DAR File No.: 33233
Filed: 01/28/2010 06:08:00 PMRULE ANALYSIS
Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:
The proposed changes are being made in response to issues brought before the Water Quality Board during the public comment period for amendments to the Utah Water Quality Standards.
Summary of the rule or change:
Portions of Subsection R317-2-3(3.5) were deleted because they refer to Subsection R317-2-3(3.5)(b) that was previously stricken. The language in Subsection R317-2-5.5b(1) that describes when an antidegradation review does not have to be conducted was clarified. In Table 2.14.1 Numeric Criteria for Domestic, Recreation, and Agricultural Uses, the word dissolved was stricken from the inorganic analytes in response to comments. In Table 2.14.1 Numeric Criteria for Domestic, Recreation, and Agricultural Uses, Footnote 4, a site-specific standard for total dissolved solids and sulfate was added for Quitchupah and Ivie Creeks in Emery County in response to comments. In Subsection R317-2-14(2.14.2) Footnote 2a, clarifying language was added: "To ensure protection of uses, the Executive Secretary shall develop reasonable protocols and guidelines that quantify the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of these waters. These protocols and guidelines will include input from local governments, the regulated community, and the general public. The Executive Secretary will inform the Water Quality Board of any protocols or guidelines that are developed." (DAR NOTE: This change in proposed rule has been filed to make additional changes to a proposed amendment that was published in the December 15, 2009, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 45. Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has been added since the publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; strike-out indicates text that has been deleted. You must view the change in proposed rule and the proposed amendment together to understand all of the changes that will be enforceable should the agency make this rule effective.)
State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:
- Section 19-5-105
Anticipated cost or savings to:
the state budget:
The proposed changes are made in response to comments received during the public comment period and in discussions with the Water Quality Board. The changes provide clarifying language or are of a technical or editorial nature and are not anticipated to result in costs or savings to state government beyond those identified in the original rulemaking.
local governments:
The proposed changes are made in response to comments received during the public comment period and in discussions with the Water Quality Board. The changes provide clarifying language or are of a technical or editorial nature and are not anticipated to result in costs or savings to local government beyond those identified in the original rulemaking.
small businesses:
The proposed changes are made in response to comments received during the public comment period and in discussions with the Water Quality Board. The changes provide clarifying language or are of a technical or editorial nature and are not anticipated to result in costs or savings to small businesses beyond those identified in the original rulemaking.
persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities:
The proposed changes are made in response to comments received during the public comment period and in discussions with the Water Quality Board. The changes provide clarifying language or are of a technical or editorial nature and are not anticipated to result in costs or savings to other persons beyond those identified in the original rulemaking.
Compliance costs for affected persons:
The site-specific total dissolved solids standards change for Quitchupah Creek will affect the compliance costs of a company that discharges into Quitchupah Creek. A savings is implied because the company requested the change. We do not anticipate any other changes to compliance beyond those identified in the original rulemaking.
Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:
The proposed changes are made in response to comments received during the public comment period and in discussions with the Water Quality Board. The changes provide clarifying language or are of a technical or editorial nature and are not anticipated to result in costs or savings to businesses beyond those identified in the original rulemaking.
Amanda Smith, Executive Director
The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:
Environmental Quality
Water Quality
288 N 1460 W
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-3231Direct questions regarding this rule to:
- Dave Wham at the above address, by phone at 801-538-6052, by FAX at 801-538-6016, or by Internet E-mail at dwham@utah.gov
Interested persons may present their views on this rule by submitting written comments to the address above no later than 5:00 p.m. on:
03/17/2010
This rule may become effective on:
03/24/2010
Authorized by:
Walter Baker, Director
RULE TEXT
R317. Environmental Quality, Water Quality.
R317-2. Standards of Quality for Waters of the State.
R317-2-3. Antidegradation Policy.
3.1 Maintenance of Water Quality
Waters whose existing quality is better than the established standards for the designated uses will be maintained at high quality unless it is determined by the Board, after appropriate intergovernmental coordination and public participation in concert with the Utah continuing planning process, allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located. However, existing instream water uses shall be maintained and protected. No water quality degradation is allowable which would interfere with or become injurious to existing instream water uses.
In those cases where potential water quality impairment associated with a thermal discharge is involved, the antidegradation policy and implementing method shall be consistent with Section 316 of the Federal Clean Water Act.
3.2 Category 1 Waters
Waters which have been determined by the Board to be of exceptional recreational or ecological significance or have been determined to be a State or National resource requiring protection, shall be maintained at existing high quality through designation, by the Board after public hearing, as Category 1 Waters. New point source discharges of wastewater, treated or otherwise, are prohibited in such segments after the effective date of designation. Protection of such segments from pathogens in diffuse, underground sources is covered in R317-5 and R317-7 and the Regulations for Individual Wastewater Disposal Systems (R317-501 through R317-515). Other diffuse sources (nonpoint sources) of wastes shall be controlled to the extent feasible through implementation of best management practices or regulatory programs.
Projects such as, but not limited to, construction of dams or roads will be considered where pollution will result only during the actual construction activity, and where best management practices will be employed to minimize pollution effects.
Waters of the state designated as Category 1 Waters are listed in R317-2-12.1.
3.3 Category 2 Waters
Category 2 Waters are designated surface water segments which are treated as Category 1 Waters except that a point source discharge may be permitted provided that the discharge does not degrade existing water quality. Waters of the state designated as Category 2 Waters are listed in R317-2-12.2.
3.4 Category 3 Waters
For all other waters of the state, point source discharges are allowed and degradation may occur, pursuant to the conditions and review procedures outlined in Section 3.5.
3.5 Antidegradation Review (ADR)
An antidegradation review will determine whether the proposed activity complies with the applicable antidegradation requirements for receiving waters that may be affected.
An antidegradation review (ADR) may consist of two parts or levels. A Level I review is conducted to insure that existing uses will be maintained and protected.[
In addition, a Level I review evaluates the criteria in Section 3.5b to determine if any degradation is de minimis in nature and therefore does not require a Level II review. A Level II review as described in Section 3.5c is needed when the impacts are not de minimus.]Both Level I and Level II reviews will be conducted on a parameter-by-parameter basis. A decision to move to a Level II review for one parameter does not require a Level II review for other parameters. Discussion of parameters of concern is those expected to be affected by the proposed activity.
Antidegradation reviews shall include opportunities for public participation, as described in Section 3.5e.
a. Activities Subject to Antidegradation Review (ADR)
1. For all State waters, antidegradation reviews will be conducted for proposed federally regulated activities, such as those under Clean Water Act Sections 401 (FERC and other Federal actions), 402 (UPDES permits), and 404 (Army Corps of Engineers permits). The Executive Secretary may conduct an ADR on any[
other] projects with the potential for major impact on the quality of waters of the state. The review will determine whether the proposed activity complies with the applicable antidegradation requirements for the particular receiving waters that may be affected.2. For Category 1 Waters and Category 2 Waters, reviews shall be consistent with the requirement established in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively.
3. For Category 3 Waters, reviews shall be consistent with the requirements established in this section
b. An Anti-degradation Level II review is not required where any of the following conditions apply:
1. Water quality will not be lowered by the proposed activity or for existing permitted facilities, water quality will not be further lowered by the proposed activity, examples include situations where:[
. For example,](a) the proposed concentration-based effluent limit is less than or equal to the ambient concentration in the receiving water during critical conditions; or
(b) a UPDES permit is being renewed and the proposed effluent concentration [
value and pollutant loading is equal to or less than the existing permitted concentrations and corresponding pollutant loading.If waste loads are not defined in an existing permit, the design capacity of the facility, of both concentrations and loads, will be used to determine whether a proposed project lowers water quality.]and loading limits are equal to or less than the concentration and loading limits in the previous permit; or(c) a UPDES permit is being renewed and new effluent limits are to be added to the permit, but the new effluent limits are based on maintaining or improving upon effluent concentrations and loads that have been observed, including variability; or
(d) a new or renewed UPDES permit is being issued, and water quality-based effluent limits are not required for a specific pollutant because it has been determined that the discharge will not cause, have reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an exceedance of a State water quality standard for the pollutant.
2. Assimilative capacity (based upon concentration) is not available or has previously been allocated, as indicated by water quality monitoring or modeling information. This includes situations where:
(a) the water body is included on the current 303(d) list for the parameter of concern; or
(b) existing water quality for the parameter of concern does not satisfy applicable numeric or narrative water quality criteria; or
(c) discharge limits are established in an approved TMDL that is consistent with the current water quality standards for the receiving water (i.e., where TMDLs are established, and changes in effluent limits that are consistent with the existing load allocation would not trigger an antidegradation review).
Under conditions (a) or (b) the effluent limit in an UPDES permit may be equal to the water quality numeric criterion for the parameter of concern.
3. Water quality impacts will be temporary and related only to sediment or turbidity and fish spawning will not be impaired,
4. The water quality effects of the proposed activity are expected to be temporary and limited. As general guidance, CWA Section 402 general permits, CWA Section 404 nationwide and general permits, or activities of short duration, will be deemed to have a temporary and limited effect on water quality where there is a reasonable factual basis to support such a conclusion. The 404 nationwide permits decision will be made at the time of permit issuance, as part of the Division's water quality certification under CWA Section 401. Where it is determined that the category of activities will result in temporary and limited effects, subsequent individual activities authorized under such permits will not be subject to further antidegradation review. Factors to be considered in determining whether water quality effects will be temporary and limited may include the following:
(a) Length of time during which water quality will be lowered.
(b) Percent change in ambient concentrations of pollutants of concern
(c) Pollutants affected
(d) Likelihood for long-term water quality benefits to the segment (e.g., dredging of contaminated sediments)
(e) Potential for any residual long-term influences on existing uses.
(f) Impairment of the fish spawning, survival and development of aquatic fauna excluding fish removal efforts.
c. Anti-degradation Review Process
For all activities requiring a Level II review, the Division will notify affected agencies and the public with regards to the requested proposed activity and discussions with stakeholders may be held. In the case of Section 402 discharge permits, if it is determined that a discharge will be allowed, the Division of Water Quality will develop any needed UPDES permits for public notice following the normal permit issuance process.
The ADR will cover the following requirements or determinations:
1. Will all Statutory and regulatory requirements be met?
The Executive Secretary will review to determine that there will be achieved all statutory and regulatory requirements for all new and existing point sources and all required cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source control in the area of the discharge. If point sources exist in the area that have not achieved all statutory and regulatory requirements, the Executive Secretary will consider whether schedules of compliance or other plans have been established when evaluating whether compliance has been assured. Generally, the "area of the discharge" will be determined based on the parameters of concern associated with the proposed activity and the portion of the receiving water that would be affected.
2. Are there any reasonable less-degrading alternatives?
There will be an evaluation of whether there are any reasonable non-degrading or less degrading alternatives for the proposed activity. This question will be addressed by the Division based on information provided by the project proponent. Control alternatives for a proposed activity will be evaluated in an effort to avoid or minimize degradation of the receiving water. Alternatives to be considered, evaluated, and implemented to the extent feasible, could include pollutant trading, water conservation, water recycling and reuse, land application, total containment, etc.
For proposed UPDES permitted discharges, the following list of alternatives should be considered, evaluated and implemented to the extent feasible:
(a) innovative or alternative treatment options
(b) more effective treatment options or higher treatment levels
(c) connection to other wastewater treatment facilities
(d) process changes or product or raw material substitution
(e) seasonal or controlled discharge options to minimize discharging during critical water quality periods
(f) pollutant trading
(g) water conservation
(h) water recycle and reuse
(i) alternative discharge locations or alternative receiving waters
(j) land application
(k) total containment
(l) improved operation and maintenance of existing treatment systems
(m) other appropriate alternatives
An option more costly than the cheapest alternative may have to be implemented if a substantial benefit to the stream can be realized. Alternatives would generally be considered feasible where costs are no more than 20% higher than the cost of the discharging alternative, and (for POTWs) where the projected per connection service fees are not greater than 1.4% of MAGHI (median adjusted gross household income), the current affordability criterion now being used by the Water Quality Board in the wastewater revolving loan program. Alternatives within these cost ranges should be carefully considered by the discharger. Where State financing is appropriate, a financial assistance package may be influenced by this evaluation, i.e., a less polluting alternative may receive a more favorable funding arrangement in order to make it a more financially attractive alternative.
It must also be recognized in relationship to evaluating options that would avoid or reduce discharges to the stream, that in some situations it may be more beneficial to leave the water in the stream for instream flow purposes than to remove the discharge to the stream.
3. Special Procedures for 404 Permits.
For 404 permitted activities, all appropriate alternatives to avoid and minimize degradation should be evaluated. Activities involving a discharge of dredged or fill materials that are considered to have more than minor adverse affects on the aquatic environment are regulated by individual CWA Section 404 permits. The decision-making process relative to the 404 permitting program is contained in the 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR Part 230). Prior to issuing a permit under the 404(b)(1) guidelines, the Corps of Engineers:
(a) makes a determination that the proposed activity discharges are unavoidable (i.e., necessary):
(b) examines alternatives to the proposed activity and authorize only the least damaging practicable alternative; and
(c) requires mitigation for all impacts associated with the activity. A 404(b)(1) finding document is produced as a result of this procedure and is the basis for the permit decision. Public participation is provided for in the process. Because the 404(b)(1) guidelines contains an alternatives analysis, the executive secretary will not require development of a separate alternatives analysis for the anti-degradation review. The division will use the analysis in the 404(b)(1) finding document in completing its anti-degradation review and 401 certification.
4. Does the proposed activity have economic and social importance?
Although it is recognized that any activity resulting in a discharge to surface waters will have positive and negative aspects, information must be submitted by the applicant that any discharge or increased discharge will be of economic or social importance in the area.
The factors addressed in such a demonstration may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) employment (i.e., increasing, maintaining, or avoiding a reduction in employment);
(b) increased production;
(c) improved community tax base;
(d) housing;
(e) correction of an environmental or public health problem; and
(f) other information that may be necessary to determine the social and economic importance of the proposed surface water discharge.
5. The applicant may submit a proposal to mitigate any adverse environmental effects of the proposed activity (e.g., instream habitat improvement, bank stabilization). Such mitigation plans should describe the proposed mitigation measures and the costs of such mitigation. Mitigation plans will not have any effect on effluent limits or conditions included in a permit (except possibly where a previously completed mitigation project has resulted in an improvement in background water quality that affects a water quality-based limit). Such mitigation plans will be developed and implemented by the applicant as a means to further minimize the environmental effects of the proposed activity and to increase its socio-economic importance. An effective mitigation plan may, in some cases, allow the Executive Secretary to authorize proposed activities that would otherwise not be authorized.
6. Will water quality standards be violated by the discharge?
Proposed activities that will affect the quality of waters of the state will be allowed only where the proposed activity will not violate water quality standards.
7. Will existing uses be maintained and protected?
Proposed activities can only be allowed if "existing uses" will be maintained and protected. No UPDES permit will be allowed which will permit numeric water quality standards to be exceeded in a receiving water outside the mixing zone. In the case of nonpoint pollution sources, the non-regulatory Section 319 program now in place will address these sources through application of best management practices to ensure that numeric water quality standards are not exceeded.
8. If a situation is found where there is an existing use which is a higher use (i.e., more stringent protection requirements) than that current designated use, the Division will apply the water quality standards and anti-degradation policy to protect the existing use. Narrative criteria may be used as a basis to protect existing uses for parameters where numeric criteria have not been adopted. Procedures to change the stream use designation to recognize the existing use as the designated use would be initiated.
d. Special Procedures for Drinking Water Sources
An Antidegradation Level II Review will be required by the Executive Secretary for discharges to waters with a Class 1C drinking water use assigned.
Depending upon the locations of the discharge and its proximity to downstream drinking water diversions, additional treatment or more stringent effluent limits or additional monitoring, beyond that which may otherwise be required to meet minimum technology standards or in stream water quality standards, may be required by the Executive Secretary in order to adequately protect public health and the environment. Such additional treatment may include additional disinfection, suspended solids removal to make the disinfection process more effective, removal of any specific contaminants for which drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) exists, and/or nutrient removal to reduce the organic content of raw water used as a source for domestic water systems.
Additional monitoring may include analyses for viruses, Giardia, Cryptosporidium, other pathogenic organisms, and/or any contaminant for which drinking water MCLs exist. Depending on the results of such monitoring, more stringent treatment may then be required.
The additional treatment/effluent limits/monitoring which may be required will be determined by the Executive Secretary after consultation with the Division of Drinking Water and the downstream drinking water users.
e. Public Notice
The public will be provided notice and an opportunity to comment on the conclusions of all completed antidegradation reviews. Where possible, public notice on the antidegradation review conclusions will be combined with the public notice on the proposed permitting action. In the case of UPDES permits, public notice will be provided through the normal permitting process, as all draft permits are public noticed for 30 days, and public comment solicited, before being issued as a final permit. The Statement of Basis for the draft UPDES permit will contain information on how the ADR was addressed including results of the Level I and Level II reviews. In the case of Section 404 permits from the Corps of Engineers, the Division of Water Quality will develop any needed 401 Certifications and the public notice will be published in conjunction with the US Corps of Engineers public notice procedures. Other permits requiring a Level II review will receive a separate public notice according to the normal State public notice procedures.
f. Implementation Procedures
The Executive Secretary shall establish reasonable protocols and guidelines (1) for completing technical, social, and economic need demonstrations, (2) for review and determination of adequacy of Level II ADRs and (3) for determination of additional treatment requirements. Protocols and guidelines will consider federal guidance and will include input from local governments, the regulated community, and the general public. The Executive Secretary will inform the Water Quality Board of any protocols or guidelines that are developed.
. . . . . . .
R317-2-14. Numeric Criteria.
TABLE 2.14.1
NUMERIC CRITERIA FOR DOMESTIC,
RECREATION, AND AGRICULTURAL USES
Parameter Domestic Recreation and Agri-
Source Aesthetics culture
1C 2A 2B 4
BACTERIOLOGICAL
(30-DAY GEOMETRIC
MEAN) (NO.)/100 ML) (7)
E. coli 206 126 206
MAXIMUM
(NO.)/100 ML) (7)
E. coli 668 409 668
PHYSICAL
pH (RANGE) 6.5-9.0 6.5-9.0 6.5-9.0 6.5-9.0
Turbidity Increase
(NTU) 10 10
METALS (DISSOLVED, MAXIMUM
MG/L) (2)
Arsenic 0.01 0.1
Barium 1.0
Beryllium <0.004
Cadmium 0.01 0.01
Chromium 0.05 0.10
Copper 0.2
Lead 0.015 0.1
Mercury 0.002
Selenium 0.05 0.05
Silver 0.05
INORGANICS
([DISSOLVED,]MAXIMUM MG/L)
Bromate 0.01
Boron 0.75
Chlorite <1.0
Fluoride (3) 1.4-2.4
Nitrates as N 10
Total Dissolved
Solids (4) 1200
RADIOLOGICAL
(MAXIMUM pCi/L)
Gross Alpha 15 15
Gross Beta 4 mrem/yr
Radium 226, 228
(Combined) 5
Strontium 90 8
Tritium 20000
Uranium 30
ORGANICS
(MAXIMUM UG/L)
Chlorophenoxy
Herbicides
2,4-D 70
2,4,5-TP 10
Methoxychlor 40
POLLUTION
INDICATORS (5)
BOD (MG/L) 5 5 5
Nitrate as N (MG/L) 4 4
Total Phosphorus as P
(MG/L)(6) 0.05 0.05
FOOTNOTES:
(1) Reserved
(2) The dissolved metals method involves filtration of the
sample in the field, acidification of the sample in the field, no
digestion process in the laboratory, and analysis by approved
laboratory methods for the required detection levels.
(3) Maximum concentration varies according to the daily
maximum mean air temperature.
TEMP (C) MG/L
12.0 2.4
12.1-14.6 2.2
14.7-17.6 2.0
17.7-21.4 1.8
21.5-26.2 1.6
26.3-32.5 1.4
(4) Site-specific criteria for total dissolved solids may
be adopted by rulemaking where it is demonstrated that: (a) a
less stringent criterion is appropriate because of natural or
un-alterable conditions; or (b) a less stringent, site-specific
criterion and/or date-specified criterion is protective of
existing and attainable agricultural uses; or (c) a more
stringent criterion is attainable and necessary for the
protection of sensitive crops.
For water quality assessment purposes, up to 10% of
representative samples may exceed the standard.
SITE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS)
Castle Creek from confluence with the Colorado River to Seventh
Day Adventist Diversion: 1,800 mg/l;
Cottonwood Creek from the confluence with Huntington Creek to I-57:
3,500 mg/l;
Ferron Creek from the confluence with San Rafael River to Highway 10:
3,500 mg/l;
Huntington Creek and tributaries from the confluence with Cottonwood
Creek to U-10: 4,800 mg/l;
Ivie Creek and its tributaries from the confluence with Muddy Creek
to the confluence with Quitchupah Creek: [to U-10: 2,600 mg/l;]
3,800 mg/l provided that total sulfate not exceed 2,000 mg/l to
protect the livestock watering agricultural existing use;
Ivie Creek and its tributaries from the confluence with Quitchupah
Creek to U10: 2,600 mg/l;
Lost Creek from the confluence with Sevier River to U.S. Forest
Service Boundary: 4,600 mg/l;
Muddy Creek and tributaries from the confluence with Ivie Creek to
U-10: 2,600 mg/l;
Muddy Creek from confluence with Fremont River to confluence with
Ivie Creek: 5,800 mg/l;
North Creek from the confluence with Virgin River to headwaters:
2,035 mg/l;
Onion Creek from the confluence with Colorado River to road crossing
above Stinking Springs: 3000 mg/l;
Brine Creek-Petersen Creek, from the confluence with the Sevier
River to U-119 Crossing: 9,700 mg/l;
Price River and tributaries from
confluence with Green River to confluence with Coal Creek:
3,000 mg/l;
Price River and tributaries from the
confluence with Coal Creek to Carbon Canal Diversion:
1,700 mg/l
Quitchupah Creek from the confluence with Ivie Creek to U-10:
[1,700 mg/l;] 3,800 mg/l provided that total sulfate not exceed
2,000 mg/l to protect the livestock watering agricultural existing use;
Rock Canyon Creek from the confluence with Cottonwood Creek to
headwaters: 3,500 mg/l;
San Pitch River from below Gunnison Reservoir to the Sevier River:
2,400 mg/l;
San Rafael River from the confluence with the Green River to
Buckhorn Crossing: 4,100 mg/l;
San Rafael River from the Buckhorn Crossing to the confluence with
Huntington Creek and Cottonwood Creek: 3,500 mg/l;
Sevier River between Gunnison Bend Reservoir and DMAD Reservoir:
1,725 mg/l;
Sevier River from Gunnison Bend Reservoir to Clear Lake: 3,370 mg/l;
South Fork Spring Creek from confluence with Pelican Pond
Slough Stream to US 89 1,450 mg/l (Apr.-Sept.)
1,950 mg/l (Oct.-March)
Virgin River from the Utah/Arizona border to Pah Tempe Springs:
2,360 mg/l
(5) Investigations should be conducted to develop more
information where these pollution indicator levels are exceeded.
(6) Total Phosphorus as P (mg/l) indicator for
lakes and reservoirs shall be 0.025.
(7) Where the criteria are exceeded and there is a reasonable
basis for concluding that the indicator bacteria E. coli are
primarily from natural sources (wildlife), e.g., in National
Wildlife Refuges and State Waterfowl Management Areas, the criteria
may be considered attained provided the density attributable to
non-wildlife sources is less than the criteria. Exceedences of
E. coli from nonhuman nonpoint sources will generally be addressed
through appropriate Federal, State, and local nonpoint source programs.
Measurement of E. coli using the "Quanti-Tray 2000" procedure
is approved as a field analysis. Other EPA approved methods may
also be used.
For water quality assessment purposes, up to 10% of
representative samples may exceed the 668 per 100 ml criterion
(for 1C and 2B waters) and 409 per 100 ml (for 2A waters). For
small datasets, where exceedences of these criteria are observed,
follow-up ambient monitoring should be conducted to better
characterize water quality.TABLE 2.14.2
NUMERIC CRITERIA FOR AQUATIC WILDLIFE
Parameter Aquatic Wildlife
3A 3B 3C 3D 5
PHYSICAL
Total Dissolved
Gases (1) (1)
Minimum Dissolved Oxygen
(MG/L) (2)(2a)
30 Day Average 6.5 5.5 5.0 5.0
7 Day Average 9.5/5.0 6.0/4.0
Minimum 8.0/4.0 5.0/3.0 3.0 3.0
Max. Temperature(C)(3) 20 27 27
Max. Temperature
Change (C)(3) 2 4 4
pH (Range)(2a) 6.5-9.0 6.5-9.0 6.5-9.0 6.5-9.0
Turbidity Increase
(NTU) 10 10 15 15
METALS (4)
(DISSOLVED,
UG/L)(5)
Aluminum
4 Day Average (6) 87 87 87 87
1 Hour Average 750 750 750 750
Arsenic (Trivalent)
4 Day Average 150 150 150 150
1 Hour Average 340 340 340 340
Cadmium (7)
4 Day Average 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
1 Hour Average 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Chromium
(Hexavalent)
4 Day Average 11 11 11 11
1 Hour Average 16 16 16 16
Chromium
(Trivalent) (7)
4 Day Average 74 74 74 74
1 Hour Average 570 570 570 570
Copper (7)
4 Day Average 9 9 9 9
1 Hour Average 13 13 13 13
Cyanide (Free)
4 Day Average 5.2 5.2 5.2
1 Hour Average 22 22 22 22
Iron (Maximum) 1000 1000 1000 1000
Lead (7)
4 Day Average 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
1 Hour Average 65 65 65 65
Mercury
4 Day Average 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012
1 Hour Average 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
Nickel (7)
4 Day Average 52 52 52 52
1 Hour Average 468 468 468 468
Selenium
4 Day Average 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
1 Hour Average 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Selenium (14)
Gilbert Bay (Class 5A)
Great Salt Lake
Geometric Mean over
Nesting Season (mg/kg dry wt) 12.5
Silver
1 Hour Average (7) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Zinc (7)
4 Day Average 120 120 120 120
1 Hour Average 120 120 120 120
INORGANICS
(MG/L) (4)
Total Ammonia as N (9)
30 Day Average (9a) (9a) (9a) (9a)
1 Hour Average (9b) (9b) (9b) (9b)
Chlorine (Total
Residual)
4 Day Average 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011
1 Hour Average 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019
Hydrogen Sulfide (13)
(Undissociated,
Max. UG/L) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Phenol(Maximum) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
RADIOLOGICAL (MAXIMUM pCi/L)
Gross Alpha (10) 15 15 15 15
ORGANICS (UG/L) (4)
Aldrin
1 Hour Average 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Chlordane
4 Day Average 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043
1 Hour Average 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
4,4' -DDT
4 Day Average 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010
1 Hour Average 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
Diazinon
4 Day Average 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17
1 Hour Average 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17
Dieldrin
4 Day Average 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056
1 Hour Average 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Alpha-Endosulfan
4 Day Average 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056
1 Hour Average 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
beta-Endosulfan
4 Day Average 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056
1 Day Average 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Endrin
4 Day Average 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036
1 Hour Average 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.086
Heptachlor
4 Day Average 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038
1 Hour Average 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26
Heptachlor epoxide
4 Day Average 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038
1 Hour Average 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(Lindane)
4 Day Average 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
1 Hour Average 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Methoxychlor
(Maximum) 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Mirex (Maximum) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Nonylphenol
4 Day Average 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6
1 Hour Average 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0
Parathion
4 Day Average 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
1 Hour Average 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066
PCB's
4 Day Average 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014
Pentachlorophenol (11)
4 Day Average 15 15 15 15
1 Hour Average 19 19 19 19
Toxaphene
4 Day Average 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002
1 Hour Average 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73
POLLUTION
INDICATORS (11)
Gross Beta (pCi/L) 50 50 50 50
BOD (MG/L) 5 5 5 5
Nitrate as N (MG/L) 4 4 4
Total Phosphorus as P(MG/L) (12)
0.05 0.05
FOOTNOTES:
(1) Not to exceed 110% of saturation.
(2) These limits are not applicable to lower water levels
in deep impoundments. First number in column is for when
early life stages are present, second number is for when all
other life stages present.
(2a) These criteria are not applicable to Great Salt Lake
impounded wetlands. Surface water in these wetlands shall be
protected from changes in pH and dissolved oxygen that create
significant adverse impacts to the existing beneficial uses.
To ensure protection of uses, the Executive Secretary shall
develop reasonable protocols and guidelines that quantify the
physical, chemical, and biological integrity of these waters.
These protocols and guidelines will include input from
local governments, the regulated community, and the general
public. The Executive Secretary will inform the Water
Quality Board of any protocols or guidelines that are developed.
(3) The temperature standard shall be at background where
it can be shown that natural or un-alterable conditions
prevent its attainment. In such cases rulemaking will be
undertaken to modify the standard accordingly.
Site Specific Standards for Temperature
Ken's Lake: From June 1st - September 20th, 27 degrees C.
(4) Where criteria are listed as 4-day average and
1-hour average concentrations, these concentrations should not
be exceeded more often than once every three years on the
average.
(5) The dissolved metals method involves filtration of
the sample in the field, acidification of the sample in the
field, no digestion process in the laboratory, and analysis by
EPA approved laboratory methods for the required
detection levels.
(6) The criterion for aluminum will be implemented as
follows:
Where the pH is equal to or greater than 7.0 and the
hardness is equal to or greater than 50 ppm as CaC03 in the
receiving water after mixing, the 87 ug/1 chronic criterion
(expressed as total recoverable) will not apply, and aluminum
will be regulated based on compliance with the 750 ug/1 acute
aluminum criterion (expressed as total recoverable).
(7) Hardness dependent criteria. 100 mg/l used.
Conversion factors for ratio of total recoverable metals to
dissolved metals must also be applied. In waters with a
hardness greater than 400 mg/l as CaC03, calculations will
assume a hardness of 400 mg/l as CaC03. See Table 2.14.3 for
complete equations for hardness and conversion factors.
(8) Reserved
(9) The following equations are used to calculate Ammonia
criteria concentrations:
(9a) The thirty-day average concentration of total ammonia
nitrogen (in mg/l as N) does not exceed, more than once every
three years on the average, the chronic criterion calculated
using the following equations.
Fish Early Life Stages are Present:
mg/l as N (Chronic) = ((0.0577/(1+107.688-pH)) + (2.487/(1+
10pH-7.688)))
* MIN (2.85, 1.45*100.028*(25-T) )
Fish Early Life Stages are Absent:
mg/1 as N (Chronic) = ((0.0577/(1+107.688-pH)) + (2.487/
(1+10pH-7.688)))
* 1.45*100.028* (25-MAX(T,7)))
(9b) The one-hour average concentration of total ammonia
nitrogen (in mg/l as N) does not exceed, more than once every
three years on the average the acute criterion calculated
using the following equations.
Class 3A:
mg/l as N (Acute) = (0.275/(1+107.204-pH)) + (39.0/1+10pH-7.204))
Class 3B, 3C, 3D:
mg/l as N (Acute) = 0.411/(1+107.204-pH)) + (58.4/(1+10pH-7.204))
In addition, the highest four-day average within the 30-day
period should not exceed 2.5 times the chronic criterion.
The "Fish Early Life Stages are Present" 30-day average total
ammonia criterion will be applied by default unless it is
determined by the Division, on a site-specific basis, that it
is appropriate to apply the "Fish Early Life Stages are
Absent" 30-day average criterion for all or some portion of
the year. At a minimum, the "Fish Early Life Stages are
Present" criterion will apply from the beginning of spawning
through the end of the early life stages. Early life stages
include the pre-hatch embryonic stage, the post-hatch free
embryo or yolk-sac fry stage, and the larval stage for the
species of fish expected to occur at the site. The division
will consult with the Division of Wildlife Resources in making
such determinations. The Division will maintain information
regarding the waterbodies and time periods where application
of the "Early Life Stages are Absent" criterion is determined
to be appropriate.
(10) Investigation should be conducted to develop more
information where these levels are exceeded.
(11) pH dependent criteria. pH 7.8 used in table. See
Table 2.14.4 for equation.
(12) Total Phosphorus as P (mg/l) as a pollution indicator
for lakes and reservoirs shall be 0.025.
(13) Formula to convert dissolved sulfide to un-disassociated
hydrogen sulfide is: H2S = Dissolved Sulfide * e((-1.92 + pH) + 12.05)
(14) The selenium water quality standard of 12.5 (mg/kg dry
weight) for Gilbert Bay is a tissue based standard using the
complete egg/embryo of aquatic dependent birds using Gilbert Bay
based upon a minimum of five samples over the nesting season.
Assessment procedures are incorporated as a part of this
standard as follows:
Egg Concentration Triggers: DWQ Responses
Below 5.0 mg/kg: Routine monitoring with sufficient intensity
to determine if selenium concentrations within the Great Salt
Lake ecosystem are increasing.
5.0 mg/kg: Increased monitoring to address data gaps,
loadings, and areas of uncertainty identified from initial Great
Salt Lake selenium studies.
6.4 mg/kg: Initiation of a Level II Antidegradation review by the
State for all discharge permit renewals or new discharge permits
to Great Salt Lake. The Level II Antidegradation review may
include an analysis of loading reductions.
9.8 mg/kg: Initiation of preliminary TMDL studies to evaluate
selenium loading sources.
12.5 mg/kg and above: Declare impairment. Formalize and
implement TMDL.
Antidegradation
Level II Review procedures associated with this standard are
referenced at R317-2-3.5.C.. . . . . . .
KEY: water pollution, water quality standards
Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: 2010
Notice of Continuation: October 2, 2007
Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19-5
Document Information
- Effective Date:
- 3/24/2010
- Publication Date:
- 02/15/2010
- Filed Date:
- 01/28/2010
- Agencies:
- Environmental Quality,Water Quality
- Rulemaking Authority:
Section 19-5-105
- Authorized By:
- Walter Baker, Director
- DAR File No.:
- 33233
- Related Chapter/Rule NO.: (1)
- R317-2. Standards of Quality for Waters of the State.