5 Colo. Code Regs. § 1002-93.10
Current through Register Vol. 47, No. 11, June 10, 2024
Section 5 CCR 1002-93.10 - STATEMENT OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE; MARCH, 2004 RULEMAKINGThe 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.IntroductionThis 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 Development1. 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.PrioritizationThe 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 HearingDuring 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 Issues1.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 UncertaintyThree 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 uncertainty2.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 uncertainty3.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.IntroductionThis 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 DevelopmentThe statement of basis and purpose for Regulation No. 93 contains a description of how the lists were developed.
C.Prioritization and SchedulingThe 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 Issues1.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.39 CR 03, February 10, 2016, effective 3/1/201639 CR 21, November 10, 2016, effective 11/30/201641 CR 03, February 10, 2018, effective 3/2/201843 CR 03, February 10, 2020, effective 3/1/202043 CR 10, May 25, 2020, effective 6/14/202044 CR 14, July 25, 2021, effective 8/14/2021