DAR File No. 37361
This rule was published in the March 15, 2013, issue (Vol. 2013, No. 6) of the Utah State Bulletin.
Environmental Quality, Water Quality
Standards of Quality for Waters of the State
Notice of Proposed Rule
DAR File No.: 37361
Filed: 02/26/2013 10:15:05 AM
Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:
A new Biological Water Quality Assessment and Criteria is proposed as Subsection R317-2-7(7.3). The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has been collecting biological data since early after the inception of the Division. DWQ began incorporating biological data to assess water quality throughout the state starting in 2008. To officially formalize the biological assessment process and to avoid litigation in light of recent court rulings concerning water quality assessments as de-facto standards (Florida Impaired Waters Rule case), DWQ invited and assembled stakeholders from various disciplines to form a Biological Standards Subworkgroup in September 2011. DWQ's goal was to draft a biological criterion that is consistent with the current DWQ biological assessment process while being sensitive to language that may have unintentional consequences to our stakeholders. After a little more than a year of language refinement and addressing the concerns expressed by workgroup members, the biological criterion received the approval from the Water Quality Standards Workgroup and preliminary approval from EPA in December 2012. With the adoption of the biological criterion, DWQ will have the legal standing to confidently continue the biological assessment process and enhance the program to benefit the other sectors of DWQ. DWQ intends to continue meeting with the Biological Standards Subworkgroup to address proposed amendments to the rule and as new opportunities are explored to improve the effectiveness of the biological assessment program. In Section R317-2-3, specifics to state certification that water quality will be protected under the Clean Water Act Section 401 are proposed for deletion. The deleted requirements are either being moved or revised in the concurrently proposed new rule R317-15. The name of the inlet creek to Mona Reservoir is proposed to be changed from Burriston Creek to Currant Creek. USGS maps and "Utah's Priority Lakes and Reservoirs" describe the inlet and outlet stream as Currant Creek. Subsection R317-2-13(13.5)(c) currently lists the outlet stream as Currant Creek. This change would not change any of the designated uses. The purpose of this change is to eliminate the confusion regarding the name of the inlet creek. (DAR NOTE: The proposed new rule R317-15 is under DAR No. 37362 in this issue, March 15, 2013, of the Bulletin.)
Summary of the rule or change:
A new Subsection R317-2-7(7.3), Biological Water Quality Assessment and Criteria, is proposed. Additional revisions were made to Subsections R317-2-7(7.1) and R317-2-7(7.2) to accommodate the new Subsection R317-2-7(7.3). Section R317-2-3 was revised to delete the requirements for Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certifications because these requirements are replaced or revised by the new proposed rule R317-15. Other clarifications to the wording in Section R317-1-3 were made to avoid confusion. The name of Burriston Creek in Subsection R317-2-13(13.5)(c) is proposed to be changed to Currant Creek.
State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:
- 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
- Section 19-5-105
- Section 19-5-110
Anticipated cost or savings to:
the state budget:
The new Subsection R317-2-7(7.3) codifies procedures already being implemented by the DWQ. These procedures will continue to be conducted with existing resources and no new costs or savings are anticipated. The deleted requirements in Section R317-2-3 are being moved to new rule R317-15 resulting in no net change in requirements. Therefore, no additional costs or savings are anticipated. The name change from Burriston Creek to Currant Creek will not result in additional costs or savings.
The changes put no additional resource burdens on local governments. The additions to Section R317-2-7 are used as a tool primarily by DWQ to assess water quality and support of the designated uses. Local governments may however elect to conduct optional biological assessments to support site-specific standards that could result in savings if unnecessary effluent treatment is avoided. The deletions to Section R317-2-3 do not change requirements because they are being moved to the new rule R317-15. The Burriston Creek name change is housekeeping.
The changes put no additional resource burdens on small businesses. The additions to Section R317-2-7 are used as a tool primarily by DWQ to assess water quality and support of the designated uses. Small businesses may however elect to conduct optional biological assessments to support site-specific standards that could result in savings if unnecessary effluent treatment is avoided. The deletions to Section R317-2-3 do not change requirements because they are being moved to the new rule R317-15. The name change for Burriston Creek is housekeeping.
persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities:
The changes put no additional resource burdens on other persons. The additions to Section R317-2-7 are used primarily by DWQ as a method to assess water quality and support of the designated uses. Other persons may however elect to conduct optional biological assessments to support site-specific standards that could result in savings if unnecessary effluent treatment is avoided. The deletions to Section R317-2-3 do not change requirements because they are being moved to the new rule R317-15. The Burriston Creek name change is housekeeping.
Compliance costs for affected persons:
The proposed additions to Section R317-2-7 will not incur compliance costs because the proposed biological standard is a tool used primarily by DWQ to assess if water quality is sufficient to support the designated uses in accordance with the requirements of Subsection R317-2-7(7.1). The deletions do not have associated compliance costs. The name change for Burriston Creek is a housekeeping change that does not affect the existing standards associated with this creek.
Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:
These changes are not anticipated to result in fiscal impacts on businesses because the additions to Section R317-2-7 are used primarily by DWQ as a method to assess water quality and support of the designated uses in accordance with the requirements of Subsection R317-2-7(7.1). The deletions to Section R317-2-3 do not change requirements because they are being moved to the new rule R317-15. The Burriston Creek name change is housekeeping.
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 QualityRoom DEQ, Third Floor
195 N 1950 W
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116
Direct questions regarding this rule to:
- Judy Etherington at the above address, by phone at 801-536-4344, by FAX at 801-536-4301, or by Internet E-mail at email@example.com
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:
Interested persons may attend a public hearing regarding this rule:
- 04/03/2013 06:00 PM, Multi-State Office Building, 195 N 1950 W, Room 1015, Salt Lake City, UT
This rule may become effective on:
Walter Baker, Director
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.
Discharges may be allowed where pollution will be temporary and limited after consideration of the factors in R317-2-3.5.b.4., 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. Discharges may be allowed where pollution will be temporary and limited after consideration of the factors in R317-2-.3.5.b.4., and where best management practices will be employed to minimize pollution effects. 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.
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 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:
(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 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
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
(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;
(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
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;
(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
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
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.
R317-2-7. Water Quality Standards.
7.1 Application of Standards
The numeric criteria listed in R317-2-14
shall apply to each of the classes assigned to waters of the State
as specified in R317-2-6. It shall be unlawful and a violation of
these regulations for any person to discharge or place any wastes
or other substances in such manner as may interfere with designated
uses protected by assigned classes or to cause any of the
applicable standards to be violated, except as provided in
R317-1-3.1. At a minimum, assessment of the beneficial use support
for waters of the state will be conducted biennially and available
for a 30-day period of public comment and review. Monitoring
locations and target indicators of water quality standards shall be
prioritized and published yearly. For water quality assessment
purposes, up to 10 percent of the representative samples may exceed
the minimum or maximum criteria for dissolved oxygen, pH, E. coli,
total dissolved solids, and temperature, including situations where
such criteria have been adopted on a site-specific basis.
criterion] may be adopted by rulemaking where biomonitoring
data, bioassays, or other scientific analyses indicate that the
statewide criterion is over or under protective of the designated
uses or where natural or un-alterable conditions or other factors
as defined in 40 CFR 131.10(g) prevent the attainment of the
statewide [ criterion].
7.2 Narrative Standards
It shall be unlawful, and a violation of these regulations, for any person to discharge or place any waste or other substance in such a way as will be or may become offensive such as unnatural deposits, floating debris, oil, scum or other nuisances such as color, odor or taste; or cause conditions which produce undesirable aquatic life or which produce objectionable tastes in edible aquatic organisms; or result in concentrations or combinations of substances which produce undesirable physiological responses in desirable resident fish, or other desirable aquatic life, or undesirable human health effects, as determined by bioassay or other tests performed in accordance with standard procedures.
R317-2-13. Classification of Waters of the State (see R317-2-6).
a. Colorado River Drainage
13.1 Upper Colorado River Basin
. . . . . . .
13.4 Weber River Basin
a. Weber River Drainage
Willard Creek, from Willard Bay Reservoir to headwaters 2B 3A 4 Weber River, from Great Salt Lake to Slaterville diversion,[
except] as listed below:[ ] 2B 3C 3D 4 Four Mile Creek from I-15 To headwaters 2B 3A 4 Weber River and tributaries, from Slaterville diversion to Stoddard diversion, except as listed below 2B 3A 4 Ogden River and tributaries, From confluence with Weber River To Pineview Dam, except as listed Below 2A 3A 4 Wheeler Creek from Confluence with Ogden River to headwaters 1C 2B 3A 4 All tributaries to Pineview Reservoir 1C 2B 3A 4 Strongs Canyon Creek and Tributaries, from U.S. National Forest boundary to headwaters 1C 2B 3A 4 Burch Creek and tributaries, from Harrison Boulevard in Ogden to Headwaters 1C 2B 3A Spring Creek and tributaries, From U.S. National Forest Boundary to headwaters 1C 2B 3A 4 Weber River and tributaries, from Stoddard diversion to headwaters 1C 2B 3A 4
13.5 Utah Lake-Jordan River Basin
. . . . . . .
c. Utah Lake Drainage
Dry Creek and tributaries (above Alpine), from U.S. National Forest boundary to headwaters 2B 3A 4 American Fork Creek and tributaries, from diversion at mouth of American Fork Canyon to headwaters 2B 3A 4 Spring Creek and tributaries, from Utah Lake near Lehi to headwaters 2B 3A 4 Lindon Hollow Creek and tributaries, from Utah Lake to headwaters 2B 3B 4 Rock Canyon Creek and tributaries (East of Provo) from U.S. National Forest boundary to headwaters 1C 2B 3A 4 Mill Race (except from Interstate Highway 15 to the Provo City WWTP discharge) and tributaries from Utah Lake to headwaters 2B 3B 4 Mill Race from Interstate Highway 15 to the Provo City wastewater treatment plant discharge 2B 3B 4 Spring Creek and tributaries from Utah Lake (Provo Bay) to 50 feet upstream from the east boundary of the Industrial Parkway Road Right-of-way 2B 3B 4 Tributary to Spring Creek (Utah County) which receives the Springville City WWTP effluent from confluence with Spring Creek to headwaters 2B 3D 4 Spring Creek and tributaries from 50 feet upstream from the east boundary of the Industrial Parkway Road right-of-way to the headwaters 2B 3A 4 Ironton Canal from Utah Lake (Provo Bay) to the east boundary of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad right-of-way 2B 3C 4 Ironton Canal from the east boundary of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad right-of-way to the point of diversion from Spring Creek 2B 3A 4 Hobble Creek and tributaries, from Utah Lake to headwaters 2B 3A 4 Dry Creek and tributaries from Utah Lake (Provo Bay) to Highway-US 89 2B 3E 4 Dry Creek and tributaries from Highway-US 89 to headwaters 2B 3A 4 Spanish Fork River and tributaries, from Utah Lake to diversion at Moark Junction 2B 3B 3D 4 Spanish Fork River and tributaries, from diversion at Moark Junction to headwaters 2B 3A 4 Benjamin Slough and tributaries from Utah Lake to headwaters, except as listed below 2B 3B 4 Beer Creek (Utah County) from 4850 West (in NE1/4NE1/4 sec. 36, T.8 S., R.1 E.) to headwaters 2B 3C 4 Salt Creek, from Nephi diversion to headwaters 2B 3A 4 Currant Creek, from mouth of Goshen Canyon to Mona Reservoir 2B 3A 4 [
Burriston Creek], from Mona Reservoir to headwaters 2B 3A 4 Peteetneet Creek and tributaries, from irrigation diversion above Maple Dell to headwaters 2B 3A 4 Summit Creek and tributaries (above Santaquin), from U.S. National Forest boundary to headwaters 2B 3A 4 All other permanent streams entering Utah Lake 2B 3B 4
. . . . . . .
13.11 National Wildlife Refuges and State
Waterfowl Management Areas, and other Areas Associated with the Great Salt Lake
Bear River National Wildlife Refuge, Box Elder County 2B 3B 3D Bear River Bay Open Water below approximately 4,208 ft. 5C Transitional[
] Waters approximately 4,208 ft. to Open Water 5E Open Water above approximately 4,208 ft. 2B 3B 3D Brown's Park Waterfowl Management Area, Daggett County 2B 3A 3D Clear Lake Waterfowl Management Area, Millard County 2B 3C 3D Desert Lake Waterfowl Management Area, Emery County 2B 3C 3D Farmington Bay Waterfowl Management Area, Davis and Salt Lake Counties 2B 3C 3D Farmington Bay Open Water below approximately 4,208 ft. 5D Transitional Waters approximately 4,208 ft. to Open Water 5E Open Water above approximately 4,208 ft. 2B 3B 3D Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge, Juab County 2B 3C 3D Harold Crane Waterfowl Management Area, Box Elder County 2B 3C 3D Gilbert Bay Open Water below approximately 4,208 ft. 5A Transitional Waters approximately 4,208 ft. to Open Water 5E Open Water above approximately 4,208 ft. 2B 3B 3D Gunnison Bay Open Water below approximately 4,208 ft. 5B Transitional Waters approximately 4,208 ft. to Open Water 5E Open Water above approximately 4,208 ft. 2B 3B 3D Howard Slough Waterfowl Management Area, Weber County 2B 3C 3D Locomotive Springs Waterfowl Management Area, Box Elder County 2B 3B 3D Ogden Bay Waterfowl Management Area, Weber County 2B 3C 3D Ouray National Wildlife Refuge, Uintah County 2B 3B 3D Powell Slough Waterfowl Management Area, Utah County 2B 3C 3D Public Shooting Grounds Waterfowl Management Area, Box Elder County 2B 3C 3D Salt Creek Waterfowl Management Area, Box Elder County 2B 3C 3D Stewart Lake Waterfowl Management Area, Uintah County 2B 3B 3D Timpie Springs Waterfowl Management Area, Tooele County 2B 3B 3D
. . . . . . .
R317-2-14. Numeric Criteria.
. . . . . . .
TABLE 2.14.2 NUMERIC CRITERIA FOR AQUATIC WILDLIFE(8)
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 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 Tributyltin 4 Day Average 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 1 Hour Average 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 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) Acrolein 4 Day Average 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 Hour Average 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 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 Chlorpyrifos 4 Day Average 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 1 Hour Average 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 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) 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.
. . . . . . .
LIST OF HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA (CONSUMPTION)
Chemical Parameter Water and Organism Organism Only (ug/L) (ug/L) Class 1C Class 3A,3B,3C,3D Antimony 5.6 640 Arsenic A A Beryllium C C Cadmium C C Chromium III C C Chromium VI C C Copper 1,300 Lead C C Mercury A A Nickel 100 MCL 4,600 Selenium A 4,200 [
Silver]Thallium 0.24 0.47 Zinc 7,400 26,000 Cyanide 140 140 Asbestos 7 million Fibers/L 2,3,7,8-TCDD Dioxin 5.0 E -9 B 5.1 E-9 B Acrolein 6.0 9.0 Acrylonitrile 0.051 B 0.25 B Alachlor 2.0 Atrazine 3.0 Benzene 2.2 B 51 B Bromoform 4.3 B 140 B Carbofuran 40 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.23 B 1.6 B Chlorobenzene 100 MCL 1,600 Chlorodibromomethane 0.40 B 13 B Chloroethane 2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether Chloroform 5.7 B 470 B Dalapon 200 Di(2ethylhexl)adipate 400 Dibromochloropropane 0.2 Dichlorobromomethane 0.55 B 17 B 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.38 B 37 B 1,1-Dichloroethylene 7 MCL 7,100 Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2) 70 Dinoseb 7.0 Diquat 20 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.50 B 15 B 1,3-Dichloropropene 0.34 21 Endothall 100 Ethylbenzene 530 2,100 Ethylene Dibromide 0.05 Glyphosate 700 Haloacetic acids 60 E Methyl Bromide 47 1,500 Methyl Chloride F F Methylene Chloride 4.6 B 590 B Ocamyl (vidate) 200 Picloram 500 Simazine 4 Styrene 100 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.17 B 4.0 B Tetrachloroethylene 0.69 B 3.3 B Toluene 1,000 15,000 1,2 -Trans-Dichloroethylene 100 MCL 10,000 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 MCL F 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.59 B 16 B Trichloroethylene 2.5 B 30 B Vinyl Chloride 0.025 2.4 Xylenes 10,000 2-Chlorophenol 81 150 2,4-Dichlorophenol 77 290 2,4-Dimethylphenol 380 850 2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol 13.0 280 2,4-Dinitrophenol 69 5,300 2-Nitrophenol 4-Nitrophenol 3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol Penetachlorophenol 0.27 B 3.0 B Phenol 10,000 860,000 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 1.4 B 2.4 B Acenaphthene 670 990 Acenaphthylene Anthracene 8,300 40,000 Benzidine 0.000086 B 0.00020 B BenzoaAnthracene 0.0038 B 0.018 B BenzoaPyrene 0.0038 B 0.018 B BenzobFluoranthene 0.0038 B 0.018 B BenzoghiPerylene BenzokFluoranthene 0.0038 B 0.018 B Bis2-ChloroethoxyMethane Bis2-ChloroethylEther 0.030 B 0.53 B Bis2-Chloroisopropy1Ether 1,400 65,000 Bis2-EthylhexylPhthalate 1.2 B 2.2 B 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether Butylbenzyl Phthalate 1,500 1,900 2-Chloronaphthalene 1,000 1,600 4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether Chrysene 0.0038 B 0.018 B Dibenzoa,hAnthracene 0.0038 B 0.018 B 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 420 1,300 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 320 960 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 63 190 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 0.021 B 0.028 B Diethyl Phthalate 17,000 44,000 Dimethyl Phthalate 270,000 1,100,000 Di-n-Butyl Phthalate 2,000 4,500 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.11 B 3.4 B 2,6-Dinitrotoluene Di-n-Octyl Phthalate 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 0.036 B 0.20 B Fluoranthene 130 140 Fluorene 1,100 5,300 Hexachlorobenzene 0.00028 B 0.00029 B Hexachlorobutedine 0.44 B 18 B Hexachloroethane 1.4 B 3.3 B Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 40 1,100 Ideno 1,2,3-cdPyrene 0.0038 B 0.018 B Isophorone 35 B 960 B Naphthalene Nitrobenzene 17 690 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 0.00069 B 3.0 B N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine 0.005 B 0.51 B N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 3.3 B 6.0 B Phenanthrene Pyrene 830 4,000 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 35 70 Aldrin 0.000049 B 0.000050 B alpha-BHC 0.0026 B 0.0049 B beta-BHC 0.0091 B 0.017 B gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.2 MCL 1.8 delta-BHC Chlordane 0.00080 B 0.00081 B 4,4-DDT 0.00022 B 0.00022 B 4,4-DDE 0.00022 B 0.00022 B 4,4-DDD 0.00031 B 0.00031 B Dieldrin 0.000052 B 0.000054 B alpha-Endosulfan 62 89 beta-Endosulfan 62 89 Endosulfan Sulfate 62 89 Endrin 0.059 0.060 Endrin Aldehyde 0.29 0.30 Heptachlor 0.000079 B 0.000079 B Heptachlor Epoxide 0.000039 B 0.000039 B Polychlorinated Biphenyls 0.000064 B,D 0.000064 B,D PCB's Toxaphene 0.00028 B 0.00028 B Footnotes: A. See Table 2.14.2 B. Based on carcinogenicity of 10-6 risk. C. EPA has not calculated a human criterion for this contaminant. However, permit authorities should address this contaminant in NPDES permit actions using the State's existing narrative criteria for toxics D. This standard applies to total PCBs.
KEY: water pollution, water quality standards
Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [
April 1, 2012]
Notice of Continuation: October 2, 2012
Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19-5
The Portable Document Format (PDF) version of the Bulletin is the official version. The PDF version of this issue is available at https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bull-pdf/2013/b20130315.pdf. The HTML edition of the Bulletin is a convenience copy. Any discrepancy between the PDF version and HTML version is resolved in favor of the PDF version.
Text to be deleted is struck through and surrounded by brackets (e.g., [
example]). Text to be added is underlined (e.g., ). Older browsers may not depict some or any of these attributes on the screen or when the document is printed.
For questions regarding the content or application of this rule, please contact Judy Etherington at the above address, by phone at 801-536-4344, by FAX at 801-536-4301, or by Internet E-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.