Current through Register Vol. 47, No. 17, September 10, 2024
The provisions of C.R.S.
25-8-202(1)(a), (b) and (i), (2) and
(6);
25-8-203;
25-8-204; and
25-8-401; provide the specific
statutory authority for adoption of these regulatory amendments. The Commission
also adopted in compliance with
24-4-103(4)
C.R.S. the following statement of basis and purpose.
BASIS AND PURPOSE (303(d) List)
A.
Introduction
This regulation establishes Colorado's List of
Water-Quality-Limited Segments Requiring Total Maximum Daily Loads ("TMDLs").
This list was prepared to fulfill section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act
("Act") which requires that states submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") a list of those waters for which technology-based effluent
limitations and other required controls are not stringent enough to implement
water quality standards.
Once listed, the State is required to prioritize these water
bodies or segments (rivers, streams, lakes reservoirs) based on the severity of
pollution and other factors. It will then determine the causes of the water
quality problem and allocate the responsibility for controlling the pollution.
This analysis is called the TMDL Process, and results in the determination of:
1) the amount of a specific pollutant
that a segment can receive without exceeding a water quality standard (the
TMDL), and
2) the apportionment to
the different contributing sources of the pollutant loading (the allocation).
The TMDL must include a margin of safety, waste load allocation (for point
sources) and a load allocation (for non-point sources and natural background).
The TMDL must include upstream loads in the assessment and apportionment
process.
B.
List
Development
1. Listing Methodology
The "Section 303(d) Listing Methodology - 2004 Listing Cycle"
contains a description of the listing process, the criteria for listing, and
the criteria for determination of TMDL priority. The Listing Methodology was
developed through a public process and finalized as a policy at a Water Quality
Control Commission administrative action hearing on September 9, 2003.
This Listing Methodology sets forth the criteria that
generally were used to make decisions regarding which waters to include on the
2004 Section 303(d) List and the 2004 M&E List. However, this methodology
was not adopted by the Commission as a rule. The Commission therefore has the
flexibility to take into account other appropriate factors in making
site-specific listing decisions.
2. Information Considered
The Commission has considered all existing and readily
available information in developing the 2004 Section 303(d) List. In
determining whether data and information are existing and readily available, it
has taken into account such data and information as the Division has utilized
in the preparation of those identification processes, calculations and models
referenced in 40 CFR §
130.7(a)(5)(i), (ii) and
(iv) and that credible data and information
presented in a readily usable format and submitted in reports provided to the
Division as referenced in 40
CFR §
130.7(a)(5)(iii). In
addition, the Commission accepted credible data and information that was
submitted in accordance with the listing process schedule, whether submitted by
EPA or any other interested party. The Division also continues to independently
collect and analyze new data on a rotating basin basis as part of its triennial
review efforts and will utilize such data and information in making future
listing determinations. Existing data which was not brought forward through one
of the above mechanisms or otherwise presented to the Commission in accordance
with the schedule was not treated as "readily available" for purposes of making
the 2004 listing decisions. Such information will be considered in the next
listing cycle.
C.
Prioritization
The objective of prioritization is to identify those
waterbody segments where the Division and the public should concentrate their
resources. Priorities of High, Medium and Low were established according to
section IV. of the 2004 Section 303(d) Listing Methodology. Segments/parameters
where the Commission determined that an appropriate plan is in place to resolve
the uncertainty as specified in section 93.4 have been denoted as "L*". A Low
priority may also be assigned to other segments as per section IV.
D.
Discussion of Issues
Raised in the Hearing
During the course of the hearing, the status of approximately
30 segments was debated. The basis for the Commission's decisions regarding the
major issues for these segments is recorded below.
1.
Selenium: Several
parties questioned whether selenium, where the source is underlying native
shale, should be considered a pollutant. The Commission found that selenium,
like many other naturally occurring metals in Colorado is a pollutant and is
classified as such on EPA's list of priority toxic pollutants (62 FR 42160). If
the source of impairment is natural, that is grounds for consideration of an
ambient quality-based, site-specific standard as described in Regulation No. 31
at 31.7 1(b)(ii). However, the listing decisions must be made based upon a
comparison of the current adopted standard and the ambient condition for the
segment. Although parties to the rulemaking submitted testimony questioning the
decision to list several specific segments for selenium, such as Lower Colorado
River segment 3 and Lower Arkansas River segment 1a, the evidence provided was
directed largely at questioning the appropriateness of the current selenium
standards. The Commission has determined, based on the evidence submitted, that
these segments are not in attainment of the current selenium
standards.
2.
Segments
where there is no new data, but following the 2004 Listing Methodology resulted
in a different conclusion than in 2002: The following segments had
no new data included in the assessments since the 2002 listing cycle. However,
clarification and changes in the 2004 Listing Methodology resulted in the
segments moving from the Monitoring and Evaluation List to the 303(d) List. The
modifications that resulted in the most changes had to do with more clearly
specifying that segments with small datasets where the ambient condition
exceeds the standard by more than 50 percent should be listed. The following
segments were affected:
Gunnison River Basin: Lower Gunnison segment 27
Uncompahgre segment 2
Lower Colorado River Basin: White River segment 9b
3.
Segments with
multiple tributaries: Issues were raised regarding what is the
appropriate way to handle segments with multiple tributaries where there is
evidence of impairment. The Commission found that since segments are generally
treated as having consistent uses and characteristics, their impairment should
be handled in a similar fashion. Unless either water quality data or other
evidence has been presented that shows that the impairment is not present in
the entire segment, the entire segment has been listed as impaired. "Other
evidence" may include changes in geology within a segment or the confluence
with a stream known to be impaired. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that before
any TMDL is developed and implemented in "all tributary" segments, work will be
performed to determine the causes and locations of the impairment, such that
efforts and controls are not inappropriately directed towards individual
tributaries that are not truly of concern, and the Section 303(d) List can be
modified accordingly. Where other evidence shows that some portions are in
exceedance and other portions are not, only the impaired portion needs to be
listed. The following segments were listed based on this rationale:
Gunnison River Basin: Lower Gunnison segments 4a and
4b
North Fork segments 5 and 6
Lower Colorado River Basin: Lower Colorado segment 4a
E.
Segment-
Specific Issues
1.
San
Juan Basin, Dolores River below McPhee Reservoir: Despite a recent
decline in the fish population in this reach, the Commission found that there
was not adequate readily available evidence to conclude that there exists an
impairment of the aquatic life use due to other than extraordinary events
associated with the long-term drought that has existed in southwest Colorado
for several years. In view of evolving operations of McPhee Reservoir and
varying (and generally declining) hydrologic conditions, the Commission is not
able at this time to identify an "expected condition" upon which to base a
decision of impairment. Further, even if an impairment caused by other than the
extraordinary events associated with the drought were found to exist, the
Commission could not conclude based on this record that the decline was due to
a "pollutant" as compared to "pollution." Nevertheless, the Commission
encourages cooperation by all interested parties in the implementation of
habitat improvement measures that may serve to enhance the quality of the
fishery in the reach. The Commission is prepared to revisit the concept of
"expected condition" as it applies to this reach should that be warranted by
changes in habitat condition. Certainly the achievement of goals set under the
1996 Operating Agreement for McPhee Reservoir may influence the nature of the
expected condition. Finally, any evidence of impairment due to pollutants can
be brought forth at the next listing hearing.
2.
South Platte Basin, Clear
Creek, segments 14b and 15: Available data, with specific
reference to biological information on fish species collected over time and
visual observations of the physical condition of the stream bed, provide an
indication of "use-impairment" for Clear Creek Segments 14b and 15 relative to
aquatic life. Though organic sediment appears to be a significant contributor
to the impairment, the exact interaction of potentially numerous causative
factors need to be further explored. No single source or cause of the
impairment has been identified to date. Coors Brewing Company has voluntarily
come forward with a study plan for segments 14a, 14b and 15 as part of the
"pilot study" approach outlined in the section 309 study report recently
submitted to the State Legislature. This pilot study would assist in defining
the expected condition for these segments in view of existing
hydrological/habitat conditions and in fashioning the best approach to
remedying the impairment. Should Coors decide to proceed with the pilot study,
the Division will identify segments 14b and 15 as "low priority" and refrain
from any further TMDL implementation measures until such time as the study
results are known and an appropriate approach to rectifying the identified
problems is crafted in cooperation with basin stakeholders.
3.
Upper Colorado Basin, Blue
River segments 6 and 8 (Camp Cr, Jones Gulch, Keystone Cr, and Mozart
Creek): The four identified tributaries in these two segments were
proposed by the Division to be listed as impaired relative to measured pH
levels. The evidence submitted raised questions regarding the
representativeness of the data showing a possible standards exceedance,
particularly in the absence of data regarding seasonality of pH levels for
multiple years. Therefore, the Commission determined that it is more
appropriate to include these specific tributaries on the Monitoring and
Evaluation List at this time. Keystone Resorts has stated that it will complete
a Use Attainability Analysis for Camp Creek and Jones Gulch, and that it is
willing to include Keystone Creek and Mozart Creek in this analysis. The
Commission believes that it is appropriate to revisit the attainment status of
these segments following completion of the UAA. Depending on the results of
this analysis, the adoption of site-specific seasonal pH standards is one
option that can be considered. Indeed, the Commission notes that the evidence
submitted to it showed that nearby snowmaking actually mitigates pH levels in
the snow.
4.
Uncompahgre River, segment 6b (Red Mountain Creek):
The Commission does not believe that an impairment of the aquatic life use of
segment 6b relative to a realistic expected condition for this segment has been
shown. The Commission found that the aquatic community in segment 6a is not the
appropriate expected condition for this segment. The Commission endorses the
Division's proposal not to list at this time, while moving forward to
investigate segment 6b and make a recommendation to the Commission regarding
the attainable aquatic life use and appropriate numeric standards in the
context of the next basin-wide standards and classification rulemaking
proceedings. However, it is uncertain at this time whether any future
remediation activities in this area will improve the aquatic life use of this
segment. In the absence of documentation that the attainable expected condition
for this segment is an aquatic life use that is better than the current
condition of this segment, it would be inappropriate to identify this segment
as impaired.
5.
Bear
Creek segment 1a: This segment was proposed by the Division and by
Trout Unlimited to be included on the Section 303(d) List. The evidence
submitted demonstrated adverse impacts to the aquatic life use in this segment
during 2002, and documented that the use had started to recover in 2003,
although full recovery had not yet occurred. The evidence also demonstrated
that the unusual and extreme drought conditions in 2002 were the determinative
cause of the adverse impacts to aquatic life. Although there was evidence
submitted indicating that ammonia concentrations or elevated temperatures may
have adversely affected the aquatic life, the evidence demonstrated that these
potentially harmful conditions would not have been present except for the
drought. The Commission has concluded that this segment should be included on
the Monitoring and Evaluation List for potential aquatic life, ammonia and
temperature impairments, and that its status should be reconsidered in future
updates of Regulations No. 93 and No. 94. Any evidence of impairment due to
pollutants can be brought forth at the next listing hearing.
6.
Lower Colorado segment
13b: This is an "all tributaries" segment that was proposed by the
Division to be listed in its entirety for selenium. All of the ambient water
quality data available in the record for this hearing was from tributaries on
the north side of the Colorado River. In addition, there was testimony
regarding significant differences in the geology on the north and south sides
of the Colorado River in this area. Therefore, the Commission determined that
it is appropriate that only the tributaries on the north side of this segment
should be listed as impaired for selenium.
7.
West Fork of Clear Creek,
segment 5: The Commission found that the acute zinc standard in
the West Fork of Clear Creek was exceeded more than once in three years.
Because the chronic zinc standard is in attainment, and because Climax
presented credible biological evidence that the aquatic life use classification
is supported, the Commission determined that listing for acute zinc is not
warranted in this instance. This segment is included on the Section 303(d) List
as impaired for copper.
8.
Middle South Platte segment 1: The Division proposed
that the portion of this segment from Big Dry Creek to Highway 60 be included
on the Section 303(d) List as impaired for dissolved oxygen during the months
of August and September. The evidence submitted offered conflicting
interpretations of what the available data for this segment show regarding
attainment. Because this segment appears to be in compliance with dissolved
oxygen standards based on the established convention of looking at the 15th
percentile of the available data for the entire segment, the Commission
determined that it is more appropriate at this time to include this segment on
the Monitoring and Evaluation List for further assessment of dissolved oxygen
conditions. The Commission also believes that future clarification of the
appropriate methodology for assessing attainment of dissolved oxygen standards,
e.g. within specific months of the year, would be helpful.
F.
Plans to Resolve
Uncertainty
Three parties presented plans to resolve uncertainty for
segments that have temporary modifications based on uncertainty [see Regulation
No. 31.7(3)(a)(iii)]. These segments will not be subject to the development of
a TMDL as long as there is a plan in place that addresses the following:
(1) There is an appropriate plan in place to
remove the uncertainty;
(2) The
plan includes an implementation schedule that will resolve the uncertainty in a
time frame consistent with Colorado's timeline for the development of TMDLs;
and
(3) The plan is being
implemented in accordance with its terms.
The Commission found that the following segments have
adequate plans. It is the Commission's intent to revisit these plans at the
next listing cycle to determine if they continue to meet the Commission's
intent.
1.
Fountain Creek
segment 6 (Monument Creek from the National Forest boundary to Fountain
Creek): The selenium water quality standard for Fountain Creek
segment 6 has a temporary modification for uncertainty pursuant to section 31.7
of the Basic Standards. The City of Colorado Springs submitted an appropriate
plan to remove the uncertainty
2.
Lower Arkansas segment 1a (Arkansas River from Fountain Creek to
the Colorado Canal): The selenium water quality standard for Lower
Arkansas segment 1a has a temporary modification for uncertainty pursuant to
section 31.7 of the Basic Standards. The City of Pueblo submitted an
appropriate plan to remove the uncertainty
3.
Upper Yampa segment 13d (Dry
Creek): In the 2003 Upper Colorado River rulemaking hearing, the
Commission adopted a temporary modification (based on uncertainty) of 60 ug/L
for selenium in Dry Creek. This temporary modification was based on five WQCD
samples collected in Dry Creek in 2001 and 2002 near its confluence with the
Yampa River. The Commission approved Seneca Coal Company's plan to monitor Dry
Creek with the objective of determining the source or sources of selenium
loading, where the loading is isolated in the lower portion of Dry Creek and to
determine whether the loading is due to natural or irreversible man-induced
sources.
BASIS AND PURPOSE (Monitoring and Evaluation
List)
A.
Introduction
This regulation establishes Colorado's Monitoring and
Evaluation List. This list was prepared as part of the effort to identify water
bodies for which technology-based effluent limitations and other required
controls are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards (those
impaired waters requiring TMDLs). Regulation No. 93 is the list of impaired
waters which require TMDLs. This regulation is the Monitoring and Evaluation
List ("M&E List") that identifies water bodies where there is reason to
suspect water quality problems, but there is also uncertainty regarding one or
more listing factors, such as the representative nature of the available data.
Water bodies that are impaired but it is unclear whether the cause of
impairment is attributable to pollutants as opposed to pollution are also
included on the M&E List.
B.
List Development
The statement of basis and purpose for Regulation No. 93
contains a description of how the lists were developed.
C.
Prioritization and Scheduling
The Division has committed to establishing a plan for
monitoring and evaluating these water bodies prior to the list submission date
for the subsequent listing cycle. Further, the Commission has committed to
determining their appropriate status (as either impaired or fully supporting)
within ten years of their placement on the M&E List.
D.
Segment-Specific Issues
1.
Blue River segment
3: The Commission has included Gold Run Gulch below Jessie Mine
(for cadmium and zinc) and the South Branch Swan River below Royal Tiger Mine
(for zinc) on the Monitoring and Evaluation List. The Royal Tiger Mine and the
Jessie Mine are both part of a CERCLA remediation effort, for which remedial
project design is currently out to bid. Therefore, the Commission understands
that the conditions in this area affecting water quality will be changing and
that it is currently uncertain what uses or water quality can be supported in
these waters in the future. The Commission does not intend by including these
waters on the Monitoring and Evaluation List to conclude that any actions other
than those CERCLA-related activities already underway are necessary or
appropriate at this site. The status of those efforts will be reviewed during
the next update of this list.
2.
Segments proposed for the Section 303(d) List: In
several specific instances, the Commission made a determination in this
rulemaking hearing that segments proposed by the Division or others for
inclusion on the Section 303(d) List should instead be included on the
Monitoring and Evaluation List. This applies in particular to Bear Creek
segment 1a and Middle South Platte segment 1 in the South Platte Basin and to
four named tributaries in Blue River segments 6 and 8 in the Upper Colorado
River Basin. In each of these instances, the rationale for the Commission's
decision to included these waters on the Monitoring and Evaluation List is set
forth in the Statement of Basis and Purpose adopted for Regulation No. 93 as a
result of this rulemaking.