August 16, 2002

Mr. Bradley M. Campbell

Commissioner

New Jersey Department of 

 Environmental Protection

CN 402

Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0402

Dear Commissioner Campbell:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has completed its review of the revisions to 

the New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards (NJSWQS) under New Jersey Administrative 

Code (N.J.A.C.) 7:9B, submitted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

(NJDEP) on March 1, 2002. These revisions were approved by the New Jersey Attorney General 

and were adopted by the State and became effective on January 22, 2002. Submitted with the 

revised NJSWQS were the following:

1. the certification letter from the Deputy Attorney General Darren R. Epply

(January 24, 2002); and,

2. the applicable notices from the New Jersey Register (dated December 18, 2000 

and January 22, 2002).

Under Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. ' 1313(c), states are to submit 

revised or new water quality standards to EPA for approval no less frequently than every three 

years. Federal regulations at 40 C.F.R. '' 131.21 and 131.22 implement these requirements. 

In a February 3, 1998 letter (enclosed) from Ms. Kathleen C. Callahan, Director, Division of 

Environmental Planning and Protection, to Mr. Robert Tudor, Administrator Office of 

Environmental Planning, EPA acknowledged that New Jersey would use a two phase process for 

the review and revision of the NJSWQS to meet the State=s statutory Asunset date@ of April 1998 

for the expiration of its water quality standards. However, EPA stated that it would take action 

only when New Jersey completed all applicable revisions to the NJSWQS resulting from both 

phases of the State process. During APhase 1,@ New Jersey completed and adopted revisions to 

its water quality standards regulations on April 17, 1998. The April 17, 1998 APhase 1" 

rulemaking consisted of re-adopting the existing NJSWQS with changes for consistency with the 

New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) Rules, which were adopted by

the State on February 5, 1997. These revisions were relatively minor and non-controversial. As 
part of the APhase 2" review process, NJDEP held two public hearings to receive public input and 

comment on the proposed revisions to the NJSWQS on January 10 and January 18, 2001. The 

January 22, 2002 APhase 2" rulemaking resulted in more substantial revisions to the policies and 

criteria included in the NJSWQS. 

This letter constitutes EPA=s action on both phases of the revisions to the NJSWQS. EPA 

considers the adoption of revisions to N.J.A.C. 7:9B, along with the public review and comment 

process, to constitute the State=s triennial review of water quality standards. Based on our 

review, the procedures of both phases of New Jersey=s process are consistent with, and satisfy the 

procedural requirements of 40 C.F.R. ' 131.20. 

The revisions to the NJSWQS enhance and improve the NJSWQS program, including:

$ the additions and/or revisions of several definitions, including some new definitions to be 

consistent with the NJPDES regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.4) which are approved as being 

consistent with the requirements under 40 C.F.R. ' 131.3;

$ inclusion of applicable technical, administrative, and/or editorial corrections or 

clarifications to existing definitions and provisions which are approved as being 

consistent with the requirements under 40 C.F.R. ' 131.3;

$ deletion of certain NJPDES-based provisions or terms because they are either out of date, 

or have been adopted into the NJPDES regulations, and therefore, no longer need to 

remain in the NJSWQS, which is approved as being consistent with the requirements 

under 40 C.F.R. ' 131.3; 

$ the addition of a provision stating that it is the State=s policy to restore, maintain and 

preserve all freshwaters as potential sources of potable water supplies. This proposed 

policy provides that all fresh surface waters should be protected as potential sources of 

public water supplies to provide adequate, clean potable water for the present and future 

(N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(a)), which is approved as being consistent with the requirements 

under 40 C.F.R. ' 131.10(a);

$ the revision of the harmonic mean flow for toxic pollutants with a bioaccumulation/ 

bioconcentration factor greater than 200 L/kg and for bromodichloromethane, to a design 

flow which is exceeded 75% of the time for the appropriate Aperiod of record@ as 

determined by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). (N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)(2)), 

which is approved as being consistent with the requirements under 40 C.F.R. ' 131.13; 

$ the adoption of the conversion factors published by EPA (60 Fed. Reg. 22229; May 4, 

1995) as metal translators, unless a site-specific metal translator is developed through a 

site-specific water quality study or if a metal translator is developed as part of a study

through the watershed process or through a TMDL process which undergoes EPA review 

and approval (N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)(6)), which is approved as being consistent with the 

requirements under 40 C.F.R. ' 131.11(b)(1)(ii);
$ revisions to the State=s nutrient policies to specify that nutrients will not be permitted in 

concentrations that cause: (1) abnormal diurnal fluctuations in dissolved oxygen or pH; or 

(2) changes to the composition of aquatic ecosystems, in addition to the existing 

conditions that are not allowed in freshwaters except due to natural conditions (N.J.A.C. 

7:9B-1.5(g)), which are approved as being consistent with the requirements under 40 

C.F.R. ' 131.11(b)(2); 

$ revisions to the State=s mixing zone policies and their implementation procedures to 

clarify the scope of the policy and provide specificity to ensure uniform implementation 

(N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(h)), which are approved as being consistent with the requirements 

under 40 C.F.R. ' 131.13; 

$ revisions to the State=s phosphorus criteria to acknowledge that criteria may be developed 

through the watershed process (N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c)5), which are approved as being 

consistent with the requirements under 40 C.F.R. ' 131.6(c) and, 40 C.F.R. ' 131.11(b);

$ deletion of the portion of the State=s criteria for total dissolved solids (TDS) specifying 

changes in TDS levels up to 133% shall be deemed to be in compliance with the TDS 

criteria, and the addition of the use of toxicity tests to confirm whether there are any

adverse effects (N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c)8), which are approved as being consistent with the 

requirements under 40 C.F.R. ' 131.6(c) and, 40 C.F.R. ' 131.11(b); 

$ adoption of ammonia criteria which are specifically developed to protect the uses of the 

respective surface water classifications and are based on toxicity data on New Jerseyspecific species (N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c)13vi), which are approved as being consistent with 

the requirements under 40 C.F.R. ' 131.6(c) and, 40 C.F.R. ' 131.11(b)(1)(ii);

$ the revision of the State=s human health criteria for PCBs consistent with EPA=s final rule 

entitled, Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic 

Pollutants; States' Compliance--Revision of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Criteria; 

Final Rule, which was published in the Federal Register on November 9, 1999 (64 FR 

61182) (N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c)13xxxii), which is approved as being consistent with the 

requirements under 40 C.F.R. ' 131.6(c) and, 40 C.F.R. ' 131.11(b)(1)(i); and, 

 

$ revisions to several water body classifications based on trout status (N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15), 

which are approved as being consistent with the requirements under 40 C.F.R. '

131.10(a) - (e). 

EPA supports New Jersey=s use of a metal criterion=s conversion factor as the metal translator to 

express the dissolved aquatic life criterion in the equivalent total recoverable form. When 

developing an effluent limit under the NJPDES program (expressed as a total recoverable 

concentration) to meet the dissolved metal criterion, a translator is required. Use of the 

criterion=s conversion factor, as discussed in guidance (EPA 823-B-96-007), provides an 

environmentally conservative translator. When monitoring for compliance with the criteria, 
however, NJDEP should sample for and analyze the dissolved form of the metal in the ambient 

environment and directly compare those sampling results with the dissolved-based aquatic 

criteria. It would not be appropriate to determine compliance by using the metal translator to 

compare the total recoverable concentration measured in the ambient environment with the 

dissolved aquatic life criterion developed under laboratory conditions.

I am approving the State=s adoption of the marine acute and chronic aquatic life criteria for lead, 

and also approving, for now, NJDEP=s freshwater acute and chronic criteria for lead as nonhardness dependent values. At hardness levels below 200 mg/LCaCO3, NJDEP=s fresh water 

criteria appear less protective than EPA=s. However, direct comparisons are not possible because 

EPA=s fresh water criteria are hardness dependent. 

EPA is in the process of updating its aquatic life criteria for lead and may revise the Agency=s 

national recommended water quality criteria. EPA conducted a literature review for lead in 1997 

and generated a draft document. EPA previously provided NJDEP a copy of this draft document, 

as well as and some unpublished data that was received in response to the Agency=s 1999 

solicitation of data from the public (64 FR 58409, October 29,1999). New acute data considered 

acceptable for use is available for C. dubia (Bitton et al. 1993 and Diamond et al. 1997). New 

acceptable saltwater acute and chronic data along with a new acute to chronic ratio (ACR) is 

available for the copepod, Eurytemora affinis, (Hall et al 1997 Unpublished report). Additional 

saltwater acute data are also available in the draft document for amphipods, surf clams, bay

scallops and yellow crabs, but not all have been reviewed yet by EPA. 

Once EPA publishes its updated national recommended aquatic life water quality criteria for 

lead, New Jersey should review its water quality criteria to determine if they are still protective of 

aquatic life based on the most recent science. EPA remains available to provide NJDEP with any

technical support necessary to assist the State in future revisions to its lead criteria.

As you are aware, the National Toxic Rule (NTR) (57 FR 60848) criteria still apply in New 

Jersey for PCBs and lead criteria values for Clean Water Act programs. We will begin the 

process of withdrawing New Jersey from the NTR for PCBs and for lead during the next round 

of withdrawals from the NTR. 

By this letter, I am pleased to approve the revisions to the NJSWQS pursuant to Section 303(c) 

of the CWA, subject to the results of consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act.

EPA initiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (Services) on July 18, 2002, under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species 

Act. Section 7(a)(2) requires that federal agencies, in consultation with the Services, insure that 

their actions are not likely to jeopardize the existence of federally listed species or result in the 

adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. Upon completion of 

consultation, EPA will notify the State of the results.
It is my understanding, consistent with the State=s commitment in the SFY=02 - 04 New Jersey

Performance Partnership Agreement, that NJDEP will soon be proposing State adoption of 

revisions to the New Jersey=s antidegradation policy, including a statement to provide that the 

maintenance, migration, protection, and propagation of federally listed threatened and 

endangered species are considered existing uses and will be maintained and protected. At the 

same time NJDEP will also propose State adoption of the New Jersey-specific wildlife criteria 

for PCBs, DDT and mercury that were jointly developed by NJDEP, FWS and EPA to protect 

federally listed endangered and threatened species, including the bald eagle and peregrine falcon.

EPA Region II looks forward to continuing to work with NJDEP to further improve New Jersey's 

Surface Water Quality Standards. If you have any questions, please call me at (212) 637-5000 or 

have your staff contact Mr. Walter Mugdan, Director, Division of Environmental Planning and 

Protection at (212) 637-3725.

Sincerely,

William J. Muszynski

Deputy Regional Administrator

Enclosure

cc: Brenda Jogan, NJDEP

 Steven Lubow, NJDEP

 Fred Leutner, OST-SHPD

 Marjorie Pitts, OST-SHPD

bcc: Mario Del Vicario, CEPB 

 Felix Locicero, CEPB-F&ET

 Wayne Jackson, CEPB-F&ET

 Dick Weisberg, ORC-WGGL

G:\user\share\swqb\tes\wqs\nj\approve.nj.wpd