lakes camp sites are higher than above the camp sites. The only values that differ by less than 100 CFU per 100 mL are the minimum values, which differ by 77 CFU. The maximum E. coli CFU are extremely high at the below Rainbow Lakes sample site.
Gordon Gulch had one sample location below the Gordon Gulch sub-watershed. There is no single channel upstream of Gordon Gulch recreation areas and the stream is fed by numerous small tributaries and wetland complexes. In the Gordon Gulch box plot in Figure 3, what appears to be a line at 2419.6, are in fact the quartile 1, median, quartile 3, and maximum E. coli CFU/100 mL. All but the minimum value of the raw E. coli five-number summary are 2419.6 CFU per 100 mL, which is 2294 CFU per 100 mL greater than the recreation E. coli geomean standard.
Above and below Ruby Gulch (Fourmile Creek) raw E. coli five-number summary data are displayed in Figure 3. All above Ruby Gulch five-number summary values are generally within the 126 CFU per 100 mL recreation water quality standard, whereas all but the minimum of the five-number summary for below Ruby Gulch exceed this standard.
Most Hessie (Middle Boulder Creek) samples collected had raw E. coli CFU below the 126 CFU per 100 mL CDPHE standard. Below Hessie, E. coli CFU ranged from 38.8 to 88.3 CFU per 100 mL greater than above Hessie. The greatest differences occurred in the third quartile.
10
Figure 3. Raw five-number summary E. coli data from all 2020 Peak to Peak Water Quality Project sites, displayed as box-and-whisker plots. The red line at 126 CFU represents the CDPHE geomean E. coli standard for class E recreational waters, which all sites are designated as.
11
Table 1. Five-number summaries of raw E. coli CFU per 100 mL at all 2020 Peak to Peak Water Quality Project sites.
Above Below Above Below Gordon Above Below Above Below Caribou Caribou Rainbow Rainbow Gulch Ruby Ruby Hessie Hessie Creek Creek Lakes Lakes Gulch Gulch Minimum 14.5 27.2 8.5 85.7 53.8 2 30.9 8.5 47.3 Quartile 1 37.05 46.4 45.55 151.88 2419.6 4.35 203.4 15.38 76.98 Median 70 83 129.4 256.85 2419.6 11.95 461.8 28.85 91.95 Quartile 3 153.35 261.3 260.2 452.5 2419.6 15.38 510 30.05 118.33 Maximum 517.2 579.4 488.4 1299.7 2419.6 129.6 2419.6 238.2 186
12
Colorado Analytical Water Sample Summary of Results (Nutrient Data, pH and E. Coli)
In July and August 2020 (07/27/20 and 08/31/20), additional water samples were collected at each site location. These samplings included analysis of Ammonia Nitrogen, Nitrate Nitrogen, Nitrate/Nitrite Nitrogen, Nitrite Nitrogen, pH, Total Phosphorous, Total Dissolved Solids, Total Inorganic Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, and Total Nitrogen. The July sampling also included a single E. coli analysis. Water quality standards exist (5 CCR 1002-38) for pH, Ammonia, Nitrate, Nitrite, Phosphorous, and E. coli. The results for these water quality parameters (except Ammonia, which all resulted in values less than 0.03 mg/L) are displayed in Table 2 and 3 with the associated standard. In Table 2, the only water quality parameter to exceed its table value standard (TVS) was E. coli. E. coli exceeded the recreation standard at all sample sites on 07/27/2020 except above Hessie and above Ruby Gulch. Gordon Gulch had the highest E. coli levels at 6630 CFU (/100 mL) followed by below Ruby Gulch, which had levels of 345 CFU per 100 mL.
Table 2. July 27, 2020 Colorado Analytical water sample lab results and Regulation #38 Table Value Standards (TVS). Mpn is an acronym for most probable number. Although not the same as CFU, mpn is comparable to CFU. pH Nitrate Nitrite Phosphorous E. coli
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (/100 mL) TVS 6.5 - 9 10 0.05 0.11 126 Above Caribou 7.32 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.01 177 mpn Below Caribou 7.38 < 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.01 129 mpn Above Rainbow Lakes 7.15 < 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.01 159 mpn Below Rainbow Lakes 7.06 < 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.01 284 mpn Gordon Gulch 7.76 0.07 < 0.03 < 0.01 6630 mpn Above Hessie 7.68 0.15 < 0.03 < 0.01 8 mpn Below Hessie 7.41 0.12 < 0.03 < 0.01 143 mpn Above Ruby Gulch 7.16 < 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.01 4 mpn Below Ruby Gulch 7.19 < 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.01 345 mpn
On August 31, 2020 water samples were collected at all sites except Gordon Gulch (flows not high enough to sample) and analyzed for additional water quality parameters, but not E. coli. Table 3 displays the results analyzed by Colorado Analytical in Brighton, CO. Although there is no 5 CCR 1002-38 table value standard (TVS) for total Nitrogen, this can sometimes be an indicator of stream health and susceptibility to algal growth. For this reason, total Nitrogen is included in Table 3. Total Nitrogen levels were slightly higher on August 31 than they were on July 27.
13
Table 3. August 31, 2020 Colorado Analytical water sample lab results and Regulation #38 Table Value Standards (TVS).
pH Nitrate Nitrite Phosphorous Total (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Nitrogen (mg/L) TVS 6.5 - 9 10 0.05 0.11 -- Above Caribou 7.79 0.17 < 0.03 0.02 0.17 Below Caribou 7.66 < 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.01 < 0.10 Above Rainbow Lakes 7.24 0.16 < 0.03 < 0.01 0.16 Below Rainbow Lakes 7.08 0.15 < 0.03 < 0.01 0.15 Above Hessie 7.44 0.23 < 0.03 < 0.01 0.23 Below Hessie 7.27 0.17 < 0.03 < 0.01 0.17 Above Ruby Gulch 7.24 < 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.01 < 0.10 Below Ruby Gulch 7.13 0.15 < 0.03 0.03 0.15
With only two nutrient samples collected at each site this summer, the sample size is not large enough for further statistical data analysis. Results of nutrient samples indicate that all sites are within compliance of CDPHE water quality standards. National standards for total Nitrogen may be of interest to measure eutrophication, but these have a very wide range of acceptability.
Multimeter and Flow Data
Temperature, pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), conductivity, and flow data were collected weekly from June until the end of August 2020 using a multimeter and stream discharge equipment. Weekly pH data always fell within the 5 CCR 1002-38 and 5 CCR 1002-31 pH standard’s acceptable range. Temperature data was always cooler than the Tier 1 and Tier 2 maximum temperature standards. Flow data can be used to calculate nutrient or E. coli loading at each site if desired and is helpful if it is suspected that lower flows later in summer may be causing increased concentrations of E. coli. These data will help to confirm or deny this.
E. Coli Data Analysis
Kruskal-Wallis Test
The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis hypothesis test was run using excel and in the R software environment on all above and below site locations to determine if the above and below E. coli levels are considered statistically significantly different.
14
Above and below Caribou Creek are not significantly different with an alpha (α) of 0.05. The Caribou Creek analysis returned a p value of 0.44, which is greater than α. Therefore, we fail to reject our null hypothesis. There is not enough information to conclude that E. coli levels are significantly different above and below camping areas at Caribou Creek.
Above and below dispersed camping at Rainbow Lakes are not significantly different with an alpha of 0.05. The Rainbow Lakes analysis returned a p value of 0.41 (above vs below) or a p value of 0.44 (below vs above), which are both greater than α. Therefore, we fail to reject our null hypothesis. There is not enough information to conclude that E. coli levels are significantly different between the above Rainbow Lakes and below Rainbow Lakes site locations.
Above and below Hessie are not significantly different with an alpha of 0.05. The Hessie analysis returned p values of 0.50 (above vs below) and 0.44 (below vs above), which are greater than alpha. Therefore, we fail to reject our null hypothesis. There is not enough information to conclude that E. coli levels are significantly different between the above and below Hessie site locations.
Above and below Ruby Gulch are not significantly different with an alpha of 0.05. The Ruby Gulch analysis returned p values of 0.31 (above vs below) and 0.44 (below vs above), which are greater than alpha. Therefore, we fail to reject our null hypothesis. There is not enough information to conclude that E. coli levels are significantly different between the above and below Ruby Gulch site locations. However, the 0.31 p-value for above vs below Ruby Gulch is the closest p-value to alpha compared to any other stream’s above and below Kruskal-Wallis test analysis. Therefore, above and below Ruby Gulch had the most E. coli differences out of any other above and below site for 2020.
Kendall’s Tau Correlation Analysis
The non-parametric Kendall’s tau (τ) rank order correlation analysis was completed using the R software environment. Ten weeks of E. coli samples were analyzed at each site. A summer 2020 E. coli geomean vs number of campsites (unchanging) was used for analysis at each of the nine site locations. This analysis was also completed for the below sites only. Campsite data came from US Forest Service campfire ring information (M. Cowan, personal communication, October 2020), which was plotted onto the watershed site map (NIFC Peak to Peak Water Quality Site Map). Only campfire rings upslope of (and within the watershed of) each site location were included. With this data, a τ correlation coefficient and p value were computed. P values aid in determining the significance of correlation results. The number of campsites was determined using ArcGIS layers and on the ground knowledge of designated dispersed campsites based on GPS fire ring locations. Any pseudoreplication (i.e. multiple differing E. coli results per same campsite count, such as more than one above site with zero campsites, each with its own E. coli numbers) was eliminated by only using analysis from the below site locations’ correlation to number of campsites. 15
Table 4 shows the geomeans for summer 2020. This data produces a tau (τ) correlation coefficient of 0.8 and p-value of 0.0833. With a p-value of 0.0833 we fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is no relationship or correlation between number of campsites and E. coli levels. Therefore, based on the p-value, we cannot conclude that there is or isn’t a relationship between below site location E. coli and number of campsites. However, a 0.8 correlation is a fairly strong positive relationship for E. coli with campfire rings.
The below site geometric means are presented in Table 4. It should be noted that three of these five geometric means are above the 126 CFU per 100 mL CDPHE E. coli standard for class E recreational waters. Sites that exceed this standard are below Rainbow Lakes, Gordon Gulch, and below Ruby Gulch.
Table 4. Summer 2020 below site E. coli geometric mean (GeoMean) and campsite data used in the Kendall’s tau (τ) correlation, producing results of τ = 0.8 and a p-value of 0.0833.
E. Coli Geometric Means
The geometric means for the above site locations are also of interest, despite Kendall’s tau correlation coefficients not being computed. Table 5 displays rolling 61-day (early summer and late summer) geometric means (GeoMeans) for all summer 2020 Peak to Peak Water Quality Project sites. Three sites have geometric means that surpass E. coli standards (denoted with an Asterix) and six sites have geometric means that fall below E. coli standards. The sites with geometric means in exceedance of CDPHE E. coli standards for class E recreation are below Rainbow Lakes, Gordon Gulch, and below Ruby Gulch. Below Rainbow Lakes exceeds by over double the class E recreation standard, below Ruby Gulch is about triple the standard, and Gordon Gulch is about 11 times the standard.
Table 5. Rolling 61-day (early summer and late summer) E. coli geometric means (GeoMeans, CFU/100mL) for all summer 2020 sites. An Asterix indicates that the geometric mean exceeds the CDPHE standard for class E recreational waters (126 CFU/100 mL).
16
Discussion and Recommendations
Water Samples (E. Coli and Nutrient Data)
Any sites locations that had water samples with E. coli values greater than 2419.6 per 100 mL are recommended to be diluted at least 3:1 in 2021 or analyzed at a lab such as Colorado Analytical with a higher maximum detection limit. These sites include below Ruby Gulch (Fourmile Creek) and Gordon Gulch. It is recommended that all summer samples for these two sites be analyzed by the same lab, for consistency.
It is recommended to collect water samples in the same, consistent order so that samples are collected at similar times every week. It is also recommended to sample on the same day(s) each week for consistency, and to reduce the number of changing variables.
The final sampling for nutrient data occurred on August 31, 2020. It is recommended that future sampling events obtain nutrient samples through September if eutrophication or total Nitrogen concerns exist (i.e. excess algae, lowered dissolved oxygen). Sites with the highest levels of total Nitrogen were above Hessie (0.23 mg/L), above Caribou Creek (0.17 mg/L), above Rainbow Lakes (0.16 mg/L), below Rainbow Lakes (0.15 mg/L), and below Ruby Gulch (0.15 mg/L). The national refence level range for total Nitrogen in streams is 0.12 – 2.2 mg/L, although many streams with Nitrogen levels less than 1.0 mg/L still have algae problems (EPA- 822-B-00-002, July 2000). It is recommended to do more research on the sites listed to determine if total Nitrogen, algae, or eutrophication are of concern. Studies from similar elevations and ecotypes will help determine if these streams are exhibiting eutrophication or stress from nutrients. If this is the case, additional water samples should be collected and analyzed for nutrients towards the end of summer.
Multimeter and Flow Data
Multimeter temperature and pH data should continue to be collected in 2021, as CDPHE water quality standards exist for these parameters, and they are relatively quick and easy to collect. 17
Total dissolved solids (TDS) data should be collected if suspended solids or turbidity are a concern. In 2020 these were not a concern. Conductivity data should be collected if high levels of metals, certain nutrients, or salts are of concern. Salinity was not a concern in 2020.
Flow data should only be collected in 2021 if this data is to be used to calculate nutrient or E. coli loading, to better understand water quantity, or to confirm or deny suspicions about more concentrated or diluted E. coli levels. Using flow data with a staff gage to establish a stage- discharge relation would be beneficial for long-term flow monitoring. There is a lack of discharge data at headwater streams and such data can give beneficial information about the source waters to larger stream segments. Smaller headwater streams are more susceptible to changes such as reduced snowpack, earlier spring runoff, diversion impacts, etc. and are important indicators of how flows are changing over time. These changes affect larger segments downstream as well as the concentration of nutrients or E. coli in all stream sizes. For these reasons, collecting flow data, especially with a staff gage, should be considered in 2021. Collecting additional E. coli samples along affected stream segments that exceeded the class E recreation E. coli standard can help refine E. coli impacts and potentially isolate E. coli sources. New sample points should be equidistant where possible.
Kendall’s Tau Correlations and Implications for 2021
When summer 2020 E. coli geomeans were correlated with number of below site campfire rings, this presented a tau correlation coefficient of 0.8, which is a fairly strong positive relationship. A correlation of 0.8 is not strong enough to draw a solid conclusion of cause and effect. It is strong enough to show that potential recreation causes of increased E. coli concentrations should be further studied.
While E. coli water sample analyses exist to determine the source of E. coli (animal vs human) bacteria, these analyses often produce incorrect or false results, making these analyses less desirable than identifying the physical source of the E. coli contamination. Identifying the physical source of the contamination will also aid us in finding a remedy for the problem.
It is recommended in 2021 to collect more water samples along the same segment of stream where E. coli was found in excess of the CDPHE class E recreation water quality standard. This includes Rainbow Lakes, Gordon Gulch, and Ruby Gulch. Additional samples are recommended to be collected nearby and downstream from areas where E. coli is thought to originate, but also keeping sites as equidistant as possible. This includes areas with high recreation impacts like trails, parking lots, cross-country use areas, camping spaces, swimming holes, and places where larger groups of animals migrate, wallow, graze, or overnight.
Once additional site locations are identified, it is recommended to collect water samples on days when recreation is expected to be higher (holidays, weekends) and when it is expected to be lower (pre-summer season, weekdays) as well as to make note of observations when water 18
samples are being collected. Observations should include the number of people, tents, cars, or animals seen, as well as the time and date. It will be especially important to note if anyone is swimming in the water, and if so, how many people are. This could be used to conduct correlations with E. coli analysis to help answer the question of how much human recreation is impacting E. coli concentrations in this area. Permit data from the US Forest Service may increase understanding of recreational use at specific sites (i.e. upper Rainbow Lakes). These observations may provide a more direct measure of recreation than campfire rings, which have served as a proxy for recreation for the summer 2020 analysis.
Additional E. coli details for each site location will follow to conclude 2021 recommendations.
Caribou Creek E. Coli
E. coli does not appear to exceed any CDPHE standards at the above or below Caribou Creek site locations and therefore, additional E. coli sampling is not necessary in summer 2021.
Rainbow Lakes E. Coli
E. coli exceeds CDPHE standards at the below Rainbow Lakes site, but not at the above Rainbow Lakes site. Class E recreation (existing primary contact) is likely to occur near the below Rainbow Lakes site. Recommendations for this site include sampling at more frequent intervals between the 2020 sample locations above and below camping areas. Attention should be given to sample sites being as equidistant as possible, in order to determine where the main source(s) of E. coli occur(s). The previous section Kendall’s Tau Correlations and Implications for 2021 outlines general suggestions for new site locations and when to sample.
Consider a riparian vegetation analysis at the dispersed area below the Rainbow Lakes campground along the stream to further quantify recreational impacts at this site.
Gordon Gulch (Gordon Creek) E. Coli
The likelihood of class E recreation (existing primary contact) at the Gordon Gulch site (Gordon Creek) is impossible in late summer, with a low likelihood during spring and early summer, due to low flows. It is possible that this was a drought year for Gordon Gulch, and that other future years will have higher flows. Gordon Creek is intermittent or braided upstream of the site location chosen, and sampling further upstream would be most likely to succeed in spring and early summer only, during higher flows. In order to capture the majority of flow and water quality data, sampling on each braid of the creek, upstream of potentially impacted areas, should be considered.
The City of Boulder lab provided E. coli water sample analysis each week. However, their analysis method has a maximum detection limit of 2419.6 per 100 mL, and some sites exceeded 19
this limit. The single sample collected on 7/27/2020 that was analyzed for E. coli by Colorado Analytical Laboratories in Commerce City, CO found 6630 most probable number (mpn) per 100 mL. Mpn, although not the same as CFU, is comparable. 6630 mpn/100 mL is over 52 times the class E recreation standard and it is over 10 times the domestic water supply standard of 630 CFU per 100 mL.
Despite low flows and low likelihood of class E recreation, further investigation into the cause of these high E. coli numbers is recommended. Collecting more water samples in the spring and early summer along Gordon Creek and the other tributaries and braids that make up Gordon Gulch (upstream or upslope of the Gordon Gulch site), is recommended where feasible. More sampling would help narrow down where these high E. coli numbers begin to enter the watershed. Kendall’s Tau Correlations and Implications for 2021 outlines general suggestions for new site locations.
Hessie (Middle Boulder Creek) E. Coli
E. coli does not exceed any CDPHE standards at the 2020 above or below Hessie site locations and additional E. coli sampling is not recommended in 2021. However, the Hessie area is complex and includes many factors which could impact water quality and water quantity over time. These potential impacts includes the town of Eldora and associated septic systems, high recreational day use and overnight camping, large and small tributaries which confluence with Middle Boulder Creek, wetland and beaver complexes and diversions.
Middle Boulder Creek is a primary drinking water source for the town of Nederland and the City of Boulder. Obtaining additional baseline water quality and flow data for the tributaries in this area would assist in better understanding how recreational impacts and climate change are affecting the area over time.
Numerous smaller tributaries feed the North Fork and South Fork tributaries to Middle Boulder Creek. There is minimal road access. A new study could be designed to evaluate the Hessie area only. Flow data can be obtained at tributaries to Middle Boulder Creek where lower flows are more reasonable to wade and where water quality impacts may be more apparent (potentially less diluted). The quantity of tributaries to Middle Boulder Creek is high enough to dedicate one full day per week to evaluating water quality and water quantity.
Ruby Gulch E. Coli
E. coli exceeds CDPHE standards at the below Ruby Gulch site, but not at the above Ruby Gulch site. Class E recreation (existing primary contact) is likely to occur at the below Ruby Gulch site. It is recommended in summer 2021 to sample more site locations upstream of the below Ruby Gulch site and downstream of the above Ruby Gulch site, as equidistant as possible, in order to determine where the main source(s) of E. coli occur(s). The previous section Kendall’s 20
Tau Correlations and Implications for 2021 outlines general suggestions for new site locations and when to sample. The City of Boulder was very helpful in providing E. coli water sample analysis one day per week. However, the method detection limit for this analysis is 2419.6 CFU/100mL. For this reason, diluting samples at least 3:1 or sending samples to a lab with a higher detection limit is recommended for the Ruby Gulch sites.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Peak to Peak sites that should be further analyzed for water quality in 2021 include Rainbow Lakes, Gordon Gulch, and Ruby Gulch, where the main source of water quality concerns appear to come from E. coli. Additional time for the tributaries to Middle Boulder Creek should also be considered. Recreation and animal research should be done to decide where summer 2021 sites will be in order to fine tune where the source of E. coli is likely coming from (see Kendall’s Tau Correlations and Implications for 2021). Gordon Gulch and Ruby Gulch E. coli water samples should be diluted at least 3:1 or analyzed at a lab whose method uses a higher detection limit of at least 7000 mpn per 100 mL.
The Boulder Ranger District observed a significant increase in recreation during the pandemic at the James Peak Wilderness area. The James Peak Wilderness area does not require permits for overnight recreation, has ample parking and is easily accessible from the Denver Metro area. These factors indicate that expanding the Peak to Peak Water Quality Monitoring Program to this area could capture necessary baseline data as recreational impacts continue to increase.
21
References
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Commission (1002 Series). 2020, September 10. 5 CCR 1002-38 Regulation No. 38 – Classifications and Numeric Standards South Platte River Basin Laramie River Basin. Code of Colorado Regulations. https://www.sos.state.co.us
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Commission (1002 Series). 2020, February 10. 5 CCR 1002-31 Regulation No. 31 – The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water. Code of Colorado Regulations. https://www.sos.state.co.us
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Commission (1002 Series). 2018. 5 CCR 1002 Regulation No. 93 - Code of Colorado Regulations. https://www.sos.state.co.us
Cowan, M. 2020, October 13-30. Personal Communication.
Lidell, A. 2020, December 30. Peak to Peak Water Quality Site Map. [Unpublished]. In: National Interagency Fire Center ArcGIS Online. https://nifc.maps.arcgis.com/
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Bacteria: Sources, Types and Impacts on Water Quality. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-iw3-20.pdf
United States Department of Agriculture. (2012). Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Map. ISBN 978159351145-6
US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. (2000, July). EPA-822-B-00-002 Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manuals. https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy- data/nutrient-criteria-technical-guidance-manuals
University of Colorado Boulder CAD/GIS Office. 2020. Boulder County, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, NGA, EPA, USDA, NPS | US Census.
Wenger, S.J., C.H. Luce, A.F. Hamlet, D.J. Isaak, and H.M Neville. 2010. Macroscale hydrologic modeling of ecologically relevant flow metrics. BLM Energy, Minerals & Realty Management. Source: USGS, EPA. Water Resources Research. 46: W09513. doi:10.1029/2009WR008839.
22
Last Update: March 24, 2021
Colorado Water Conservation Board Water Supply Reserve Fund EXHIBIT B - BUDGET AND SCHEDULE - Direct & Indirect (Administrative) Costs Date: 5.5.21 Water Activity Name: James Peak Wilderness Water Quality Monitoring Grantee Name: Task No.(1) Description Start Date(2) End Date Matching Funds WSRF Funds Total (cash & in-kind)(3) (Basin & Statewide combined)(3)
1 Sample Collection 6.1.22 9.1.22 $6500 ($in-kind) $7,711 $14,211 2 Lab Analysis 6.1.22 9.1.22 $10,060 $10,060 3 Administration & Reporting 9.1.22 4.1.23 $2000 (cash) $3,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total $8,500 $20,771 $29,271 (1) The single task that include costs for Grant Administration must provide a labor breakdown (see Indirect Costs tab below) where the total WSRF Grant contribution towards that task does not exceed 15% of the total WSRF Grant amount. (2) Round values up to the nearest hundred dollars. • Additional documentation providing a Detailed/Itemized Budget may be required for contracting. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate with the CWCB Project Manager to determine specifics. The CWCB will pay the last 10% of the entire water activity budget when the Final Report is completed to the satisfaction of the CWCB staff project manager. Once the Final Report has been accepted, the final payment has been issued, the water activity and purchase order (PO) or contract will be closed without any futher payment. Any entity that fails to complete a satisfactory Final Report and submit to the CWCB with 90 days of the expiration of the PO or contract may be denied consideration for future funding of any type from the CWCB. • Additonally, the applicant shall provide a progress report every 6 months, beginning from the date of contract execution NOTE TO APPLICANTS: Below are two "detailed budget" examples. Detailed budgets will vary between all projects, so these examples can be used as a helpful guide
Colorado Water Conservation Board Detailed Budget Estimate Date: Water Activity Name: Grantee Name:
EXAMPLE A: Coordination
Task 1 - Sample Collection Other Matching Sub-task Item Hourly Rate # Hours Subtotal Item Cost Item Quantity Subtotal Total CWCB Funds Funds Sample Collection Coordinator sample collection $ 41.18 104 $ 4,282.72 $ - $ 4,282.72 $ 4,282.72 Program Manager sample collection $ 32.96 104 $ 3,427.84 $ 3,427.84 $ 3,427.84 Volunteers sample collection $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,500.00 TOTAL $ 7,710.56 $ 7,710.56
Task 2- Lab Analysis Other Matching Sub-task Item Hourly Rate # Hours Subtotal Item Cost Item Quantity Subtotal Total CWCB Funds Funds Focus Groups Nutrient Samples $ - $ 154.00 40.00 $ 6,160.00 $ 6,160.00 $ 6,160.00 E Coli $ - $ 26.00 150.00 $ 3,900.00 $ 3,900.00 $ 3,900.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - TOTAL $ 10,060.00 $ 10,060.00
Task 2- Administration and Reporting Other Matching Sub-task Item Hourly Rate # Hours Subtotal Item Cost Item Quantity Subtotal Total CWCB Funds Funds Focus Groups Water Quality Analyst (for report) $ 100.00 30 $ 3,000.00 $ - $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 Grant Administration $ 32.96 60 $ 2,000.00 $ - $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - TOTAL $ 5,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL #REF!
Other Direct Costs Travel Copies & Materials and Copies & Printing (Black & Lodging and Expenses Item: Printing Final Report Mileage Total White) Meals (Airfare and (Color) Production Car Rental) Units: No. No. Lump Sum Per Diem Lump Sum Miles Unit Cost:
Project Initiation Water Rights Evaluation Engineering Evaluation Environmental Analysis Flood Mitigation Funding Opportunities Cooperative Partnership Project Management Report, Conclusions and Recommendations Total Units: Total Cost: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0