Code of Colorado Regulations
1000 - Department of Public Health and Environment
1002 - Water Quality Control Commission (1002 Series)
5 CCR 1002-35 - REGULATION NO. 35 - CLASSIFICATIONS AND NUMERIC STANDARDS FOR GUNNISON AND LOWER DOLORES RIVER BASINS
Section 5 CCR 1002-35.11 - STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
Current through Register Vol. 47, No. 17, September 10, 2024
I. Introduction
These stream classifications and water quality standards for State Waters of the Gunnison River Basin including all tributaries and standing bodies of water in all or parts of the Gunnison, Delta, Montrose, Ouray, Mesa, Saguache, and Hinsdale Counties and the Lower Dolores River and its tributaries in Dolores and San Miguel Counties implement requirements of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act C.R.S. 1973, 25-8-101 et sect. (Cum. Supp. 1981). They also represent the implementation of the Commission's Regulations Establishing Basic Standards and an Antideqradation Standard and Establishing a System for Classifying State Waters, for Assigning Standards, and for Granting Temporary Modifications (the "Basic Regulations")
The Basic Regulations establish a system for the classification of State Waters according to the beneficial uses for which they are suitable or are to become suitable, and for assigning specific numerical water quality standards according to such classifications. Because these stream classifications and standards implement the Basic Regulations, the statement of basis and purpose (Section 3.1.16) of those regulations must be referred to for a complete understanding of the basis and purpose of the regulations adopted herein. Therefore, Section 3.1.16 of the Basic Regulations is incorporated by reference. The focus of this statement of basis and purpose is on the scientific and technological rationale for the specific classifications and standards in the Gunnison River Basin.
Public participation was a significant factor in the development of these regulations. A lengthy record was built through public hearings held on November 16-18, 1981. A total of 10 entities requested and were granted party status by the Commission in accordance with the Commission's Procedural Regulations (Cum. Supp. 1980). The record established in these hearings forms the basis for the classifications and standards adopted.
II. General Considerations
These regulation are not adopted as control regulations. Stream classifications and water quality standards are specifically distinguished from control regulations in the Water Quality Control Act, and they need not be adopted as control regulations pursuant to the statutory scheme.
III. Definition of Stream Segments
IV. Use Classifications and Standards - Generally
Conversely, if the ambient quality (x + s) for a certain parameter exceeded the "table value" for the protection of a use, and there is information that the proposed use is not in place, the use classification was modified or temporary modifications to the parameters were established. Ambient quality is generally defined as the quality attributable to natural conditions and/or uncontrollable non-point sources.
The concern of the United States Forest Service that High Quality 2 classification will unduly burden their management of multiple use areas is not well founded. This is because activities on Forest Service land, i.e. grazing, mineral exploration, trail and road maintenance, are considered as a historical impact upon existing ambient water quality conditions and are non point sources which are presently not subject to any Water Quality Control Commission regulations.
In addition to the significant distinction between Recreation - Class 1 and Recreation - Class 2 as defined in Section 3.1.13 of the Basic Regulations, the difference between the two classifications in terms of water quality standards is the fecal coliform parameter. Recreation - Class 1 generally has a standard of 200 fecal coliform per 100 ml; Recreation - Class 2 generally has a standard of 2000 fecal coliform per 100 ml.
In accordance with the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, the Commission has decided to classify as "Recreation - Class 2" those stream segments where primary contact recreation does not exist and cannot be reasonably expected to exist in the future, regardless of water quality. The Commission has decided to classify as "Recreation - Class 1" only those stream segments where primary contact recreation actually exists, or could reasonably be expected to occur. The reasons for the application of Recreation Class 2 are as follows:
The Commission finds that Colorado is a water short state and that it is experiencing considerable growth which places additional burdens on already scarce water supplies. These considerations mitigate in favor of a conservative approach to protecting future water supplies. Where existing water quality is adequate to protect this use, and in the absence of dischargers to these segments or testimony in opposition to such classification, the water supply use has been assigned because it is reasonable to expect that it may exist in the future in such cases. For stream segments that flow through, or in the vicinity of, municipalities, this conclusion is further justified, since there is a reasonable probability that the use exists or will exist. Where the water supply classification has been opposed, the Commission has evaluated the evidence on a site specific basis, and in many cases the classification has been removed.
V. Water Quality Standards - Generally
Numeric standards have been assigned for the full range of parameters to a number of segments where little or no data existed specific to the segment. In these cases, there was reason to believe that the classified uses were in place or could be reasonably expected, and that the ambient water quality was as good as or better than the numeric standards assigned.
The standard of a 3 C temperature increase above ambient water temperature as defined is generally valid based on the data regarding that temperature necessary to support an "Aquatic Life - Class 1" fishery. The standard takes into account daily and seasonal fluctuations; however, it is also recognized that the 3 C limitation as defined is only appropriate as a guideline and cannot be rigidly applied if the intention is to protect aquatic life. In winter, for example, warm water discharges may be beneficial to aquatic life. It is the intention of the Commission in adopting the standard to prevent radical temperature changes in short periods of time which are detrimental to aquatic life.
It is the decision of tine Commission to adopt tinese standards as basic standards because tine presence of tine organic parameters is not generally suspected. Also, the values assigned for these standards are not detectable using routine methodology and there is some concern regarding the potential for monitoring requirements if the standards are placed on specific streams. This concern should be alleviated by Section 3.1.14 of the Basic Regulations but there is uncertainty regarding the interpretation of those numbers by other entities. Regardless of these concerns, because these constituents are highly toxic, there is a need for regulating their presence in State waters. Because the Commission has determined that they have uniform applicability here, their inclusion as basic standards for the region accomplishes this purpose.
Consistent with the Basic Regulations, the Commission has not assumed that the table values have presumptive validity or applicability. This accounts for the extensive data in the record on ambient water quality. However, the Commission has found that the table values are generally sufficient to protect the use classifications. Therefore, they have been applied in the situations outlined in the proceeding paragraph as well as in those cases where there is insufficient data in the record to justify the establishment of different standards. The documentary evidence forming the basis for the table values is included in the record.
Cases in which water quality standards reflect these instream values usually involve the metal parameters. On many stream segments elevated levels of metals are present due to natural or unknown causes, as well as mine seepage from inactive or abandoned mines. These sources are difficult to identify and impractical or impossible to control. The classified aquatic life uses may be impacted and/or may have adjusted to the condition. In either case, the water quality standards are deemed sufficient to protect the uses that are present.
Levels that were determined to be below the detectable limits of the sampling methodology employed were averaged in as zero rather that at the detectable limit. This moves the mean down but since zero is also used when calculating wasteload allocations, this method is not unfair to dischargers.
Metals present in water samples may be tied up in suspended solids when the water is present in the stream. In this form they are not "available" to fish and may not be detrimental to aquatic life. Because the data of record does not distinguish as to availability, some deviation from table values, and the use of x + s, is further justified because it is unlikely that the total value in all samples analyzed is in available form.
A number of different statistical methodologies could have been used where ambient water quality data dictates the standards. All of them have both advantages and disadvantages. It is recognized that the x + s methodology also has weaknesses, in that the standard may not reflect natural conditions in a stream 100 per cent of the time, even though the use of x + s already allows for some seasonal variability. However, the use of this methodology is justified since it provides a meaningful index of stream quality for setting stream standards.
Since the X + s methodology is an index of existing conditions and is not a classical statistical description, use of a methodology which eliminates outlyers, i.e. unusually high or low data which may be in error, is acceptable in approximating an average condition. The practice of eliminating only extremely high recorded data points and not low recorded values may result in erring on the side of safety. High recorded values may be due to sampling, laboratory, or recording error. To a limited degree the high values may be due to seasonal variation in the data base.
Finally, the fairness and consistency of the use of any methodology in setting standards must recognize the manner in which the standards are implemented and enforced. It is essential that there be consistency between standard setting and the manner in which attainment or non-attainment of the standards is established based on future stream monitoring data. In addition the Division must take this methodology into account in writing and enforcing discharge permits.
Section 3.1.15 of the Basic Regulations states that "dischargers will not be required to regularly monitor for any parameters that are not identified by the Division as being of concern". Generally, there is no requirement for monitoring unless a parameter is in the effluent guidelines for the relevant industry, or is deemed to be a problem as to a specific discharge.
Some of the data developed by AMAX for metals values were based on "direct aspiration" testing method. This testing method has a detection limit 100 times higher than the furnace method used by the Division. In using "direct aspiration", detection limit is above some of the proposed metal values. Therefore, the Commission chose to disregard this data. Because water quality standards are set at levels of ten times below detection limits of the direct aspiration testing method, it is appropriate to use data based upon detection limits of the Health Department Laboratory. These detection limits for establishing water quality standards may be more restrictive than EPA detection limits for effluent monitoring.
Where hardness and alkalinity numbers differed, the Commission elected to use alkalinity as the controlling parameter, in order to be consistent with other river basins and because testimony from the Division staff indicated that in most cases alkalinity has a greater effect on toxic form of metals than does hardness.
VI. Water Quality Standards for Unionized Ammonia
The Commission retains the use of unionized ammonia as a parameter rather than total ammonia because unionized ammonia is the toxic portion. Furthermore, the relationship of total ammonia as a function of temperature and pH is recognized.
On some Class 2 Warm Water Aquatic Life streams containing similar aquatic life communities to those found in the plains streams of the South Platte & Arkansas Basins, .1 mg/l ammonia was selected as being appropriate to protect such aquatic life.
The Commission has relaxed unionized ammonia standards to .1 mg/l or greater on several streams for the following reasons:
Not all warmwater streams are comparable in terms of flow and habitat, and types and numbers of species of aquatic life. Therefore, some variations in an appropriate ammonia standard must be tolerated, with the objective of protecting existing aquatic life. The Commission found this approach preferable to totally removing the aquatic life classification from impacted or marginal aquatic life streams.
VII. Water Quality Standards for Uranium
Given the threat that radioactivity from uranium may pose to human health, it is advisable to limit uranium concentrations in streams to the maximum extent practicable. For segments assigned a water supply classification the Commission has adopted a standard of 40 pCi/l or natural background where higher, for the following reasons:
VIII. Water Quality Standards for Cyanide
The Commission acknowledges that total cyanide is to be used in State Discharge Permits until a method is authorized by EPA for measuring free cyanide, even though free cyanide is the parameter of concern.
IX. Water Quality Standards for Metals
Several parties were concerned about the methods that were employed to digest samples used to determine ambient metal values. The Commission heard testimony that when high suspended solids are present, the two methods of sample digestion could result in very different values, with the "total" method yielding the higher values. But when the suspended solids are low, the two digestion methods will result in similar values. Therefor, the Commission has incorporated data generated by the "total" method when it could be determined that the suspended solids in the water sample were low.
The Commission believes that the "total recoverable" or equivalent method should be used as a testing method for determining ambient metal values for streams. This method is a better indicator in determining the amount of metal available to aquatic life in a toxic form, particularly when the amount of suspended solids carried by the stream is high. However, with low suspended solids the two testing methods should yield the same result. Therefore, before incorporating into stream standards data generated by the "total" method it must be verified that there are low suspended solids in the water samples tested.
The United States Geological Survey used the "total" method before 1978 and the "total recoverable" after 1978, and that because of this, there might be some inconsistency in the STORET data. The Commission believes that with the proper check on suspended solids, pre-1976 STORET data can be used to determine ambient stream values.
It was suggested by AMAX that since the "total" method is used in monitoring state discharge permits, then the "total" method should be used in setting stream standards. The Commission does not agree. For the reasons already stated, the Commission believes that the "total recoverable" is preferable for assigning water quality standards. And, since most state discharge permits limit suspended solids to 30 mg/l, effluent testing will be similar to the methods underlying stream standards.
X. Linkage of classifications and Standards
The Commission Inolds tinat tine classifications winicin it adopts and tine standards it assigns to tinem are linked. Disapproval by EPA of the standards may require reexamination by the Commission of the appropriateness of its original classification. The reason for the linkage is that the Commission recognizes that there is a wide variability in the types of aquatic life in Colorado streams which require different levels of protection. Therefore, the numbers were chosen in some cases on a site specific basis to protect the species existing in that segment. If any reclassification is deemed a downgrading, then it will be based upon the grounds that the original classification was in error.
Xi. Economic Reasonableness
The Commission finds that these use classifications and water quality standards are economically reasonable. The Commission solicited and considered evidence of the economic impacts of these regulations. This evaluation necessarily involved a case-by-case consideration of such impacts, and reference is made to the fiscal impact statement for this analysis. Generally, a judgment was made as to whether the benefits in terms of improving water quality justified the costs of increased treatment. In the absence of evidence on economic impacts for a specific segment, the Commission concluded that the regulations impose no unreasonable economic burden.
Xii. Classifications and Standards - Special Cases
Segment 6(a) receives a discharge from the Roaring Judy fish hatchery. 6(a) contains the tributaries to the mainstem which are intermittent. The perennial tributaries to the mainstem are included in segment 6(b). The Commission found no evidence of water supply use associated with segment 6(b) which contains fisheries.
Water supply was retained for both segments because segment 8 is subject to conditional water rights held by the Town of Crested Butte. The agriculture classification was retained because the use it currently in place.
Segment 9 represents the mainstem of the Slate River from the point immediately above its confluence with Coal Creek to its confluence with the East River. The Division's initial proposal was based on 17 samples taken during 1979 through 1981. These data were significantly influenced by heavy metals entering the Slate River from Coal Creek. In May of 1981 Amax commenced operation of the wastewater treatment facility treating discharges to Coal Creek, a tributary of the Slate River. By July, 1981 steady state operation had been achieved. In view of the significant change in ambient water quality resulting from the operation of the wastewater treatment plant, the Commission adopted the Division's suggestion that the record on this segment be kept open to receive more meaningful data. The water quality standards adopted by the Commission are based on combined Amax and Storet data during the period of record July, 1981 through June, 1982. The water quality standards adopted for this segment are table values from the 0-100 hardness/alkalinity column, with the exception of cadmium, copper, lead and zinc. The standards for these parameters were based on x + s values derived from the combined Amex and Storet data for the twelve month period of record. The Storet data was in terms of total recoverable while Amax data was in terms of total metals. The cadmium level of 0.03 mg/l taken on November 12, 1981 was discarded as an outlier. All Amax data used had total suspended solids of less than 30 milligrams per liter. The monitoring location for Segment 9 was at the wooden bridge on Highway 135, 0.25 miles below the Crested Butte domestic wastewater treatment plant.
Adoption of an aquatic life, class 1 classification with a 0.02 mg/l unionized ammonia standard presents the potential for economic impact upon the Town of Crested Butte. The Commission acknowledged the potential, for requirements necessitating nitrification facilities but found it justified for the following reasons:
In view of the factors that mitigate the near-term potential for economic impact and since the most likely impacted entity supports this classification, the Commission finds that the assignment of a class 1 designation is economically reasonable.
This segment receives effluent from the Crested Butte Water and Sanitation District by way of Woods Creek. Existing aquatic life supports a class 1 cold water classification. A report by Camp, Dresser, and McKee describes a less expensive alternative to ammonia removal which could be implemented ammonia as an interim treatment to greatly delay the necessity of nitrification facilities. The Commission acknowledges that removal will probably be required for the Crested Butte W & S District's wastewater treatment plant as they reach the maximum population in their masterplan. Ammonia removal maybe required in the near future, but a report by Camp, Dresser, & McKee describes a less expensive alternative which could be implemented. Notwithstanding such improvements, ammonia removal may be required to provide services for the maximum population projected in the master plan. The Commission believes that the cost of ammonia removal when it is ultimately required is economically reasonable because of the large population base which will be available to support this requirement and the economic importance of recreational fisheries to communities in this area.
In the initial proposal. Segment 12 included the mainstem of Coal Creek from a point immediately above the confluence with Elk Creek to a point immediately below the Crested Butte water supply intake. Elk Creek and its tributaries were added to this segment since water quality sampling indicated that the water quality of Elk Creek and Coal Creek are similar. Although a recreation class 2 was adopted for this segment a fecal coliform standard of 200 per 100 m/l was adopted by agreement of the interested parties and because the standards is currently met.
The Division's initial proposal for this segment was based on four samples taken prior to the startup of the Amax wastewater treatment facility in July of 1981. This facility treats the discharge from the inactive Keystone Mine which is the principal point source discharger into Coal Creek. In view of the significant change in ambient water quality resulting from operation of the wastewater treatment plant, the Commission in effect adopted the Division's suggestion that the record on this segment be kept open to receive more meaningful data. The aquatic life cold water class 1 use classification for this segment is based on ambient flow (Q7-10 = 3.5 CFS), quality conditions with continuous operation of the Amax wastewater treatment facility, and presence of aquatic life. These standards include consideration of the existing discharge and it is not anticipated that additional treatment will be required. Where water quality data was available, the water quality standards adopted for this segment were developed based upon the ambient flow conditions and water quality in this segment for those parameters. Only cadmium and zinc were greater than table values in the 100-200 hardness/alkalinity range. If Crested Butte fully exercised its decreed water right in Segment 12, the flow in Segment 13 would essentially be the discharge from the Amax wastewater treatment facility. This flow is in the greater than 400 hardness/alkalinity range. If, changes in flow conditions occur or if data subsequently becomes available for water quality standards based on table values, these water quality standards should be reviewed for compatibility with ambient conditions. The water quality standards for cadmium and zinc are x + s values based on Amax data for the twelve month period of record of July, 1981 through June, 1982. This data is in terms of total metals. However, all data had suspended solids of less than 30 milligrams per liter. The November 12, 1981 samples for zinc, iron and manganese were determined to be outliers. The monitoring location for Segment 13 was on Coal Creek 30 meters upstream from its confluence with the Slate River and the water quality standards are specific to this location.
An aquatic life classification has not been assigned to this segment because the presence of aquatic life is extremely limited, flow is intermittent, gradient is steep, and fish habitat is not present. The potential economic impact of standards to protect an aquatic life classification is therefore not justified.
Water Supply and agriculture are existing uses. An aquatic life, class 1 classification may require occasional ammonia removal. The City of Gunnison supported aquatic life, class 1 classification.
The Division's initial proposal for water quality standards for segment 17 was based on table values from 0-100 hardness/alkalinity column. The standards adopted are the same with the exception of zinc which represents the Ji + s of the Amax data for the period of record. The Amax data was in terms of total metals. However, all data used had total suspended solids of less than 30 milligrams per liter.
Indian Creek has been resegmented into 2 segments, 21 (a) and 21 (b), to reflect variability's in water quality and aquatic life.
The uranium standard of 2.0 mg/l for Segment 21(a) is sufficient to protect the aquatic life in that segment. The standard is consistent with historic instream conditions and the existing discharge at SW33. The determination that this standard is sufficient to protect aquatic life is based upon bioassay and benthic studies which are included in the record (Homestake additional Exhibit A, Vol. II, pp. 232-235 and Homestake Exhibits H-N). This standard will adequately protect the classified uses assigned in Segment 21 (b), and in Segment 22, Lower Marshall Creek.
The uranium standard of .3 mg/l for Segment 21(b) is sufficient to protect tine aquatic life in tinat segment. Tine more stringent standard adopted Inere is consistent witin Inistoric instream conditions based upon data taken at botin monitoring stations witlnin tine segment, namely SW3 and WQCD 149. The Division, in implementing and enforcing the standard for Segment 21(b), should recognize this fact that the standard reflects data from both stations. SW3 is located on Indian Creek approximately 660 feet below the confluence of Indian Creek and Bull Creek, and Station 149 is located in close proximity to Homestake sampling station SW4. The standard for segment 21 (b) will adequately protect the classified uses assigned in segment 22, including the water supply use that exists there. It should be noted that there is not water supply use in either segment 21 (a) or segment 21 (b).
A U.S. Forest Service letter dated December 9, 1981, provided water quality data for streams on segments 29, 30, 31, and 33 of the Upper Gunnison. It was considered unreliable because the reported concentrations were too hi9gh to support aquatic life on streams acknowledged by the U.S. Forest Service as good fisheries.
Hubbard Creek was not separated from this segment as requested by the Blue Ribbon Coal Company as the presence of three species of trout justifies a class 1 aquatic life classification. The water supply use is also in place and the evidence indicated that uses in Hubbard Creek were compatible with the balance of the segment. In addition, although the Blue River Coal Company is a NPDES discharge permit holder there is currently no discharge and no current economic impact.
An aquatic life classification of cold water, class 1 was requested for Wehauken Creek to protect an existing private trout hatchery on the creek. However, the majority of the tributary streams in this segment do not support fisheries because of steep gradients. The Commission elected to classify the segment as aquatic, cold water, class 2 with table values for cold water, class 1 to protect the fish hatchery on Wehauken Creek.
The aquatic life classification was removed because the Commission found no evidence of aquatic life in this segment and determined that there was no expectation of such use in the future. The segment is badly degraded by mine drainage.
The Commission assigned the segment a cold water, class 1, aquatic life classification having found: That the City of Delta would not be adversely impacted due to the dilution provided by large stream flows.
An underlying standard for ammonia of .08 mg/l was adopted based upon the results of a bioassay conducted in 1975. Although this represents a relaxation of the proposed standard of .06 mg/l, this result is justified since the bioassay reflects site specific conditions for pH, temperature and TDS, which factors affect ammonia toxicity.
The temporary modification for ammonia reflects seasonal variations in ammonia levels based upon existing discharge permit conditions. Since the existing discharge will cease in 1986, the conditions causing exceedence of the underlying standard will be corrected within a 20 year period These facilities will be replaced by new facilities designed for zero discharge of ammonia. In view of the cost of the new facilities and the limited duration of the existing discharge, a standard necessitating additional interim treatment facilities would not be economically reasonable.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Water Quality Control Division
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Stream Classifications and Water Quality Standards for State Waters of the Lower Colorado Basin below Glenwood Springs; the Yampa River Basin below Elkhead Creek; the Green river; and the entire White River drainage including all tributaries and standing bodies of water associated with those rivers in all of Moffat, Rio Blanco, Garfield, and portions of Mesa and Routt Counties.
The Water Quality Control Commission is charged with he responsibility to conserve, protect, and improve the quality of state waters pursuant to C.R.S. 1973, 25-8-101 et seq.
The Commission is further empowered and directed to classify waters of the State and to promulgate water quality standards for any measurable characteristic of the water in order to protect both the uses in place and those that can be reasonably expected in the future. (25-8-203 and 25-8-204) The above-titled document assigns use classifications and standards for the state waters in the listed areas in accordance with the "basic regulations" adopted May 22, 1979.
The measurable fiscal impacts which may be caused by these regulations are as follows:
Cost of construction due to requirements for increased levels of treatment by municipal waste treatment facilities;
Cost of construction due to requirements for increased levels of treatment by industrial/commercial waste treatment facilities;
Cost of Operation and Maintenance associated with increased levels of treatment required of municipalities;
Cost of Operation and Maintenance associated with increased levels of treatment required of industrial and commercial dischargers;
Cost of instream monitoring and laboratory analysis for new parameters added by the standards.
Dischargers will not be required by the adoption of these regulations to do stream monitoring. The state, federal and local agencies now doing instream monitoring will have some increased cost; however, any additional frequency should be done to improve state surveillance and would be needed regardless of standard changes.
The stream classifications and standards adopted by tine Commission will protect the water uses primarily through control of point source pollution. Non-point source pollution will be controlled primarily through management practices which are in existence or which will be implemented in the future. Future management practices need careful consideration and may be the result of 208 area-wide wastewater management plans developed by regional planning agencies and being updated annually. These plans involve local governments with general assistance from state government. Some of the possible non-point source pollution may be controlled through "Control Regulations" yet to be promulgated by the Commission. These types of controls could involve runoff from construction, mining activities, and urban areas. It is not certain what controls are needed at this time and there is no way that possible costs can be identified at this time
Persons who benefit from standards which will protect existing and future anticipated uses can be identified as all persons benefiting from recreation, municipal water supply, and agriculture. These benefits are directly economic for agriculture, industry, and municipalities whose health benefit costs are reduced by having clean water, and are both economic and non-quantifiable for some uses such as fishing, recreation, and the aesthetic value of clean waters. Furthermore, benefits will result from human health protection and lack of debilitating disease. Figures have been developed for a recreation/fishing day which can be applied to that aspect of a water use'; however, figures which have been developed for total recreation/fishing day uses have been developed statewide and could not be applied region-by-region or stream-by-stream.
The uses of water in this region are adequately protected by these standards. Most municipal treatment facilities and industrial facilities are currently adequate, or are already being upgraded, in order to meet previous requirements. Any additional facilities or expansions in this region will generally be caused by increased capacity required because of population growths or industrial enlargement. Industries are required by federal statute to meet effluent limitations described as "Best Available Technology Economically Achievable" (BATEA) by 1983 or 1984. For most major industries in this region, the water quality standards should not require treatment beyond these limitations.
The fiscal impact of any regulatory decision must take into account only the incremental costs explicitly associated with the regulations as finally promulgated. Costs and expenditures associated with the status quo, regulations of other regulatory agencies, or regulations already in effect should not be included in an assessment of the fiscal impact of the Gunnison River Basin Classifications.
In addition, a distinction must be made between actual expenditures or dislocations that will be immediately or unavoidable necessary upon promulgation of these classifications and standards, and those costs which are speculative in nature. In keeping with concepts of "Expected Value", it is proper for the Commission to place more emphasis on definite impacts.
With the passage in 1981 of Senate Bill 10, amending the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, it becomes incumbent upon the Water Quality Control Commission to consider the economic impact of their decisions with more emphasis placed upon the concept of the "Economic Reasonableness". Charged with such a mandate, the Commission was quite sensitive to the objective of minimizing the socio-economic "price" of clean water while adhering to the anti-degradation policy that water quality be preserved and protected in all cases, and improved wherever feasible. The Gunnison River Basin was heard under the provisions of the Act.
The analysis and data which follow are derived primarily from testimony and exhibits offered by interested parties during the course of the rulemaking hearings. This was supplemented by staff assessments of potential impacts upon other major entities who were not formally represented. The impacts are separately presented for the public and private sectors. No attempt has been made to identify future development costs as this type of data is not readily available and estimation techniques are dependent upon many highly subjective assumptions.
The primary fiscal impact to tine public sector in this basin involves the potential domestic wastewater treatment costs associated with the stream classifications and water quality standards. Other costs, such as tax and employment base impacts due to forgone industrial development opportunities or mitigated growth potentials, can be theoretically postulated but are difficult to quantify. Generally, it is recognized that higher tap fees, service charges or property taxes associated with increased treatment costs can potentially affect industrial siting decisions. However, this is not as significant as increased levels of treatment that may be required of industries if they are dischargers. While the Commission acknowledges the existence of such potentials, the lack of firm evidence and actual tax base impact estimates make deliberative assessment impractical.
In this basin the Commission acknowledged four municipalities that may be impacted: Crested Butter Water and Sanitation District, The Town of Crested Butte, Delta, and The Gunnison Water and Sanitation District. In each case the standard for unionized ammonia was the factor of concern.
The Commission recognizes the probability of increased treatment costs to accrue to the town of Crested Butte to meet the ammonia standard but fund these costs to bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits to be derived. The essential rationale is the support for these standards by the Town of Crested Butte in order to maintain the lucrative tourism industry through preservation of premium fisheries. Crested Butte went on record to state that they felt the economic benefits would outweigh the costs to achieve them. In addition, the Commission finds that's:
The Crested Butte Water and Sanitation District will most likely need ammonia removal as they approach the maximum population in their masterplan. As estimated for 1982 in the facilities plan, nitrification facilities will cost 1.168 million dollars. The Commission has determined this cost to be economically reasonable for many of the same reasons as for the Town of Crested Butte. The District and the Town ill most likely share in the costs of the facilities and thus there will be a large population base to support ammonia removal costs. Finally, the District's economic base is largely derived from the tourism and recreation industry of which the value is strongly related to the quality of the fisheries in the region.
The Town of Delta is recognized as facing a potential requirement for nitrification facilities but several mitigating factors lead the Commission to conclude that this potential was negligible. The Town offered testimony indicating that they felt there would be no foreseeable impact and they are in the process of converting to a rotating biological disc (RBD) system which will lower the ammonia in their effluent. The Commission noted that Delta's discharge into the Gunnison River is at a point of high volume (Q710=210 CFS) and a wide channel which, in addition to a high dilution factor, leaves room for options such as mixing zones. Coupled with these factors, the Commission believes that provisions contained in the Colorado Water Quality Control Act as relating to advanced wastewater treatment requirements adequately protect the Town from any remaining potential for economic impact through the provisions of Section 204(3), C.R.S. 1973.
In the case of the Gunnison Water and Sanitation District, the District supports a class 1 cold water designation recognizing that there could be some economic impact. The District is strongly supported by the economic base of tourism and recreation of which excellent fisheries is important. Because of the District's support of the classification and thus their implicit willingness to accept the economic impact that could result, the Commission is compelled to conclude that the potential for economic impact bears a reasonable relationship to the benefits to be derived from the ammonia standard.
In summary, the public participation and careful deliberation have resulted in regulations that will protect the quality of the waters of the Gunnison River Basin through classifications and standards that are economically reasonable in terms of the costs to the municipalities lying with the region.
It must be noted that before advanced treatment can be required and the costs discussed herein incurred, a hearing is available pursuant to section 204(3), C.R.S. 1973.
FISCAL IMPACT: PRIVATE SECTION
Six private sector entities were identified concerning potential economic impacts as a result of the proposed standards in this basin: Homestake Mining Company, Blue Ribbon Coal Company, ARCO, the Idarado Mine, Union Carbide, and AMAX. All of these entities have been, are, or will be involved in mining and milling activities with the region.
The Homestake concern was with uranium limits. They indicated that they would be forced into a zero discharge situation if the standard for Indian Creek remained as proposed. This posed the potential of shutting down their operation entirely with the resultant loss of jobs and economic contribution to the region. The beneficial uses for the relatively short segment length for which Homestake claimed difficulty in meeting the standard were found to not bear a reasonable relationship to the economic consequences of the uranium standard. Thus the Commission adopted a proposal for resegmenting Indian Creek to accommodate both Homestake's concerns and the beneficial uses to be preserved by the uranium standard. This action was found to not significantly impact the beneficial uses of the stream while eliminating the potential economic cost of the proposed segmentation.
Blue Ribbon Coal Company was concerned with the accuracy of the proposal for Hubbard Creek. They do not currently, nor plan to, discharge into this segment and indicated no specific economic cost to be attributed to the proposed classifications. Because the Commission found the evidence to be supportive of the proposed classification, and because no specific economic consequences were in evidence to mitigate the benefits of the proposed classification, the Commission found the most economically reasonable position was to support the classification of Hubbard Creek as proposed.
ARCO was primarily concerned with the accuracy of the classifications and was interested in the controversy surrounding the different techniques for measuring the presence and concentration of heavy metals. No specific evidence was offered indicating economic costs to be associated with these standards. Because the Commission found compelling evidence to support the protection of beneficial uses through the proposed classifications and that there were no offsetting economic consequences, the most economically reasonable course of action was to retain the proposal.
The Idarado Mine ("project") currently is not in active operation but is permitted to discharge into the San Miguel River for which Cold Water, Class 1 Aquatic Life was retained as a classification. The Commission found this classification to the reasonable in respect to the Idarado Project for several reasons: one, the future of the project is uncertain both to its economic viability and whether and when it will start active operations; two, no specific economic impact evidence was offered to measure against the beneficial uses of the San Miguel as a fishery; and three, the Idarado Project has available to it the option of discharging into Red Mountain Creek which was found to be so severely impacted by past and current human activities that no metals numbers were assigned as standards and virtually no beneficial uses were in evidence to be protected. The Commission found this to be the most economically reasonable manner in which to deal with the concerns of the Idarado project.
Union Carbide indicated a potentially wasteful economic impact that would result from the ammonia standard proposed for the mainstem of the San Miguel River. They testified that they use ammonia to stabilize the pH of their process water and that while they could meet the standard for part of the year with their current operational scheme, they could not meet the standard on a year-round basis. Union Carbide stated that they are currently planning a treatment facility that would be of the no-discharge type at an estimated installed capital cost of around thirty million dollars but this facility would not be on line until sometime in 1986. Thus, if the standard was retained, they would be forced to build facilities in incorporate other pH stabilizing techniques in the interim at an installed capital cost of between $730,000 and $1,000,000 with an annual operating cost of approximately $200,000. The Commission adopted a seasonal temporary modification until such time as the no-discharge facility will be operational. In light of the fact that the interim facility would be rendered useless after four years, the Commission found that cost to not be reasonable. The seasonal standard was adopted as economically reasonable since any exceedances of the underlying standards will be corrected when the no-discharge facility is operational and no permanent, uncorrectable damage to the fishery would result.
AMAX was concerned with issues relating to the procedures and methodology used to develop the proposals. They believed that the standards could result in treatment costs approaching several hundred million dollars assuming that technology was available which they content most likely is not. To avoid this potential, AMAX offered seasonal standards which they felt were more reflective of the ambient qualities of the mainstem of Ohio Creek. The Commission decided to keep the record open to allow the Division as well as AMAX to pool additional data for both Coal Creek and Ohio Creek in order to test AMAX's claim that their additional data and a change in the hardness/alkalinity would alter the standards and thus the potential for debilitating economic impact. The additional data from AMAX was folded into the Division's calculations and most of the metals of concern did evidence higher ambient levels. The standards were changed to reflect these higher levels. The Commission found these amended standards to be acceptable on economic terms because no clear and present threat of economic impact was in evidence and they there are administrative options available to consider future impact if they develop.
Through evaluation of expert testimony and careful deliberative consideration, the Commission has taken steps to minimize the economic impact of these classifications and standards upon the private sector. As adopted, these classifications and standards will have a negligible impact upon the private sector while protecting current and achievable beneficial uses.
It is concluded that the Commission has strenuously considered the economic factors at issue in this basin and that this regulation is economically reasonable both in terms of potential costs that may result, and in terms of the beneficial uses to be protected.
