BEFORE THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION

STATE OF COLORADO

JOINT PREHEARING STATEMENT

CONCERNING GRAND LAKE CLARITY STANDARD
SUBMITTED BY GRAND COUNTY, NORTHWEST COLORADO COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS, AND NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY
DISTRICT

FOR CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE CLASSIFICATIONS AND

STANDARDS FOR THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN AND NORTH PLATTE
RIVER (PLANNING REGION 12), REGULATION #33 (5 CCR 1002-33)

Grand County, the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG), and the
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern Water), (Clarity Proponents), by and
through the undersigned, hereby submit their Joint Prehearing Statement in this rulemaking
hearing for consideration of revisions to the Classifications and Standards for the Upper
Colorado River Basin and North Platte River (Planning Region 12), Regulation #33 (5 CCR
1002-33), specifically concerning the Grand Lake Clarity Standard.
I.

BACKGROUND

Grand Lake, in Grand County, is the largest natural lake in Colorado. It is also an
integral component of the west slope collection system of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project
(C-BT), a federal reclamation project of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation).
Northern Water is the local contracting entity for C-BT. Water is also diverted by the Municipal
Subdistrict of Northern Water through the Windy Gap Project from the Colorado River, pumped
to Granby Reservoir, pumped into Shadow Mountain Lake where it flows into Grand Lake and
into the Adams Tunnel for municipal use on the East Slope. Exhibit A.
Northern Water, Reclamation and Grand County are committed to assessing Grand
Lakes water quality and water clarity issues and improving clarity in Grand Lake. Northern
Water and Reclamation are committed to providing reasonable short and long-term mitigation.
For example, since 2008 Northern Water and Reclamation have modified C-BT Project summer
operations in an attempt to evaluate operational effects on and improve water clarity in Grand
Lake and Shadow Mountain Reservoir.

Grand Lake Clarity JtPHS

Reg. #33 RMH
19 March 2014

Page 2 of 11

A. 2008 Upper Colorado River Rulemaking Hearing

In the 2008 Upper Colorado River Triennial Review, the Northwest Colorado Council of
Governments, supported by Grand County and the Greater Grand Lake Shoreline Association,
proposed a clarity standard for Grand Lake of 4 meter Secchi disk depth, effective July through
September. As explained in the Statement of Basis and Purpose:
[t]he Commission determined that it is appropriate to adopt water quality
standards for the protection of Grand Lake's clarity because of Grand Lake's uniqueness
as Colorado's largest natural lake. Grand Lake adjoins and complements Rocky Mountain
National Park in the headwaters of the Colorado River and its social and economic
importance is worthy of protection. Senate Document 80 (which recorded the legislative
intent of the federal Congress in February 1937) provided in part that the Colorado BigThompson Project must be operated in a manner to preserve the scenic attraction of
Grand Lake. Concern about the visible loss of transparency of Grand Lake has resulted in
local, state and federal initiatives to address the changes in water quality. The earliest
measurement of Grand Lake clarity is 9.2 meters (September 6, 1941). The 85th
percentile of clarity measurements from 2006 is 2.7 meters.
The Commission recognizes that this is the first time that a clarity standard has
been adopted in the Colorado. Clarity standards are being adopted pursuant to the Basic
Standards at section 31.13(3), which states "In special cases where protection of
beneficial uses requires standards not provided by the classification above, special
standards may be assigned after full public notice and hearings.". Improvement of clarity
within Grand Lake is expected to improve the quality of recreational uses of this unique
resource.
The Commission is adopting two clarity standards for Grand Lake. First, the
Commission is establishing a narrative clarity standard, to take effect with the other
revisions to this regulation. This standard is the highest level of clarity attainable,
consistent with the exercise of established water rights and the protection of aquatic life.
This standard is based on the Commissions conclusion that improvement in the clarity of
Grand Lake is necessary, while noting that efforts to improve clarity need to be
undertaken in a manner consistent with established water rights and need to also consider
the protection of the aquatic life use. In basing the standard on attainability, the
Commission intends that attainability is to be judged by whether or not a clarity level can
be attained in approximately twenty years by any recognized control techniques that are
environmentally, economically, and socially acceptable.
An underlying assumption in setting this narrative standard is that clarity in Grand
Lake needs to improve. However, the Commission is not determining in this hearing
whether the current evidence of impairment warrants inclusion of Grand Lake on
Colorados Section 303(d) List or the Monitoring and Evaluation List. That issue can be

Grand Lake Clarity JtPHS

Reg. #33 RMH
19 March 2014

Page 3 of 11

addressed as appropriate in the 2010 hearing on Regulations #93 and #94, based on
additional evidence and analysis developed prior to that time.
Second, the Commission is establishing a numerical clarity standard of 4 meter
Secchi depth for the months of July through September, with an effective date of January
1, 2014.1 . . .
The Commission has determined that the adoption of the 4 meter numerical
standard with a delayed effective date is an appropriate policy choice to encourage
cooperative efforts to improve Grand Lake clarity prior to the time that a specific
numerical standard goes into effect, while assuring that a protective numerical standard
will go into effect in 2014 if monitoring, assessment and water quality improvement
efforts between now and then have not resulted in identification of a more appropriate
numerical standard.
All parties agreed that improvement in Grand Lake water clarity is desirable. The
Commission strongly encourages all interested stakeholders to work together to further
identify the causes of reduced clarity and to explore options for identifying and
implementing reasonable and effective measures to improve clarity, consistent with the
other factors noted in the narrative standard. The Commission anticipates that these
efforts may result in a proposal for a revised site-specific numerical clarity standard for
Grand Lake at a later date (emphasis added).
[]
While stating that it did not oppose a 4 meter clarity standard for Grand Lake, the
Colorado Division of Wildlife noted that it is important that efforts to improve clarity in
Grand Lake consider potential effects on recreational fisheries. The Commission intends
that potential positive or negative impacts on aquatic life in Grand Lake be taken into
account in implementing the narrative standard now being adopted, and in any efforts to
consider potential refinement of the numerical standard now being adopted with a
delayed effective date.
The Commission believes that this is an appropriate first step toward protecting
Colorado's high quality water resources in a manner consistent with law and regulation.
As with all standards, the clarity standards for Grand Lake are subject to periodic review,
and the Commission expects to revisit this issue in future review cycles.
Reg. 33.44, Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose; June 2008
Rulemaking; Final Action August 11, 2008; Effective date January 1, 2009, at Q [pp. 107108]
(emphasis added).
1

The date was later changed to January 1, 2015 to be consistent with a revision to the Commissions
triennial review schedule.

Grand Lake Clarity JtPHS

Reg. #33 RMH
19 March 2014

Page 4 of 11
B. The Three Lakes
Grand Lake, Shadow Mountain Reservoir and Granby Reservoir comprise the so-called
Three Lakes in Grand County. C-BT Project and Windy Gap Project water flows through Grand
Lake in the course of its journey to the Adams Tunnel and the East Slope.
An initial effort to scope out nutrient related issues in the C-BT Project and the Windy
Gap Project (the Nutrient Project) started in 2005. By 2008, coincident with the Commissions
adoption of the clarity standard for Grand Lake, the Nutrient Project had determined that nutrient
loading and nutrient sources into the Three Lakes should be investigated further.
1.

Collaborative Efforts

The Three Lakes Technical Committee was initially formed in 2008 to study nutrient
loading in Grand Lake, Shadow Mountain Reservoir and Lake Granby, and provides technical
assistance and review. As focus on clarity in Grand Lake intensified, the Committee expanded
its responsibilities to include water quality (including clarity in Grand Lake) in the Three Lakes
within its scope. The Committee focuses on technical issues.
The committee includes representatives from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the Colorado Water
Quality Control Division, the City of Fort Collins, Grand County, the Grand County Water
Information Network, the Greater Grand Lake Shoreline Association, the Three Lakes
Watershed Association, Hydros Consulting (as consultants to Northern Water), Northern Water,
the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, the University of Colorado Center for
Limnology, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Western Area Power
Administration.
Operational modifications have included two-week stops in Farr pumping in 2008 and
2009, steady, moderate pumping in 2010, an unprecedented period of no-pumping in 2011, and a
6 week stop-pump in 2013.
Data sharing is now routine, with Northern allowing access to data they collect via their
website http://www.northernwater.org/WaterQuality/WaterQualityData.aspx, and Grand County
offering access to data they collect through the Grand County Water Information Networks
website www.wilbur.gcwin.org , and the U. S. Geological Surveys website
http://maps.waterdata.usgs.gov/mapper/index.htm
2.

Work performed

A significant amount of work has been performed since 2005 when the Nutrient Project
was initiated. Extensive monitoring has been conducted in the Three Lakes, with particular
emphasis on clarity in Grand Lake; a custom water quality model of the Three Lakes was
developed for the Windy Gap Firming Project and is continually improved as more data becomes

Grand Lake Clarity JtPHS

Reg. #33 RMH
19 March 2014

Page 5 of 11

available; reports that analyze data were published annually since 2010 to document water
quality and operations in the Three Lakes; special studies were carried out to develop a better
understanding of causes of decreased clarity in Grand Lake.
In 2008, the Town of Grand Lake purchased a street sweeper and implemented weekly
summertime street sweeping to minimize stormwater pollution carried into Grand Lake from
their main storm sewer.
In 2009 the Town of Grand Lake installed an Aqua Swirl storm sewer pretreatment unit
to further address stormwater pollution originating in the town.
In 2009 a modeling retreat resulted in a number of recommendations for study of the
watershed (many of which are detailed in the next section) and suggestions for improvements to
the model, most of which have been implemented. Follow up from some members of the
modeling retreat was provided in 2011.
Routine Monitoring
Extensive baseline water quality monitoring is conducted in the Three Lakes area
(including monthly or bi-monthly sampling of inter alia general chemistry, nutrients, chlorophyll
a, zooplankton, phytoplankton and physical parameters in all three water bodies and at all inflow
and interflow sites).
Water clarity is monitored on a weekly basis (and multiple times a week during
operational changes) during the summer in Grand Lake and Shadow Mountain Reservoir.
Real time monitors were also installed to continuously track specific conductance and
water temperature at all inflow sites to the Three Lakes.
A real-time station monitors directional flow, temperature, pH, conductivity, chlorophyll
a and turbidity in the connecting channel between Shadow Mountain Reservoir and Grand Lake.
Real-time monitoring of dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, conductivity and now
turbidity as well is conducted in the Granby Pump Canal.
Real-time profiles of dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, conductivity and turbidity are
collected near the dam every four hours in Shadow Mountain Reservoir during the summer (a
second site is planned for 2014).
Water Quality Modeling

The Three Lakes water quality model is an essential resource for assessing water quality
in the Three Lakes. The custom model is continuously improved over time as more data becomes

Grand Lake Clarity JtPHS

Reg. #33 RMH
19 March 2014

Page 6 of 11

available and additional calibration and validation take place. It has been thoroughly reviewed,
evaluated and vetted by modeling experts and by the Three Lakes Technical Committee.
The model has been used to:

Analyze nutrient loading sensitivities (how water quality changes with nutrient
reductions)
Establish a nutrient budget (determine all nutrient contributions)
Examine the relationship between C-BT Project operations and water quality, and
Support operational decision making for the Reclamation (on a seasonal basis)

In the future the model may also be used to evaluate various alternatives to address Grand
Lake clarity, among other things. It is anticipated that several updates to the model need to be
made before the model can be used for this purpose.
Special Studies and Reports
Factors Controlling Transparency in Grand Lake, Colorado. The two-week stop in Farr
pumping in August of 2009 was studied by the CU Center for Limnology to document impacts to
clarity before, during, and after the stop-pump period.
Particulate Study. A two-year study in cooperation with the CU Center for Limnology is
underway to examine the role of particulates in the water quality of Shadow Mountain Reservoir
and Grand Lake. The main purpose of this study is to identify and characterize sources of
suspended particles in Shadow Mountain Reservoir and Grand Lake.
Characterization of particles was based on microscopic analyses, particle-size analyses,
optical analyses, and supplemental field measurements. The study was conducted in 2012 and
2013 and included routine monitoring at all inflows to the Three Lakes, Shadow Mountain
Reservoir and Grand Lake as well as mapping studies to identify areas where shoreline erosion,
surface runoff and sediment re-suspension are important sources of particulates. Supplementary,
non-routine analyses of a subset of samples were performed to help determine particle sources.
Exhibit B.
Analysis of site network for Grand Lake secchi data. On March 10, 2014, Dr. Dennis
Helsel completed a statistical analysis of Grand Lake secchi data to determine 1) whether there
was one site on Grand Lake that would be representative of the entire lake, and 2) if multiple
secchi sites needed to be retained in the monitoring program, which sites are they. There is no
one site that is representative of the entire lake, and 9 out of 14 secchi sites have been
recommended for retention.
Aquatic Life Study. A study is also currently underway to assess the effects of water
clarity and other factors on aquatic life in Grand Lake. The study includes a compilation, and

Grand Lake Clarity JtPHS

Reg. #33 RMH
19 March 2014

Page 7 of 11

review of, existing aquatic life data for Grand Lake supplemented by field measurements in 2013
as well as a literature review.
In addition to the above-mentioned studies Northern Water and Reclamation in
partnership with Grand County have compiled annual reports that summarize water quality and
operations in the Three Lakes. Exhibit C, available at:
http://www.northernwater.org/WaterQuality/WaterQualityReports1.aspx
A report summarizing results for the Nutrient Sensitivity Analysis was also compiled in
2014. Exhibit D, available at:
http://www.northernwater.org/WaterQuality/WaterQualityReports1.aspx.
Development of Alternatives

Northern Water, Grand County and Reclamation officials signed an agreement in

September 2010 to fund a Preliminary Alternatives Development Report. The report was
released in August 2012. Exhibit E, available at:
http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/1208_final_prelim_alt_dev.pdf. The report identified three
potentially viable alternatives to improve Grand Lake Clarity:
Operational modifications of the C-BT Project that would prevent pumping water from
Shadow Mountain Reservoir to Grand Lake between July and September;
2. A pipeline that would connect Shadow Mountain Reservoir directly to the Adams Tunnel
bypassing Grand Lake;
3. A pipeline that would connect the Granby Pump Canal directly to the Adams Tunnel
bypassing both Shadow Mountain Reservoir and Grand Lake.
1.

Reclamation subsequently completed a plan of study (Technical Review) in 2013. Exhibit F,

available at: http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/final_grand_lake_clarity.pdf
Long-Term Agreements

Northern Water and Reclamation are committed to assessing water quality and clarity
issues in Grand Lake and implementing reasonable mitigation strategies now and in the future.
Additionally, Northern Water signed a supplement to the C-BT Repayment Contract (one
of the foundational agreements governing operation of the C-BT Project) that commits
Reclamation and Northern Water to continued work on Grand Lake clarity.
II.

Proposed Delay in Implementation of a Numeric Standard

The Commissions adoption of a 4 meter numerical standard with a delayed effective

date has proven to be an appropriate policy choice to encourage cooperative efforts to improve

Grand Lake Clarity JtPHS

Reg. #33 RMH
19 March 2014

Page 8 of 11

Grand Lake clarity prior to the time that a specific numerical standard goes into effect.
Monitoring, assessment and water quality improvement efforts since 2008 have not yet resulted
in identification of a more appropriate numerical standard as the Commission anticipated might
occur. See Reg. 33.44, Statement of Basis and Purpose, at Q [p. 108].
In 2008, [t]he Commission strongly encourage[d] all interested stakeholders to work
together to further identify the causes of reduced clarity and to explore options for identifying
and implementing reasonable and effective measures to improve clarity, consistent with the other
factors noted in the narrative standard. The Commission anticipate[d] that these efforts may
result in a proposal for a revised site-specific numerical clarity standard for Grand Lake at a later
date. Id.
And although understanding of water quality and clarity in the Three Lakes has greatly
increased as a result of work discussed above, because structural and non-structural alternatives
are under investigation, until now it was thought that an attempt to develop an appropriate
numeric clarity standard for Grand Lake would be premature. Emphasis has been on
characterizing water quality dynamics in the Three Lakes and identifying the factors that affect
water quality and clarity in the system. With that basis, Reclamation has developed a 5-year
work plan to proceed with the evaluation of potential alternatives to improve Grand Lake clarity.
Exhibit G, available at: http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/final_grand_lake_clarity.pdf . This
endeavor is consistent with the Commissions 2008 decision [i]n basing the standard on
attainability, the Commission intends that attainability is to be judged by whether or not a
clarity level can be attained in approximately twenty years by any recognized control techniques
that are environmentally, economically, and socially acceptable. Reg. 33, Statement of Basis
and Purpose, at Q ([p.107].
Implementation of the numeric standard January 1, 2015 would trigger a 303d-listing of
Grand Lake for clarity and a TMDL process. It seems counterproductive to engage other
resources in this parallel process while efforts continue to evaluate alternatives and while
attainability of a numeric standard still needs to be evaluated, along with structural and non
structural alternatives.
Better understanding of the relationship between clarity and aquatic life is also in order,
as was directed by the Water Quality Control Commission in 2008. Results from the aquatic life
study currently underway would inform this issue and additional data collection may also be
needed in the future.
Additionally, as understanding of water quality dynamics in the Three Lakes has evolved,
the complexity of this system has also become very apparent. Of particular concern is how, water
quality in Grand Lake may be inversely related to the water quality of Shadow Mountain
Reservoir. In other words, factors that tend to improve water quality in one water body can
worsen water quality in the other water body.

Grand Lake Clarity JtPHS

Reg. #33 RMH
19 March 2014

Page 9 of 11

Data collected over the past 5 years along with a better understanding of the system
provide a robust platform to now proceed with examining the information to develop and
evaluate a basis for a clarity standard for Grand Lake.
NWCCOG is planning to facilitate a collaborative effort over the next two years,
involving Northern Water, Grand County and other stakeholders in an attempt to develop a
common platform for development of a future clarity standard.
III.

CONCLUSION

The Clarity Proponents respectfully request that the Commission delay the effective
date of the 4 meter Secchi standard until January 1, 2017 to provide time for the Proponents,
Reclamation and other stakeholders to develop a more appropriate numerical standard, evaluate
the structural and non structural alternatives, and propose a revised site-specific numerical clarity
standard for Grand Lake in 2016. In short, the Clarity Proponents believe that efforts since 2008,
currently underway, and planned, will realize the Commissions vision when it adopted the
clarity standard in 2008, albeit not as quickly as the Commission hoped due to the complexity of
the water quality influences and developing an environmentally, economically, and socially
acceptable standard that is attainable.
IV.
A.

B.
C.

D.
E.
F.

WITNESSES

Lane Wyatt, NWCCOG Director of Watershed Services, who may testify concerning
NWCCOGs plans to facilitate a collaborative effort over the next two years,
involving Northern Water and Grand County in an attempt to develop a common
platform for development of a future clarity standard.
Jean Marie Boyer and Christine Hawley, Hydros Consulting, who may testify
concerning water quality modeling.
Rodney Smith, Solicitor, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, who may testify concerning
Reclamations commitment to assess Grand Lakes water quality and water clarity
issues and provide reasonable short and long-term mitigation and water quality
monitoring.
Lurline Underbrink, County Manager, Grand County, who may testify concerning the
collaborative processes and background of these efforts.
Katherine Morris, Water Quality Specialist, Grand County, who may testify
concerning technical issues relating to ongoing collaborative processes.
Eric Wilkinson, P.E., General Manager, Jeff Drager, P. E., and Esther Vincent, P. E.,
Water Quality Manager & Water Conservation Coordinator, Northern Water, who
may testify concerning Northern Waters commitment to assess Grand Lakes water
quality and water clarity issues and provide reasonable short and long-term mitigation
water quality monitoring.

Grand Lake Clarity JtPHS

Reg. #33 RMH
19 March 2014

Page 10 of 11

V.
A.
B.
C.

D.
E.
F.
G.

EXHIBITS

Map of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project

Factors Controlling Transparency in Grand Lake, Colorado, 2010, James H.
McCutchan Jr., Ph.D.
Annual reports that summarize water quality and operations in the Three Lakes
compiled by Northern Water and Reclamation in partnership with Grand County,
available at: http://www.northernwater.org/WaterQuality/WaterQualityReports1.aspx
Nutrient Sensitivity Analysis Report compiled in 2014, available at:
http://www.northernwater.org/WaterQuality/WaterQualityReports1.aspx.
Preliminary Alternatives Development Report, August 2012, available at:
http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/1208_final_prelim_alt_dev.pdf.
Plan of study (Technical Review) 2013, available at:
http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/final_grand_lake_clarity.pdf
Reclamation 5-year work plan to proceed with the evaluation of potential alternatives
to improve Grand Lake clarity, available at:
http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/final_grand_lake_clarity.pdf .

The Clarity Proponents reserve the right to introduce any necessary rebuttal exhibits.
VI.

WRITTEN TESTIMONY

The Clarity Proponents reserve the right to introduce any necessary rebuttal written
testimony.
Dated this 19th day of March 2014.

BERG HILL GREENLEAF RUSCITTI LLP

SULLIVAN GREEN SEAVY LLC

/s/ Peter D. Nichols

_________________
Peter D. Nichols, Esq.
1712 Pearl Street
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Tel: 303-402-1600
Fax: 303-402-1601
pdn@bhgrlaw.com

/s/ Barbara J. Green

_________________
Barbara J. Green, Esq.
3223 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 300
Boulder, Colorado 80303
Tel: 720-355-4405
Barbara@sullivangreenseavey.com

ATTORNEYS FOR
NORTHERN COLORADO
WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

ATTORNEYS FOR GRAND COUNTY AND

NWCCOG

Grand Lake Clarity JtPHS

Reg. #33 RMH
19 March 2014

Page 11 of 11

/s/ Lane Wyatt

_____________
Lane Wyatt
NORTHWEST COLORADO COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS
PO Box 2308
Silverthorne, CO 80498
Tel: 970-468-0295 ext. 116
Fax: 970-468-1208
qqlane@nwccog.org