# 1 NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING

TITLE 18. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

CHAPTER 11. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

PREAMBLE

1. Sections Affected Rulemaking Action

R18-11-101 Amend

R18-11-102 Amend

R18-11-107 Amend

R18-11-107.01 New Section

R18-11-108 Amend

R18-11-108.01 New Section

R18-11-108.02 New Section

R18-11-108.03 New Section

R18-11-109 Amend

R18-11-110 Amend

R18-11-111 Amend

R18-11-112 Amend

R18-11-113 Amend

R18-11-114 Amend

R18-11-115 New Section

R18-11-116 Amend

R18-11-117 Amend

R18-11-118 Amend

R18-11-121 Amend

R18-11-122 Amend

R18-11-123 Amend

Appendix A Amend

Table 1 Amend

Table 2 Amend

Table 3 Amend

Table 4 Amend

Table 5 Amend

Table 6 Renumber

Table 6 New Table

# 2 Table 7 Amend

Table 8 Amend

Table 9 Renumber

Table 9 Amend

Table 10 Renumber

Table 10 Amend

Table 11 Renumber

Table 11 Amend

Table 12 Renumber

Table 12 Amend

Table 13 Renumber

Table 13 Amend

Table 14 Renumber

Table 14 Amend

Table 15 Renumber

Table 15 Amend

Table 16 Amend

Table 17 Amend

Table 18 Repeal

Table 18 Renumber

Table 18 Amend

Table 19 Renumber

Table 19 New Table

Table 20 Amend

Table 21 Renumber

Table 21 Amend

Table 22 Renumber

Table 22 Amend

Table 23 Renumber

Table 23 Amend

Table 24 Renumber

Table 24 Amend

Table 25 Renumber

Table 25 Amend

Table 26 Renumber

Table 26 Amend

Appendix B Amend

# 3 Appendix C New Appendix

2. The specific authority for the rulemaking, including bo th the authorizing statute (general) and the statutes

the rules are implementing (specific):

Authorizing statutes: A.R.S. §§ 49-202(A), 49-203(A)(1), 49-221, 49-222

Implementing statutes: A.R.S. §§ 49-221, 49-222

3. The effective date of the rules:

Sixty days after the rulemaking is submitted to the Secretary of State.

4. A list of all previous notices appearing in the Register addressing the final rulemaking:

Notice of Rulemaking Docket Opening: 14 A.A.R. 897, March 28, 2008

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 14 A.A.R. 1281, April 25, 2008

5. The name and address of agency personnel wi th whom persons may communicate regarding the

rulemaking:

Name: Shirley J. Conard

Address: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

1110 W. Washington Street, 5415A-1

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Telephone Number: (602) 771-4632 (Metro-Phoenix area) or

1-800-234-5677, 4632 (other areas)

Fax Number: (602) 771-4528

E-Mail: conard.shirley@azdeq.gov

6. An explanation of the rules, including the agency = s reasons for initiating the rulemaking:

GENERAL EXPLANATION OF THIS RULEMAKING

Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act requires all st ates to, where appropriate, adopt and revise water

quality standards at least once every three years. States mu st preserve and protect the quality of navigable waters

and adopt surface water quality standards by considering the following factors:

1. The protection of the public health and the environment;

2. The uses that have been made, are being made, or with reasonable probability may be made of the

waters;

3. The provisions and requirements of the Clean Wa ter Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and their

implementing regulations;

4. The degree to which standards for one category of water could cause violations of standards for

other hydrologically-connected water categories (for example, the Department must consider the

# 4 degree to which surface water quality standards c ould cause violations of aquifer water quality

standards);

5. Guidelines, action levels, or numeric criteria adopted or recommended by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) or any other federal agency; and

6. Any unique, physical, biological, or chemical properties of the waters.

A.R.S. § 49-222 authorizes the Department to adopt surface water quality standards that assure water

quality, if attainable, that provides for protecting the public health and welfare; to develop standards to enhance

the quality of water in Arizona; and to take into consider ation the use and value of wa ter for public water supplies,

the propagation of fish and wildlife, and recreati onal, agricultural, industrial, and other purposes.

The Department is charged with adopting numeric su rface water standards that establish numeric limits on

the concentrations of each of the 126 toxic pollutants listed by EPA under § 307 of the Clean Water Act. In

adopting numeric water quality standards, the Department may consider:

1. The effect of local water quality char acteristics on the toxicity of pollutants;

2. The varying sensitivities of local affected aquatic populations to these pollutants; and

3. The extent to which the natural flow of the str eam is perennial, intermittent, effluent-dependent, or

ephemeral.

While the Department may consider these site-specifi c factors in establishing water quality standards for

ephemeral waters and effluent-dependent waters, any wate r quality standard adopted must be consistent with the

requirements of the Clean Water Act.

Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act provides the ba sis in federal law for Ar izona’s surface water quality

standards program. The key elements are:

1. A water quality standard is defi ned as consisting of the designate d beneficial uses of a water body

and water quality criteria necessary to support the designated uses;

2. The following minimum beneficial uses must be considered when establishing surface water quality

standards under the Clean Water Act: 1) public water supply; 2) the propagation of fish, shellfish,

and wildlife; 3) recreation; 4) agricultural uses; 5) industrial uses; and 6) navigation;

3. Arizona’s water quality standards must protect public health and welfare, enhance the quality of

water, and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act;

4. The surface water quality standards rules must be reviewed at least once every three years using a

process that includes public participation; and

5. A process exists for EPA review of the surface water quality standards adopted by the Department.

EPA requires that the Department specify appropriate uses to be achieved and protected in Arizona’s

surface waters. These designated uses include domestic water source (DWS), fish consumption (FC), full body

contact recreation (FBC), partial body contact recreati on (PBC), aquatic and wildlife (cold water) (A&Wc),

aquatic and wildlife (warm water) (A&Ww), aquatic and wildlife (effluent-dependent water) (A&Wedw), aquatic

and wildlife (ephemeral water) (A&We), agricultural irrigation (AgI), and agricultural livestock watering (AgL).

Individual surface waters in Arizona and their respectiv e designated uses are listed in Appendix B of this

# 5 rulemaking.

The surface water quality standards for downstream surf ace waters must be considered when establishing

designated uses for upstream waters. The Department mu st ensure that the water quality standards that are

adopted for upstream water bodies also provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards

for downstream waters. This concept is stated in R18-11-104(F).

The Department must adopt water quality criteria that are sufficient to protect water quality for the

designated uses of Arizona’s surface waters. Water quality criteria, numeric criteria, and narrative criteria must

be based on a sound scientific rationale and must contai n sufficient parameters or constituents to protect each

designated use.

The Department has discretionary authority under 40 CFR 131.13 to include general policies that affect the

application and implementation of the surface water quality st andards in the rules. The Department has used this

authority to adopt a mixing zone rule at R18-11-114, a va riance rule at R18-11-122, and site specific standards in

R18-11-115.

How Surface Water Quality Standards Impact Pollution Control in Arizona

Surface water quality standards are essential elements of several important water quality management

programs including: Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) permitting; the § 305(b) water

quality assessment and § 303(d) impaired water listing; and total maximum daily load (TMDL) programs.

AZPDES Permit Program

Surface water quality standards are used to regulat e point source discharges of pollutants under the

AZPDES permit program authorized under § 402 of the Clean Water Act. When technology-based permit limits

required by the Clean Water Act are not sufficiently stringent to meet the applicable water quality standards, the

Clean Water Act requires the development of more stri ngent, water quality-based e ffluent limits (WQBELs) in

the AZPDES permit that are designed to ensure that th e applicable surface water quality standards are met. The

surface water quality standards rules play a critical role in the development of every AZPDES permit and provide

the regulatory basis for the development of WQBELs which affect the levels of treatment that a discharger may

be required to provide to control the discharg e of pollutants to surface waters in Arizona.

Section 305(b) Water Quality Assessment and § 303(d) Impaired Water Listing

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act establishes a process to develop and report information on the

quality of Arizona’s surface waters. The Department deve loped a program to monitor surface waters within its

boundaries, and a biennial report describing the status of water quality in Arizona rivers, streams, lakes, and

reservoirs was prepared and submitted to EPA. The § 305(b) water quality assessment process is the primary

means by which the Department evaluates whether wate r bodies in Arizona are meeting surface water quality

standards, that progress has been made in maintaini ng and restoring surface water quality, and the extent of

remaining water quality problems. The surface water quality standards play a central role in the § 305(b) water

# 6 quality assessment process by providing the benchmarks used to assess water quality status. The surface water

quality standards also provide the basis for the identifi cation of water quality-limited or impaired waters in

Arizona. Under § 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, the Depart ment identifies and lists impaired waters that do not

meet one or more of the surface water quality standards. The Clean Water Act requires the Department to develop

total maximum daily load analyses (TMDLs) to restore water quality in those impaired waters.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program

Under § 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, the Department is required to develop TMDL analyses for impaired

water bodies that do not meet one or more surface wate r quality standards. A TMDL is a calculation of the

maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet surface water quality standards. The

TMDL allocates that amount among the po int and non-point sources in the watershed that discharge the pollutant

of concern. A TMDL analysis starts with the identifi cation of the pollutant(s) of concern and the surface water

quality standards that must be attained to protect de signated uses. A TMDL establishes a pollutant “budget”

which is implemented through other Department wate r quality management programs such as the AZPDES

permit program and the § 319 Non-Point Source Program. Th e ultimate goal of a TMDL is the restoration of

water quality so that an impaired water atta ins applicable surface water quality standards.

Other Department Water Quality Management Programs That Depend on Surface Water Quality Standards

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act requires the Department to identify surface waters in Arizona that,

without additional controls to control non-point sources of pollution cannot be reasonably expected to attain or

maintain applicable water quality standards or the goals and requirements of the Clean Water Act. Management

measures and best management practices (BMPs) are th e primary mechanisms in § 319 of the Act to enable

achievement of surface water quality standards. The De partment administers the Water Quality Improvement

Grant program that provides financial assistance to proj ects that control the discharge of pollutants to surface

waters from non-point sources with a goal of achieving applicable water quality standards.

Under § 401 of the Clean Water Act, the Departme nt may grant, condition, or deny water quality

certification for a federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to a surface water in

Arizona. Congress intended that states use the § 401 water quality certification process to ensure that no federal

license or permit is issued that would violate state-adopted water quality standards. The surface water quality

standards that are the subject of this rulemaking are the basis for the § 401 water quality certification process. If

the Department grants water quality certification for a fede ral license or permit, it is in effect saying that the

regulated activity will not result in a violation of a su rface water quality standard. The Department also may place

conditions on § 401 certification to ensure compliance with the surface water quality standards. The Department

may deny certification if an applicant for a federal perm it or license has not demonstrated that the regulated

activity will be protective of applicable water quality standards. If the Department denies water quality

certification, the federal permitting or licensing agency is prohibited from issuing the permit or license. The

Department conducts § 401 water quality certifications for a variety of federal programs including the § 404

# 7 dredge-and-fill permit program administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, permits for construction of

new or expanded airport facilities regulated by the Fede ral Aviation Administration, and some power plants

regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Co mmission (e.g., hydroelectric power plants).

Public Participation

An important element of the surface water quality sta ndards review process is the involvement of those

who may be affected by water quality standards decisions. Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act requires that

the Department hold at least one public hearing during the rulemaking process to consider changes to the

standards. A.R.S. § 49-208 requires that the Department en sure adequate public participation in the development

of new or revised surface water quality standards.

The Department invites the active involvement of citi zens with an interest in surface water quality issues,

the regulated community who may be affected by the state’s water quality standards decisions, and federal, state,

and local agencies and governments, including Indian tr ibes, who may have a stake in the outcome of the

rulemaking process. The Department has, over th e last several years, gone well beyond the minimum

requirements for public participation in this rulemaki ng, holding numerous workshops and public meetings to

discuss water quality standards issues, including the following:

June 4, 2008 Oral proceeding, Phoenix

May 19, 2008: Oral proceeding, Tucson

April 25, 2008 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking re-published in Arizona Administrative Register

April 4, 2008 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Published in Arizona Administrative Register

September 21, 2007 Stakeholder Meeting on R18-11-113(E) in Phoenix

September 13, 2007 Stakeholder meeting: Biocriteria

August 30, 2007 Stakeholder meeting: Narrative nutrient standard IPs

August 8, 2007 Stakeholder meeting in Phoenix to discuss final draft WQS rules

June, 12, 2007 Discussion of the Pinto Cr eek site-specific standard, Miami area

April 7, 2006 Meeting with PAG Environmental Protection Advisory Committee

March 2006 Discussion of the Yuma East Wetlands project, Yuma, Arizona

February 28, 2007 Informal stakeholder meeting

February 8, 2006 Stakeholder meeting re: Permit Flexibility R18-11-113(E)

November 29, 2005: Stakeholder meeting re: Permit Flexibility R18-11-113(E)

November 16. 2005 Stakeholder meeting: Narrativ e Bottom Deposits Implementation Procedures

November 10, 2005 Informal stakeholder meeting: Biocriteria & Narrative Nutrient Standard

Implementation

October-November, 2005 Informal stakeholder meetings on preliminary draft rules

August, 2005 ADEQ published preliminary draft rules for informal comment

July 18, 2005 Meeting with US Fish & Wildlife Service

April 5, 2005 Kick-off meeting in Tucson

# 8 March 2005 Kick-off meeting in Phoenix

December 17, 2004 Stakeholder meeting: Antidegradation Implementation

July, 2004 Published request for input on rule issues

June 29, 2004 Stakeholder meeting: Antidegradation Implementation

November 25, 2003 Stakeholder meeting: Antidegradation Implementation

EPA Review of Arizona’s Surface Water Quality Standards

The Department is required to submit new and revised water quality standards to the Region 9

Administrator of the EPA for review. The Department mu st submit final surface water quality standards rules to

the Regional Administrator within 30 days of the date of the filing of the final rules with the Office of the

Secretary of State. At that time, EPA Region 9 will review the rules to determine whether they are consistent with

the requirements of the Clean Water Act and EPA’s Water Quality Standards Regulation at 40 CFR 131.

The EPA review of the surface water quality standards rules consists of the following determinations:

1. Whether the designated uses are consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act;

2. Whether Arizona’s surface water quality standards that do not include designated uses specified in §

101(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act are based upon a ppropriate technical and scientific data and

analyses;

3. Whether the water quality criterion adequately maintains and protects water quality for the

designated uses;

4. Whether the legal procedures were followed fo r adopting the surface water quality standards rules;

and

5. Whether the surface water quality standards rule s meet EPA minimum requirements specified in 40

CFR 131.6.

After completing the review, the EPA Regional Administrator may approve (in whole or in part),

disapprove (in whole or in part), or conditionally appr ove (in whole or in part) Arizona’s surface water quality

standards. If the Regional Administrator makes the decision to approve (in whole or in part) the rulemaking, the

decision must be made within 60 days of the date of receiving a complete submittal of the surface water quality

standards rules and supporting documentation.

If the Regional Administrator determines that the surface water quality standards rules are inconsistent with

the requirements of the Clean Water Act or federa l water quality standards regulations, the Regional

Administrator must disapprove the rules (in whole or in part) within 90 days of receiving the complete submittal

of the surface water quality standards rules.

If the Regional Administrator disapproves a water quality standard, EPA must notify the Department in a

letter that includes a statement of the reasons for the disapproval and specify the revisions that must be adopted to

obtain full EPA approval of the surface water quality standa rds. Under § 303(c)(4) of the Clean Water Act, EPA

may federally promulgate water quality standards if the Regional Administrator disapproves a water quality

# 9 standard and the Department does not adopt the necessa ry revisions as specified by EPA. A state-adopted

standard that EPA disapproves remains in effect until e ither: 1) The Department adopts the necessary revisions

through the rulemaking process, or 2) EPA promulgate s a federal water quality standard to supersede the

disapproved water quality standard.

SECTION BY SECTION EXPLANATION OF THE RULES

R18-11-101. Definitions

This rulemaking makes minor, conforming, and editori al changes to the following definitions: “acute

toxicity,” “agricultural irrigation,” “agricultural livestock watering,” “annua l mean,” “aquatic and wildlife (cold

water),” “Aquatic and wildlife (efflue nt-dependent water),” “Aquatic and wildlife (warm water),” “aquatic and

wildlife (warm water),” “domestic water source,” “ephe meral water,” “existing use,” “full-body contact,”

“intermittent water,” “mixing zone,” “oil,” “perennial water,” “pollutant,” “practical quantitation limit,” and

“surface water.”

The rulemaking combines all abbreviated terms (acronyms) with their defined counterparts.

The following are new terms used within the rulemaking and have been added to this Section: “Arizona

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES),” “a ssimilative capacity,” “critical flow condition,” “deep

lake,” “reference condition,” “regulated discharge,” “riffle habitat,” “run-habitat,” “significant degradation,” and

“wadeable.”

The rulemaking adds the five lake categories, “deep lake,” “igneous lake,” “sed imentary lake,” “shallow

lake,” and “urban lake,” identified in the narrativ e nutrient standard criteria rule at R18-11-108.03.

The term “outstanding Arizona water (OAW ),” replaces the term “unique waters.”

The rulemaking revises the term “effluent-dependent wa ter” to clarify that effluent-dependent water is

surface water that consists of point source discharges of wastewater to ephemeral water. The current definition

states that effluent-dependent water consists of “disch arges of treated wastewater.” “Wastewater” is a broader

term than “treated wastewater.” For example, the “point source discharge of wastewater” would include the point

source discharge of untreated cooling water from a power plant to ephemeral water. The revision clarifies that

“point source discharge of wast ewater” does not mean a point s ource discharge of stormwater.

The terms “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sy stem,” “recreational uses,” and “unique water” are

no longer used and have been deleted from this Article. Th e term “ninetieth percentile” is still used within this

Article, but only within R-18-11-109, therefore the term has been defined within that Section.

R18-11-102. Applicability

This Section has been reorganized and revised for clarity.

The following two new provisions in subsection (B) have been added to clarify the scope of the surface

water quality standards rules:

1. Subsection (B)(3) makes clear that surface water quality standards do not apply to man-made cooling

ponds if they are created outside of what would otherwise be considered a “surface water” or a

# 10 “water of the United States.”

2. Subsection (B)(4) makes clear that the surface water quality standards rules do not apply to surface

waters located on Indian lands as Arizona doe s not have jurisdiction in Indian Country.

R18-11-107. Antidegradation

Federal water quality standards regulations require th e Department to adopt a statewide antidegradation

policy and identify the methods for implementing the po licy. Both federal and state antidegradation policies

establish a three-tiered framework of antidegradation pr otection to maintain and protect existing water quality.

This framework is established in this rulemaking.

The basic purpose of the Tier 1 antidegradation policy is to maintain and protect existing water quality in

Arizona’s surface waters and to ensure that app licable surface water quality standards are attained.

Tier 2 maintains and protects existing water quality in Arizona’s “high quality” surface waters by allowing

the degradation of existing water quality in high quality surface water only under certain circumstances. This rule

language is modeled on the federal Tier 2 regulation th at applies to “high quality” surface waters with water

quality that exceeds levels necessary to support the propagati on of fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreation in and

on the water.

Tier 3 maintains and protects existing water quality in outstanding Arizona waters (OAWs). Currently,

there are 20 OAWs that have been classified in rule. Two new OAWs have been added in this rulemaking.

Editorial changes have been made to this Section for clarity.

R18-11-107.01 Antidegradation Criteria

Federal water quality standards regulations require th e Department to adopt a statewide antidegradation

policy and to identify the methods for implementing the policy. Arizona’s first statewide antidegradation policy at

R18-11-107 was adopted in 1985. Although Arizona has had a statewide antidegradation policy in rule for more

than 20 years, the Department has not identified methods for implementing the policy in rule. R18-11-107.01 is a

new Section that satisfies the federal mandate to id entify methods for implementing antidegradation. R18-11-

107.01 is supported by a detailed guidance document entitle d, “Antidegradation Implementation Procedures,”

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (July 2007).

This Section contains the antidegradation criteria for each of the three tiers, and for reviews of general

permits, § 404 dredge-and-fill permits, and AZPDES stormwater permits.

The antidegradation implementation procedures rule applies to “regulated discharges,” defined at R18-11-

101(35).

R18-11-108. Narrative Water Quality Standards

Narrative water quality standards are qualitative statem ents of desired water quality. The narrative water

quality standards supplement the numeric water quality sta ndards for specific pollutants and provide an important

regulatory tool to maintain and protect the aesthetic qualities of Arizona’s surface waters.

# 11 This rulemaking adds a new narrative standard in subs ection (D), which is a tool to prevent dumping in

Arizona surface waters by making it an enforceable wate r quality standard; and a new narrative standard in

subsection (E), which implements the third prong of the primary goal of the Clean Water Act, to restore and

maintain the chemical, physical, and biol ogical integrity of the nation’s waters.

R18-11-108.01. Narrative Biological Criteria

This Section implements the new biocriterion in R18-11-108(E) by providing the objective criteria for

determining if the narrative biocriterion standard is bei ng met. In the past, the Department has implemented a

chemically-based water quality standards program that has focused almost exclusively on the maintenance and

protection of the chemical integrity of Arizona’s su rface waters. However, a chemically-based water quality

standards program alone cannot identify or adequately address all water quality problems that may result in

impairment of the biological integrity of the state’s su rface waters. Biocriteria can detect water quality problems

that a chemically-based water quality standards program may miss or underestimate. Biocriteria are valuable

tools because they directly measure th e biological condition of surface waters.

The biocriteria are based on the idea that the stru cture and function of aquatic biological communities

provide important information about the overall quality of Arizona’s surface waters and attainment of aquatic life

designated uses. Existing biological communities in relativ ely pristine or minimally impacted surface waters in

Arizona that have been subjected to little or no anthropoge nic disturbance provide the best available examples of

biological integrity. Measurements of the attributes, structure and function of the biological communities in

minimally impacted surface waters provide the basis for establishing reference conditions that can be used to

evaluate the biological condition of surface waters that have been subjected to relatively greater amounts of

disturbance.

R18-11-108.02. Narrative Bottom-Deposits Criteria

This new Section implements R18-11-108(A)(1), which requires that surface waters “be free from

pollutants in amounts or combinations that... settle to form bottom deposits that inhibit or prohibit the habitation,

growth, or propagation of aquatic life.” This narrative standard, commonly referred to as the “narrative bottom

deposits standard,” is intended to prevent excessive sedi mentation and siltation in amounts that adversely affect

aquatic life. Clean stream bottom substrates are e ssential for the health of many fish and benthic

macroinvertebrate communities. Habitat degradation o ccurs when key stream habitat components such as

spawning gravels and cobble surfaces are covered by fine sediment, decreasing inter-gravel oxygen transfer, and

reducing or eliminating the quality and quantity of pool and interstitial habitat for fish, benthic

macroinvertebrates, and algae. Excessive sediment and s iltation adversely alters thes e habitats, suffocates fish

eggs, and disrupts both aquatic communities and the food web dynamics.

This Section prescribes the objective criteria that will be used to determine whether there is a violation of

the narrative bottom-deposits standard. Using separate crite ria for warm and cold wate r streams, the Department

will use the percentage of fine sediments in the riffle ha bitats of wadeable, perennial cold-water streams and the

# 12 percentage of fine sediments in all stream habitats of wadeable, perennial warm-water streams to determine

compliance with the narrative bottom deposits standard. The fine sediment thresholds are based on the scientific

literature on sedimentation and siltation of streams.

R18-11-108.03. Narrative Nutrients Criteria

R18-11-108(A)(6) states that surface waters shall not c ontain pollutants in amounts or concentrations that

cause the growth of algae or aquatic plants that inhibit or prohibit the habitation, growth, or propagation of other

aquatic life or that impair recreational uses. This subs ection is often called the “narrative nutrients standard”

because it is intended to regulate nutrients that cause exce ssive growth of algae and plants in surface waters (e.g.,

total nitrogen and total phosphorus). This narrative nutrient standard is intended to address water quality

problems associated with nutrient over-enrichment and accel erated rates of eutrophication of Arizona’s lakes and

reservoirs.

The narrative nutrient criteria and matrix in this new section provide the objective criteria that will be used

to determine whether there is a violation of the narrative nutrients standard at subsection (A)(6). The department

will use the chlorophyll-a criterion as the primary endpoint in combination with the other matrix variables for

assessing support of aquatic and wildlife designated use with regard to nutrients in lakes and reservoirs that are

listed in Appendix B and classified for applicati on of the matrix (e.g., urban lake, deep lake).

R18-11-109. Numeric Water Quality Standards

This Section prescribes numeric water quality standard s for bacteria, pH, temperature, suspended sediment

concentration, dissolved oxygen, and nutrients.

The single sample maximum nitrate criterion of 10 mg/L that applies to the San Pedro River from Curtiss to

Benson prescribed in R18-11-109(F)(10) has been repealed. The site-specific criterion of 10 mg/L is the same as

the National Primary Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate promulgated by EPA under the

Safe Drinking Water Act. It is also the numeric criterion that the Department adopts to maintain and protect water

quality for the domestic water source (DWS) designated us e. The designated uses for the San Pedro River from

Curtiss to Benson do not include a DWS designated use. DW S is not an existing or designated use of this reach

of the San Pedro River. The most stringent numeric water quality standard for nitrate that currently applies to this

reach of the San Pedro River is the full body contact r ecreation (FBC) criterion. The numeric FBC criterion for

nitrate is 2,240 mg/L. Department research on the origin of current site-specific criterion of 10 mg/L shows that

the source of the current standard appears to be a report prepared in September, 1985 by the Arizona Department

of Environmental Health Services (ADHS), “San Pedro a nd Santa Cruz Rivers: Nutrient Standards Review.” In

this report, ADHS recommended that a single sample maxi mum nitrate standard of 10 mg/L be adopted for the

San Pedro River because incidental ingestion of nitr ate-enriched water during water-based recreation and

consumption of alluvial groundwater further downstream could present a public health risk. The current FBC

criterion of 2,240 mg/L in the surface water quality standa rds rules will protect public health from incidental

ingestion of water associated with full body contact recreation.

# 13 The Department has repealed the numeric nutrient st andards for four lakes (Roosevelt, Apache, Canyon,

and Saguaro) under this Section and will apply the new na rrative nutrient standard to protect these waterbodies.

R18-11-110. Salinity Standards for the Colorado River

This Section contains the salinity standards for the Colorado River as approved by the Colorado River

Salinity Control Forum, which was formed in 1973 by the se ven Colorado river basin states to develop standards

and a basin-wide plan of implementation. The rulemaking updates the incorporation by reference.

R18-11-111. Analytical Methods

This Section contains the analytical methods that are necessary to determine compliance with a water

quality standard.

Minor editorial changes have been made to this S ection and statutory citations have been updated and

added to allow the use of EPA-approved met hods for analysis of water and wastewater.

R18-11-112. Outstanding Arizona Waters

This Section establishes the criteria for classifying a water as an outstanding Arizona water. The phrase

“outstanding Arizona water” parallels EPA’s term and more adequately describes the type of surface water

intended to be protected under the Tier 3 antidegradation policy.

The reference to “unique waters” has been replaced throughout this rulemaking with “outstanding Arizona

water (OAW)” to make the rule consistent with the te rminology used in the federal antidegradation rule at 40

CFR 131.12 when referring to Tier 3 waters. 40 CFR 131.12 refers to “outstanding national resource waters” in

the Tier 3 federal antidegradation policy and provides th e highest level of antidegradation protection to them.

Davidson Canyon has been added to the list of OAWs. Davidson Canyon was nominated by the Pima

County Regional Flood Control District and the Pima A ssociation of Governments (PAG) Watershed Planning

Department. Davidson Canyon contains perennial and intermit tent reaches, is in a free-flowing condition, and the

water quality data provided by PAG indicates that wa ter quality is good. Davidson Canyon possesses attributes

that make it of exceptional recreational and ecological significance. Davidson Canyon is one of the largest

drainages in the Cienega Corridor and to Cienega Creek , which is already classified as an OAW. Davidson

Canyon provides one of the most important wildlife migr ation corridors in Southern Arizona, linking the Santa

Rita Mountains to the Rincon Mountains. The stream provi des important riparian habitat for diverse flora and

fauna, including priority vulnerable species listed under th e Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and threatened

and endangered species or species of concern identifie d by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, including the

lowland leopard frog and the longfin dace. The Departme nt notes that the nominated reach of Davidson Canyon,

associated water rights, and surrounding lands are being ac quired by Pima County as part of the Sonoran Desert

Conservation Plan. The OAW classification of Davids on Canyon is consistent with and provides support for

Pima County’s conservation management goals a nd policies for this important riparian area.

Fossil Creek, a tributary of the Verde River, has been added to the list of OAWs. Fossil Creek was

# 14 nominated for OAW classification by the Grand Canyon Chap ter of the Sierra Club and others. Fossil Creek is

perennial, in a free-flowing condition, and the available water quality data indicates the creek has excellent water

quality. Fossil Creek is of exceptional ecological signifi cance, providing habitat for a diversity of plant and

animal life. Of particular importance is the fact that Fossil Creek provides habitat for a diverse assemblage of

native fishes, including the Sonora sucker, desert suck er, headwater chub, round tail chub, speckled dace, and

longfin dace. The restoration and long-term protection of native fish in Fossil Creek provides an exceptional

opportunity to restore Arizona’s declining native fish species and may increase the success of native fish

restoration efforts in the Verde River watershed. The decision to classify Fossil Creek as an OAW is based

largely on the information and data provide on current physical and biological conditions of Fossil Creek, which

was provided in “Fossil Creek: State of the Watershed Report,” Northern Arizona University (July 2005). This

rulemaking delays the effective date for the Fossil Creek OAW classification until June 30, 2010 to allow the

Arizona Public Service company to complete de-commi ssioning activities in the Fossil Creek watershed. This

date is the final deadline approved by the Fede ral Energy Regulatory Commission to complete all

decommissioning activities.

R18-11-113. Effluent-Dependent Waters

This Section establishes the effluent-dependent water standards. Effluent-dependent waters (EDWs) are a

special category of surface waters created by the point source discharge of wastewater to an ephemeral water. An

EDW is a surface water that, without a point source disc harge of wastewater, would be an ephemeral water.

Any person may request that a surface water be classifi ed as an EDW. There are three basic information

requirements that must be met to support an EDW classi fication by rule. First, a person must submit a map and a

description of the EDW. Second, the person must submit information demonstrating that the EDW consists of a

point source discharge of wastewater. Finally, a person must submit information demonstrating that the receiving

water is an ephemeral water. The Department may also propose surface waters for EDW classification on its own

initiative.

The 36 EDWs currently listed in subsection (D) have been moved to Appendix B.

A subcategory of the aquatic and wildlife designated us e has been developed for effluent-dependent waters

(A&Wedw) and apply to all surface waters that are classified as EDWs by rule.

The phrase “discharge of treated wast ewater” has been changed to “point source discharge of wastewater.”

This change allows the Director to classify ephemeral waters that receive point source discharges of untreated

cooling water and other industrial pro cess waters as effluent-dependent wa ters in addition to discharges of

municipal and domestic wastewater.

New subsection (D) is subsection (E) in the current ru le and requires that the permit-issuing authority use

the water quality standards that apply to effluent-depende nt waters to derive discharge limitations for a point

source discharge from a wastewater treatment plant to an ephemeral water “that cha nges that ephemeral water

into an effluent-dependent water.” This phrase has been deleted to clarify that EDW standards will be used to

derive discharge limitations for all point source discharges of wastewater to an ephemeral water. A point source

# 15 discharge of wastewater to an ephemeral water changes the receiving ephemeral water into an effluent-dependent

water. This position is based on the definitions of “effl uent-dependent water” and “ephemeral water.” Subsection

(D) clarifies which discharges are not considered “wastewa ter” for purposes of this Section, including stormwater

and similar discharges appr oved under a general permit.

In new subsection (E), language has been added to provide regulatory flexibility to apply only acute

A&W(edw) standards to point source discharges of wastewater to ephemeral waters under certain circumstances.

The Department recognizes that there may be infrequent , sporadic, or emergency point source discharges of

wastewater to ephemeral waters where it is reasonabl e to conclude that chronic A&W(edw) standards are

unnecessary. Acute and chronic A&W(edw) standards would be appropriate for continuous point source

discharges of wastewater to an ephemeral water that create perennial EDWs or for intermittent point source

discharges of wastewater that flow seasonally or re gularly. Acute and chronic A&W(edw) standards are also

appropriate to regulate a point source discharge to an ephemeral water where the water may reach a downstream

surface water with chronic A&W standards. Also, chronic A&W(edw) standards are appropriate where the point

source discharge of effluent creates an impoundment or semi-permanent ponds to permanent ponds within an

ephemeral water. However, there may be point source discharges to ephemeral waters where the amount of flow,

the frequency, or the duration of the discharge is such that it is unlikely that water may be present in the receiving

ephemeral water for a sufficient period of time for organism s in the receiving water to be chronically exposed to

pollutants.

This Section has been revised to provide flexibility so that acute A&Wedw standards can be applied on a

case-by-case basis in AZPDES permits. Language has been added that provides regulatory flexibility by

clarifying that AZPDES permits may establish alterna tive discharge limits derived from acute A&W(edw) or

chronic A&W(edw) standards based on seasonal variations in the discharge.

R18-11-114. Mixing Zones

This Section lists the criteria for establishing a mixing zone and contains minor editorial and formatting

changes.

A provision has been added to subsection (H) that prohi bits zones of initial dilution in a mixing zone that

are so large that they cause lethality to drifting organisms that pass through.

R18-11-115. Site-Specific Standards

State and federal laws authorize the adoption of site-specific standards that reflect local environmental

conditions. The federal water quality standards at 40 CF R 131.11(b)(1)(ii) provide the Department with the

authority to adopt water quality criteria that are “modified to reflect site-specific cond itions.” Similarly, A.R.S. §

49-221(C)(6) directs the Director to consider “[a]ny uni que physical, biological, or ch emical properties of the

waters” when establishing surface water quality standa rds. Under A.R.S. § 49-222(C), the Department may

consider the effect of local water quality characteristic s on the toxicity of specific pollutants and the varying

sensitivities of local, affected aquatic populations to po llutants when setting numeric water quality standards.

# 16 This Section provides specific authority for site-speci fic standards and identifies methods acceptable to the

Department and EPA for their developmen t. Site specific standards, like all surface water quality standards, must

be based on a sound scientific rationale to protect the aqua tic and wildlife designated use. This Section prescribes

technically defensible methods for s ite-specific standard development.

R18-11-116. Resource Management Agencies

This Section establishes how resource management agencies are affected by this Article and contains minor

editorial changes.

R18-11-117. Canals and Urban Park Lakes

This Section establishes standards for canals and urba n park lakes and contains minor editorial changes.

R18-11-118. Dams and Flood Control Structures

This Section establishes standards for dams and fl ood control structures and contains minor editorial

changes.

R18-11-121. Schedules of Compliance

This Section establishes schedules of complia nce and contains minor editorial changes.

R18-11-122. Variances

This Section establishes water quality standard varian ces for a point source discharge and contains minor

editorial changes.

R18-11-123. Discharge Prohibitions

This Section adds two new discharge prohibitions that prevent point source discharges of wastewater to

listed ephemeral waters that flow onto the Ak Chin Indian Reservation.

Appendix A. Numeric Water Quality Criteria

Appendix A lists the numeric water quality standard s. Tables 1 and 2 have been deleted and the

information contained in those two tables has been combined into a new Table 1.

The numeric water quality criteria have been revi sed to reflect changes in criteria derivation

methodologies, revised exposure assumptions, new information, and data on human health effects or new toxicity

data that support a revision of aquatic life criteria. Speci fic revisions and the reasons for making the changes are

indicated in the subsequent tables. Each table is or ganized by designated use, existing criteria, and adopted

criteria for each parameter.

Methodologies for Deriving Criteria for the Domestic Water Source Designated Use

# 17 Numeric criteria to maintain and protect water qua lity for the Domestic Water Source (DWS) designated

use are either Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established by EPA under the National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations or values derived using EPA methods to protect human health. Where an MCL has been

established for a pollutant, the MCL has been adopted as a criterion to protect water quality for the DWS

designated use. Where MCLs were not available, the cr iteria were derived for the DWS designated use using the

following equations:

For carcinogens: 70 kg * 10 -6



# OCSF * 2 L/day

For non-carcinogens: Rfd * RSC * 70 kg

2 L/day

In the carcinogen equation, 70 kg is the average weight of a human male in kilograms; 10 -6 

# is the excess

cancer risk level; OCSF is the oral cancer slope factor; and 2 L/day is the national average water consumption

rate in liters per day.

In the non-carcinogen equation, Rfd is the reference dose; RSC is the relative source contribution factor, 70

kg is the average weight of a human male in kilogram s and 2 L/day is the national average water consumption

rate in liters per day. The relative source contribution fact or is a way to account for other exposure pathways to a

pollutant (e.g., food, inhalation, work exposure, etc.). There is little reliable information to assess the amount of

exposure to a pollutant attributable to different exposur e pathways. EPA uses a default RSC factor of 20 percent

when developing MCLs. This assumes that 20 percent of a person’s exposure to a pollutant is estimated to be

through the ingestion of water. The Department used th e same default RSC factor in deriving criteria for the

DWS designated use.

Numeric criteria for the DWS designated use has been adopted using the following decision criteria:

1. MCLs, where available;

2. Where MCLs were not available, the DWS crite rion was calculated using the appropriate procedure

for carcinogens or non-carcinogens;

3. For carcinogens where an OCSF was not availa ble but an Rfd was available, the non-carcinogen

procedure and the Rfd were used to calculate a criterion;

4. For non-carcinogens, a criterion using available Rfds was used. If an Rfd was not available in the

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) but a surrogate Rfd was available, such as a Minimum

Risk Level (MRL) from the Agency for Toxic Subs tances Disease Registry (ATSDR), a criterion

using the MRL as an Rfd was calculated;

5. Where an MCL, OCSF, Rfd or MRL was not ava ilable, a criterion for the DWS designated use was

not derived.

The following table summarizes those pollutants where a change or repeal has been made to the numeric

criteria for the DWS designated use.18Numeric Water Quality Standards for Domestic Water SourcePollutantExisting DWSCriterion (μg/L)Adopted DWSCriterion (μg/L)Reason for ChangeAcenaphthylene NNS NoneThis pollutant has been removed from Appendix A because no numeric criteria existfor any designated use.Acrylonitrile 0.07 0.06The standard was calculated using the DWS method for carcinogens (OCSF = 5.40E-01).Arsenic50 T10 T A new MCL for arsenic has been adopted.Benz(a)anthracene 0.048 0.005The standard was calculated using the DWS method for carcinogens (OCSF =7.30E+00).3,4 Benzfluoranthene0.0480.005The standard was calculated using the DWS method for carcinogens (OCSF =7.30E+00).Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.048 0.005The standard was calculated using the DWS method for carcinogens (OCSF =7.30E+00).Boron630 T1,400 TThe standard was calculated using the DWS method for non-carcinogens (Rfd =2.00E-01).Chlorine (total residual)7004,000The maximum residual disinfection level (MRDL) for chlorine has been adoptedfrom EPA’s 1998 Final Rule for Disinfectants and Disinfection-By-Products.ChloropyrifosNew parameter notin existing rules21The standard was calculated using the DWS method for non-carcinogens (Rfd =3.00E-03).Chromium III10,500 TNoneThe rulemaking removes the speciated form and relies on total chromium DWScriterion of 100.Chrysene 0.479 0.005The standard was calculated using the DWS method for carcinogens (OCSF =7.30E+00).Dibenz(ah)anthracene 0.048 0.005The standard was calculated using the DWS method for carcinogens (OCSF =7.30E+00).19PollutantExisting DWSCriterion (μg/L)Adopted DWSCriterion (μg/L)Reason for Changep,p’-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD)0.15 0.1DDT and its metabolites, DDD & DDE have been consolidated into a single listing.The DWS criterion for DDT (0.1 μg/L) has been adopted for DDD.1,1-Dichloroethane NNS NoneThis pollutant has been removed from Appendix A because no numeric criteria existfor any designated use.1,3-Dichloropropene 2 0.7The standard was calculated using the DWS method for carcinogens (OCSF = 5.00E-02).Endosulfan sulfateNNS42The standard was calculated using the DWS method for non-carcinogens (Rfd =6.00E-03).Hexachlorobutadiene 0.45 0.4The DWS criteria have been adopted using the first significant figure to the right ofthe decimal point.MalathionNew parameter notin existing rules140The standard was calculated using the DWS method for non-carcinogens (Rfd =2.00E-02).o-Nitrophenol NNS NoneThis pollutant has been removed from Appendix A because no numeric criteria existfor any designated use.ParaquatNew parameter notin existing rules32The standard was calculated using the DWS method for non-carcinogens (Rfd =4.50E-03).PermethrinNew parameter notin existing rules350The standard was calculated using the DWS method for non-carcinogens (Rfd =5.00E-02).Phenol 4,2002,100The standard was calculated using the DWS method for non-carcinogens (Rfd =3.00E-01).2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzop-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)0.01 0.00003 The new MCL has been adopted.Trihalomethanes (total)10080 The new MCL has been adopted.Uranium35 D30 D The new MCL has been adopted.

# 20 Methodologies for Deriving Criteria for the Fish Consumption Designated Use

Numeric water quality criteria for the fish consump tion (FC) designated use were derived using the

following equations:

For carcinogens: 70 kg * 10 -6



# OCSF * 17.5 grams/day * BCF

For non-carcinogens: Rfd * RSC * 70 kg

17.5 grams/day * BCF

In the carcinogen equation, 70 kg is the average weight of a human male in kilograms; 10 -6 

# is the excess

cancer risk level; OCSF is the oral cancer slope factor, 17. 5 grams /day is the national average fish consumption

rate, and BCF is a bioconcentration factor.

In the non-carcinogen equation, Rfd is the reference dos e, RSC is the relative source contribution factor, 70

kg is the average weight of a human male in kilograms, 17.5 grams/day is the national average fish consumption

rate, and BCF is the bioconcentration factor.

These equations differ from those used to calculate the existing fish consumption criteria in two ways.

First, the default fish consumption rate was changed from 6.5 grams/day to 17.5 grams/day. The default fish

consumption rate was changed to 17.5 grams/day for seve ral reasons. The previous rate of 6.5 grams/day was

based upon the national average fish consumption value EPA used to calculate fish consumption criteria for the

1980 ambient water qua lity criteria documents. EPA now recommends a fish consumption rate of 17.5 grams/day

to adequately protect the general population of fish cons umers. The 17.5 grams/day value is based on more recent

fish consumption data obtained the U.S. Department of Agriculture 1994-1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intake

by Individuals (CSFII). The CSFII is c onsidered one of the best sources of current and unbiased information on

the consumption of fish by the United States population. While 17.5 grams/day might be considered on the high

end of national statistics for fish consumption, there is no reliable and statistically valid local or regional data on

fish consumption to support the derivation of alternative fish consumption criteria for Arizona.

Second, the relative source contribution factor (RSC) was used to calculate numeric fish consumption

criteria for non-carcinogens. A default RSC factor of 20 percent was used when calculating numeric fish

consumption criteria. This means that the Department assumes that 20 percent of a person’s exposure to a

pollutant may come from the fish consumption exposure pa thway. Previously, the Department had assumed that

100 percent of a person’s exposure to a pollutant came through fish consumption. EPA recommends using the 20

percent relative source contribution factor when routes of exposure to a pollutant other than fish consumption are

anticipated, but adequate data to quantify those expos ures are lacking. In a few instances, EPA has data

suggesting a higher RSC for a particular pollutant. In t hose instances, the actual RSC was used rather than the

default 20 percent (e.g., antimony, cadmium). The use of a higher fish consumption rate of 17.5 grams/day and an

RSC factor resulted in more stringent numeric cr iteria for the fish consumption designated use.

Third, EPA uses the 17.5 grams/day value when ma king its national criteria recommendations to protect

human health. The following decision criterion is used to determine the numeric criteria for fish consumption

# 21 designated use:

1. For carcinogens where an OCSF was available, a criterion was calculated using the procedure for

carcinogens;

2. For carcinogens where an OCSF was not availa ble but an Rfd was available, the non-carcinogen

procedure was used and a criterion was calculate d for the carcinogen using the Rfd or an Rfd

surrogate;

3. For non-carcinogens, a criterion was calculated using available Rfd. If an Rfd was not available in

the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) but a surrogate Rfd was available, such as a

Minimum Risk Level (MRL) from the Agency for T oxic Substances Disease Registry (ATSDR), a

criterion was calculated for the non-carcinogen using the MRL;

4. Where an OCSF, Rfd, or MRL was not availa ble, a criterion was not derived for the fish

consumption designated use. If the Department did not have a bioconcentration factor for a

pollutant, a FC criterion was not calculated.

Methylmercury Fish Tissue Criterion

This rulemaking adopts a fish tissue criterion for methylmercury of 0.3 mg methylmercury/kg fish tissue to

protect human health. This criterion is based on EPA’s recommended national criterion for methylmercury in fish

tissue, “Water Quality Criterion for the Protecti on of Human Health: Methylmercury,” EPA-823-R-01-001

(January 2001). The criterion is expressed as a maximum c oncentration of methylmercury in fish and shellfish

tissue to protect the consumers of fish and shellfish in th e general population. It is not a water column value.

To assess health risks, EPA derived a reference dos e (Rfd) for methylmercury. A reference dose is an

estimate (with uncertainty of perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human population

(including sensitive sub groups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse health effects during a

lifetime. To derive the Rfd, EPA established a no obs erved adverse effect level (NOAEL) for developmental

neurotoxicity and then divided the NOAEL by a numerical uncertainty factor of 10 to account for areas of

variability and uncertainty in the risk estimate.

The consumption of contaminated fish and shellf ish is the primary route of human exposure to

methylmercury.

Methylmercury is highly toxic to humans and causes a number of adverse health effects. Health studies

have demonstrated that methylmercury is a potent neurotoxi n, particularly in developing organisms. The brain is

the most sensitive organ for which suitable health e ffects data are available to quantify a dose-response

relationship.

Mercury is found in the environment as a result of natural and human activities. During its movement

among the atmosphere, land, and water, mercury undergoes a series of chemical tran sformations. One of these

transformations is to an organic form of mercury calle d methylmercury. Methylmercury is easily absorbed into

the living tissue of aquatic organisms and is not easily eliminated. Consequently, methylmercury accumulates in

the tissues of predators as they age. The Department conc luded that it is more appropriate to adopt a fish tissue

# 22 criterion for methylmercury instead of a water column-b ased water quality standard. A fish tissue criterion for

methylmercury is more directly tied to the Clean Water Act goal of protecting public health because it is based

directly on the primary route of human exposure to methylmercury (i.e., fish consumption). Second, the

concentration of methylmercury in fish tissue is easier to quantify and is less variable over time. Third, a fish

tissue criterion is consistent with how fish consumption advisories are issued. Fish consumption advisories for

mercury are based on the amount of methylmercury in fish tissue that is considered acceptable. The adoption of a

fish tissue standard directly supports Departme nt issuance of fish consumption advisories.

The following table presents the existing and amende d criteria for the FC designated use. The table

identifies the pollutant, the current FC criterion, the ame nded FC criterion, and the reasons for any changes. The

table lists only those pollutants where a change or repeal has been made.23Numeric Water Quality Standards for Fish ConsumptionPollutantExisting FCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for ChangeAcenapthene2,670198 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 6.00E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; default Relative Source Contribution Factor (RSC) = 20percent. Bioconcentration Factor (BCF = 242).AcenaphthyleneNNSNone This pollutant has been removed from Appendix A because no criteria exist for anydesignated use.Acrolein251.9 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 5.00E-04);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; default RSC = 20%; BCF = 215.Acrylonitrile0.70.2 The standard was calculatedusing FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 5.40E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 30.Aldrin0.0001 0.00005 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 1.70E+01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 4,670.Anthracene1,00074 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and default RSC = 20%; BCF = 3,230.8.Antimony4,300 T 640 T The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 4.00E-04);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 40%; BCF = 1.Arsenic1,450 T80 T The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 1.50E+00);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 3.Benz(a)anthracene0.490.02 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 7.30E+00);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 30.Benzene140114 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 3.50E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 1.3,4 Benzfluroanthene0.490.02 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 7.30E+00);24PollutantExisting FCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for Changerevised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 30.Benzidine0.0010.0002 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 2.30E+02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 87.5.Benzo(a)pyrene0.050.02 The standard was calculatedusing FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 7.30E+00);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 30.Benzo(ghi)peryleneNNSNone This pollutant has beenremoved from Appendix A because no criteria exist for anydesignated use.Benzo(k)fluoranthene0.490.02 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 7.30E+00);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 30.Beryllium1,130 T84 T The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-03);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 19.Bis (2-chloroethoxy methane) NNSNone This pollutant has been removed from Appendix A because no criteria exist for anydesignated use.Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether1.40.5 The standardwas calculated using FC method for carcinogens(OCSF = 1.10E+00); revised FC rate of 17.5g/day; and Bioconcentration factor BCF =6.9.Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether 174,400 3,441 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 4.00 E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 9.3.Bromodichloromethane4617 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 6.20E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 3.8.Bromoform360133 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 7.90E-03);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 3.8.Bromomethane4,020299 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.40E-03);25PollutantExisting FCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for Changerevised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 3.8.Butyl benzyl phthalate5,200386 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-03);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 414.Carbon tetrachloride42 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 1.30E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 18.8.Chlordane0.0020.0008 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 3.50E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 14,100.Chlorobenzene20,9001,553 The standard was calculatedusing FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 10.3.Chloroform4702,133 The standard was calculatedusing FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 0.01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 3.8.2-Chloronapthalene4,300317 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 8.00E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 202.2-Chlorophenol40030 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 5.00E-03);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 134.Chromium III1,010,000 T 75,000 T The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.50E+00);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 16.Chromium VI2,000 T 150 T The standard was calculatedusing FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-03);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 16.Chrysene4.920.02 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 7.30E+00);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 30.Cyanide (as free cyanide) 215,000 T 16,000 T The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 1.26PollutantExisting FCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for ChangeDalapon161,500 8,000 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00 E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 3.Dibenz(ah)anthracene0.200.02 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 7.30E+00);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 30.Dibromochloromethane3413 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 8.40E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 3.80.Dibutyl phthalate12,100899 The standard was calculatedusing FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.00E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 89.1,2-Dichlorobenzene2,800205 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 9.00E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%: and BCF = 351.1,4-Dichlorobenzene77,5005,755 The standard was calculatedusing FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 0.4); revisedFC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 55.6.3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine0.080.03 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 4.50E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 312.P,p’-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD)0.001 0.0002 The standard was calculated usingFC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 3.40E-01;revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 53,600.P,p’-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE)0.001 0.0002 The standard was calculated usingFC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 3.40E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 53,600.P,p’-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)0.0006 0.0002 The standard was calculated usingFC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 3.40E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 53,600.1,1-DichloroethaneNNSNone This pollutant has beenremoved from Appendix A because no criteria exist for anydesignated use.1,2-Dichloroethane10037 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 9.10E-02);27PollutantExisting FCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for Changerevised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 1.2.1,1-Dichloroethylene3207,143 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 5.00E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 5.6.1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene 136,000 10,127 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 1.6.Dichloromethane1,600593 The standard was calculatedusing FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 7.50E-03);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 0.9.2,4-Dichlorophenol80059 The standard was calculatedusing FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-03);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 40.7.1,2-Dichloropropane236,000 17,518 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 0.09);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 4.1.1,3-Dichloropropene1,70042 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (Rfd = 5.00E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 1.9.Dieldrin0.0001 0.00005 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 1.60E+01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 4,670.Diethyl phthalate118,000 8,767 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 8.00E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 73.Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate7.43 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 1.40E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 104.2,4-Dimethylphenol2,300171 The standard was calculatedusing FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 93.8.4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol7,800582 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 4.00E-03);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 5.5.28PollutantExisting FCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for Change2,4-Dinitrophenol14,4001,067 The standard was calculatedusing FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-03);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 1.5.2,4-Dinitrotoluene5,700421 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-03);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 3.8.1,2-Diphenylhydrazine0.50.2 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 8.00E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 24.9.Endosulfan sulfateNNS18 The standard was calculatedusing FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 6.00E-03);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 270.Endosulfan (total)24018 The standard was calculatedusing FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 6.00E-03);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 270.Endrin0.80.06 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-04);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 3,970.Ethylbenzene28,7002,133 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.00E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20% and BCF = 37.5.Ethyl chlorideNNSNone This pollutant has been removed from Appendix A because no criteria exist for anydesignated use.Fluoranthene38028 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 4.00E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 1,150.Fluorene14,4001,067 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 4.00E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; BCF = 30.Glyphosate1,077,000 266,667 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.00E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 0.3.Heptachlor0.0002 0.00008 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 4.50E+00);29PollutantExisting FCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for Changerevised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 11,200.Heptachlor epoxide0.0001 0.00004 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 9.10E+00);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 11,200.Hexachlorobenzene0.0010.0003 The standard was calculatedusing FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 1.6); revisedFC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 8,690.Hexachlorobutadiene5018 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 7.80E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 2.8.Hexachlorocyclohexane alpha 0.010.005 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 6.30E+00);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 130.Hexachlorocyclohexanegamma (lindane)25 1.8 The standard was calculated using FCmethod for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-04);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 130.Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 58074 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 6.00E-04);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 40%; and BCF = 130.Hexachloroethane93.3 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 1.40E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 86.9.Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene0.490.2 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (OCSF = 7.3E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 30.Isophorone2,600961 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 9.50E-04);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 4.4.Mercury0.6 TNone Mrcury FC criterion was replaced with methylmercury fish tissue criterion.Methylmercury Newparameternot in existingrulesFish tissuecriterion0.3 mg/kgBased on EPA § 304(a) national criteria recommendation for methylmercury in fishtissue.30PollutantExisting FCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for ChangeNapthalene20,5001,524 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd =2.00E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 10.5.Nickel4,600 T 511 T The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd =2.00E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 30%; and BCF = 47.Nitrobenzene1,900138 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd =5.00E-04);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 2.9.o-NitrophenolNNSNone This pollutant has been removed from Appendix A because no criteria exist for anydesignated use.N-Nitrosodimethylamine83 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 5.10E+01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 0.026.N-Nitrosodi-n-phenylamine 166 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 4.90E-03);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 136.N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 1.40.5 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 7.00E+00);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 1.1.Pentachlorophenol1,000370 The standard was calculatedusing FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 1.20E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 0.1.Phenol1,00037 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 6,462.Picloram24,3002,710 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 7.00E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 31.Polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs)0.007 0.00006 The standard was calculated using FCmethod for carcinogens (OCSF = 2); revised FCrate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 31,200.Pyrene10,800800 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-02);31PollutantExisting FCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for Changerevised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and RSC = 20%. BCF = 30.Selenium9,000 T 667 T The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd =5.00E-03);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and RSC = 20%. BCF = 6.Silver107,700 T 8,000 T The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd =5.00E-03);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and RSC = 20%. BCF = 0.5.SulfidesNNSNone Sulfides was replaced with hydrogen sulfide.2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pdixoin0.000000004 0.000000005 The standard was calculated usingFC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 1.00E+07);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 5,000.1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane114 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 2.00E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 5.Tetrachloroethylene3,500261 The standard was calculatedusing FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd =1.00E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 30.6.Thallium7.2 T1 T The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd =8.00E-05);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 119.Toluene201,000 29,907 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 40%; and BCF = 10.7.Toxaphene0.0010.0003 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 1.10E+00);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 13,100.1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene95070 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.00E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 114.1,1,1 TrichloroethaneNNS 428,571 The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.0E+00);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 5.6.1,1,2-Trichloroethane4216 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 5.70E-02);32PollutantExisting FCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for Changerevised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 4.5.Trichloroethylene203,20029 The standard was calculated using FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 1.3E-02);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 10.6.2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 6.5 2 Thestandardwas calculated using FC method for carcinogens (Rfd = 1.1E-02); revisedFC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 150.Vinyl Chloride135 The standard was calculatedusing FC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 7.20E-01);revised FC rate of 17.5 g/day; and BCF = 1.2.Zinc69,000 T 5,106 T The standard was calculated using FC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 0.3); revisedFC rate of 17.5 g/day; RSC = 20%; and BCF = 47.

# 33 Methodologies for Deriving Criteria for the Full Body Contact Designated Use

The numeric water quality criteria for the full body c ontact (FBC) designated use was derived using the

following equations:

For carcinogens: 70 kg * 10 -6



# OCSF * 15 ml/day

For non-carcinogens: Rfd * RSC * 70 kg

15 ml/day

In the carcinogen equation, 70 kg is the average weight of a human male in kilograms; 10 -6 

# is the excess

cancer risk level; OCSF is the oral cancer slope factor, a nd 15 ml/day is the incidental water ingestion rate in

milliliters per day.

In the non-carcinogen equation, Rfd is the reference dos e, RSC is the relative source contribution factor, 70

kg is the average weight of a human male in kilograms, and 15 ml/day is the incidental water ingestion rate in

milliliters per day.

These equations differ from those used to calculate th e existing full body contact criteria in two ways. First,

the rulemaking changes the incidental water ingestion rate from 50 ml/day to 15 ml/day. The previous rate of 50

ml/day was based upon 1989 EPA recommendations for inci dental water ingestion rate associated with

swimming contained in “Exposure Factors Handbook,” Exposure Assessmen t Group, EPA/600/8-89/043. (May,

1989), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington,

D.C. In 2000, EPA published a new guidance document th at addresses incidental ingestion of water from

recreational uses in “Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human

Health,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, EPA-822-

B-00-004, (October 2000). While EPA does not make nationa l criteria recommendations for recreational uses like

FBC, EPA does suggest approaches to estimating expos ure to pollutants through incidental ingestion during

recreation. Literature on recreational exposure combined with assumptions about the average mouthful of water

ingested for every hour of total body contact can be used to determine an incidental water ingestion rate. EPA

now recommends an incidental ingestion rate of 10 ml/day. This estimate is based on an assumption that an

individual may be in full body contact with water for 123 hours a year (representing one hour exposure per day

throughout four summer months) and may ingest 30 ml of water per hour of swimming. EPA calculated the 10

ml/day value by multiplying 30 ml/hour by 123 hours per year and dividing the product by 365 days. Studies of

recreational exposures suggest that there may be considerab le variability in this incidental water ingestion rate.

EPA notes that while the recommended value of 10 ml/day may be appropriate where full body contact

recreational activities may occur daily during the summer m onths, states in warmer climates, like Arizona, may

wish to use a higher incidental ingestion rate to protect their populations that may swim in surface waters for a

greater portion of the year. The Department assumed that persons in Arizona could engage in full body contact

recreational activities for more than 4 months in a year. Th e incidental water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day is based

on the assumption that a person may engage in full body contact recreational activity for 180 hours per year

# 34 (representing one hour exposure per day throughout six wa rm-weather months) and ingest 30 ml of water per

hour. The 15 ml/day value is calculated by multiplying 30 ml/hour by 180 hours per year and dividing by 365.

Second, the relative source contributio n factor (RSC) is used to calculate numeric full body contact criteria

for non-carcinogens to account for other exposure pathways. A default RSC factor of 20 percent was used when

calculating numeric FBC criteria unless EPA recomme nded a higher RSC (e.g., antimony, barium). The

Department assumes that 20 percent of a person’s exposure to a pollutant may come from incidental water

ingestion while engaged in water-based recreation. Prev iously, the Department had calculated criteria assuming

that 100 percent of a person’s exposure to a pollutant came through a single exposure pathway, e.g., through full

body contact recreation.

This rulemaking adopts numeric criteria for the full body contact designated use using the following

decision criteria:

1. A criterion was calculated using the appropriate procedure for carcinogens or non-carcinogens;

2. For carcinogens where an OCSF was not availa ble but an Rfd was available, the non-carcinogen

procedure was used and a criterion was calculated for the carcinogen using the Rfd or a surrogate

Rfd;

3. For non-carcinogens, a criterion was calculated using available Rfds. If an Rfd was not available in

the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) but a surrogate Rfd was available, such as a

Minimum Risk Level (MRL) from the Agency for T oxic Substances Disease Registry (ATSDR), a

criterion for the non-carcinogen was calculated using the MRL;

4. Where an OCSF, Rfd or MRL was unavailable, a criterion was not derived for the full body contact

designated use.

5. Where the calculated full body contact standard was more stringent than the Domestic Water

Source standard for the same pollutant, the DWS value was used in place of the calculated PBC

value. It is unlikely that an individual will be more at risk from incidental ingestion during

recreational activities than through direct consumption.

Full Body Contact Criterion for Arsenic

Arsenic is categorized by the EPA as a Class A car cinogen (i.e., a demonstrated human carcinogen based

on sufficient human epidemiological evidence (as opposed to animal studies)). Increased lung cancer mortality

was observed in multiple human populations exposed prim arily through inhalation. Also, increased mortality

from multiple internal organ cancers (liver, kidney, lung, and bladder) and an increased incidence of skin cancer

were observed in populations consuming dr inking water high in inorganic arsenic.

Calculation of the FBC criteria using the standard e quation above would yield new FBC criteria of 3 μg/L.

This concentration was more stringent than the new dr inking water MCL for arsenic of 10 μg/L and the arsenic

criterion that was being considered to maintain and pr otect water quality in surface waters with the domestic

water source (DWS) designated use (also 10 μg/L). The De partment did not think it was reasonable to adopt a

FBC criterion for arsenic that was more stringent th an the new drinking water MCL or the proposed DWS

# 35 criterion for arsenic, particularly when it was unlikel y that persons engaged in full body contact recreational

activity would be more highly exposed to arsenic through incidental ingestion of water than persons who are

assumed to ingest 2 liters of drinking water each day.

In the 2000 Human Health Methodology guidance document described earlier in this section, EPA provides

that states may use alternate minimum risk leve ls in standards derivation. It states that 10 -6 

# and 10 -5 

# are

appropriate risk levels for health protection of the general population provided more highly exposed

subpopulations do not exceed the 10 -4 

# risk level. EPA allows states to adopt a water quality criterion for a

pollutant based on an excess cancer risk level of 10 -5 

# provided that the chosen risk level is protective of the most

highly exposed populations and there is adequate public partic ipation in the decision to use a risk level other than

10 -6 

# . As noted earlier, the Department made conservativ e assumptions when choosing the exposure parameters

for deriving criteria for the FBC designated use regardi ng the amount of time a person may swim in an Arizona

lake or stream and the estimated amount of incidental inge stion. The Department believes it is unlikely that there

is a highly exposed subpopulation in Arizona that is engaged in full body contact recreational activities in

Arizona lakes and reservoirs for more than an hour a day for more than 6 months out of the year.

Based on EPA’s guidance on excess cancer risk levels a nd the conservative assumptions of exposure, this

rulemaking adopts the full body contact water quality criterion for arsenic based on an excess cancer risk level of

10 -5 

# . The new FBC criterion for arsenic is calculated as follows:

70 kg x 10 -5



# 1.5E+00 x 15 ml/day = 31 μg/L (The value has been rounded down to 30 μg/L)

It should be noted that the FBC criterion of 30 μg/L, while not as stringent as the drinking water MCL or

the DWS criterion (10 μg/L), it is more stringent than the currently effective FBC criterion of 50 μg/L in rule.

The following table presents the existing and criteria for the FBC designated use. The table identifies the

pollutant, the current FBC criterion, the FBC criterion, a nd the reasons for any changes. The use of a revised

water ingestion rate and an RSC factor resulted in more stringent numeric criteria for the full body contact

designated use. The table lists only those polluta nts where a change or repeal has been made.36Numeric Water Quality Standards for Full Body ContactPollutantExisting FBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for ChangeAcenapthene 84,000 56,000Thestandardwas calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 6.00E-02);revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day and Relative Source Contribution Factor(RSC) = 20%.Acrolein700467 The standard wascalculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 5.00E-04);revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day and RSC = 20%.Alachlor14,0009,333 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.00E-02);revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day and RSC = 20%.Anthracene420,000 280,000 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-01);revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day and RSC = 20%.Antimony560 T747 T The standard wascalculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 4.00E-04);revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day and RSC = 40%.Arsenic50 T30 T The standard was calculated using FBC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 1.5E+00);revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day. The Department used 10-5as the ExcessCancer Risk Level (ECRL) for arsenic.Atrazine49,000 32,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.50E-02);revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day and RSC = 20%.Benz(a)anthracene1.90.2 The standard was calculated using FBC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 7.30E+00);revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day.Benzo(ghi)peryleneNNSNone This pollutant has been deleted from Appendix A because of a lack of criteria for anydesignated use.Beryllium2,800 T 1,867 T The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.37PollutantExisting FBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for ChangeBis(2-chloroethoxy) methane NNSNone This pollutant has been deleted from Appendix A because no criteria exist for anydesignated use.Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether1.31 The standard was calculated using FBC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 1.10E+00);revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day.Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether 56,000 37,333 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 4.00E-02);revised FBC rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.Boron126,000 T 186,667 T The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-01),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day and RSC = 20%.BromodichloromethaneTTHM 18,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 6.20E-02);revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day.Bromomethane2,0001,307 The standard was calculatedusing FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.40E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.Butyl benzyl phthalate280,000 186,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-01),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.Cadmium700 T700 T The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 5.00E-04),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day and RSC = 20%.Carbofuran7,0004,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 5.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.Chlorine (total residual)140,000 4,000 The maximum residual disinfection level (MRDL) from EPA 1998 Final Rule forDisinfectants and Disinfection-By-Products has been adopted.Chlorobenzene28,000 18,667 The standard was calculatedusing FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.Chloroform2309,333 The standard was calculatedusing FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd =0.01),38PollutantExisting FBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for Changerevised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.2-Chloronapthalene112,000 74,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 8.00E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day and RSC = 20%.2-Chlorophenol7,0004,667 The standard was calculatedusing FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 5.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.ChloropyrifosNot in existingrules2,800 The standard was calculated using FBCmethod for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day and RSC = 20%.Chromium III2,100,000 T 1,400,000 T The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.50E+00),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.Chromium VI4,200 T 2,800 T The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, Relative Source Contribution Factor(RSC) = 20%.Chromium (total)100 TNone No OCSF or Rfd exists to calculate a FBC criterion.Cyanide (as free cyanide) 28,000 T 18,667 T The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Dalapon42,000 28,000 The standard wascalculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-02);revised FBC rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.DibromochloromethaneTTHM 18,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 8.40E-02);revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day.1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 2,800 None No OCSFor Rfd exists to calculate FBC criterion.1,2-Dibromoethane0.058,400 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 9.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Dibutyl phthalate140,000 93,333 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.00E-01),39PollutantExisting FBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for Changerevised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.1,2-Dichlorobenzene126,000 84,000 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 9.00E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.1,4-Dichlorobenzene560,000 373,333 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 0.04),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.p,p’-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD)5.8 4 The standard was calculated using FBC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 3.40E-01);revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day.p,p’-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE)4.1 4 The standard was calculated using FBC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 3.40E-01);revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day.p,p’-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)4.1 4 The standard was calculated using FBC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 3.40E-01);revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day.1,1-Dichloroethylene23046,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 5.00E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene 28,000 18,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.2,4-Dichlorophenol4,2002,800 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.2,4-Dichlorophenoxyaceticacid (2,4-D)14,0009,333 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.00E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.1,2-Dichloropropane126,000 84,000 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 0.09);revised FBC water injection rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.Diethyl phthalate1,120,000 746,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 8.00E-01),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.40PollutantExisting FBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for ChangeDi(2-ethylhexyl) adipate1,200 560,000 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 6.00E-01);revised FBC water injection rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate1001,200 The standard was calculated using FBC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 1.40E-02);revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day.2,4-Dimethylphenol28.000 18,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol5,6003,733 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 4.00E-03);revised FBC water injection rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.2,4-Dinitrophenol2,8001,867 The standard was calculatedusing FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, RSC = 20%.2,4-Dinitrotoluene2,8001,867 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Di-n-octyl phthalate560,000 373,333 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 0.4);revised FBC water injection rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.Dinoseb1,400933 The standard wascalculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.00E-03);revised FBC water injection rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.Diquat3,0802,053 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.20E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Endosulfan sulfateNNS5,600 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 6.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Endosulfan (total)8,4005,600 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 6.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Endothall28,000 18,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-02),41PollutantExisting FBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for Changerevised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, RSC = 20%.Endrin420280 The standard was calculated usingFBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-04),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Ethylbenzene140,000 93,333 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.00E-01),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Fluoranthene56,000 37,333 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 4.00E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Fluorene56,000 37,333 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 4.00E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Fluoride84,000 140,000 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 6.00E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 50%.Glyphosate140,000 93,333 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.00E-01),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Hexachlorocyclohexanegamma (lindane)420 280 The standard was calculated using FBCmethod for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-04),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 9,80011,200 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 6.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 40%.Hexachloroethane100100 The standard was calculatedusing FBC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 1.40E-02);revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day.MalathionNot in existingrules18,667 The standard was calculated using FBCmethod for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Manganese196,000 T 130,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.40E-01),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.42PollutantExisting FBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for ChangeMercury420 T280 T The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-04),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Methoxychlor7,0004,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 5.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Napthalene28,000 18,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Nickel28,000 T 28,000 T The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 30%.Nitrate 2,240,0003,733,333Thestandardwas calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.60E+00),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 50%.Nitrite140,000 233,333 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.00E-01),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 50%.Nitrobenzene700467 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 5.00E-04),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Oxamyl35,000 23,333 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.50E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.ParaquatNot in existingrules4,200 The standard was calculated using FBCmethod for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 4.50E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.PermethrinNot in existingrules46,667 The standard was calculated using FBCmethod for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 5.00E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Phenol840,000 280,000 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-01),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Picloram98,000 65,333 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 7.00E-02);43PollutantExisting FBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for Changerevised FBC water injection rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.Polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs)28 19 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-05);revised FBC water injection rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.Pyrene42,000 28,000 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Selenium7,000 T 4,667 T The standard was calculatedusing FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 5.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Silver7,000 T 4,667 T The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 5.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Simazine7,0004,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 5.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Styrene280,000 186,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-01),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pdixoin0.00009 0.00003 The standard was calculated usingFBC method for carcinogens (OCSF = 1.00E+07);revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day. Resultant value is more stringent thanDWS so default to DWS.Tetrachloroethylene14,0009,333 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.00E-02),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Thallium112 T75 T The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 8.00E-05),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Toluene280,000 373,333 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2.00E-01),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 40%.1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene14,0009,333 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 1.00E-02),44PollutantExisting FBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted FBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for Changerevised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.1,1,1-Trichloroethane200 1,866,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 2); revisedFBC water injection rate of 15 ml/day; and RSC = 20%.2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyproprionic acid (2,4,5-TP)11,2007,467 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 8.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.UraniumNNS2,800 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 3.00E-03),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Xylenes (total)2,800,000 186,667 The standard was calculated using FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 0.2),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Zinc420,000 T 280,000 T The standard was calculatedusing FBC method for non-carcinogens (Rfd = 0.3),revised FBC water ingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.

# 45 Methodologies for Deriving Criteria for th e Partial Body Contact Designated Use

The Department derived numeric water quality criteri a for the partial body contact (PBC) designated use

using the following equation:

Rfd * RSC * 70 kg

15 ml/day

In this equation, Rfd is the reference dose, RSC is the relative source contribution factor, 70 kg is the

average weight of a human male in kilograms, and 15 ml/d ay is the incidental water ingestion rate in milliliters

per day. The equation is the same equation used to derive numeric criteria for non-carcinogens for the full body

contact designated use.

This equation is different from the methods the Departme nt has used in previous rulemakings to calculate

PBC criteria. When PBC criteria were originally pr oposed in 1992, the Department followed recommendations

for water quality criteria for the PBC designated use de veloped by members of the regulated community and

published in “Proposed Human Health Ambient Water Qu ality Standards for Arizona” (EBASCO Environmental,

et. al 1990). EBASCO recommended a criteria development method for PBC that included using reference doses

and average weight of the human male of 70 kg but with an incidental water ingestion rate of 0.5 liter (500 ml).

In 2002, the Department revised the EBASCO methodology b ecause it used what the Department considered to

be an unreasonable incidental water ingestion rate of 500 ml to derive the PBC criteria (a rate that was 10 times

higher than the incidental water ingestion rate used to calculate the FBC criteria in 1992). In 2002, the

Department used the following equation to derive PBC criteria:

Rfd x 70 kg

50 ml/day

This rulemaking revises the incidental water ingesti on rate for both the FBC and PBC designated uses to 15

ml/day. The incidental water ingestion rate for the PBC designated use should not be higher than the rate used for

the FBC designated use. In the absence of reliable data to derive PBC criteria based on dermal exposures or

another incidental ingestion rate, the rulemaking relies on incidental water ingestion rate used in the FBC

methodology to derive criteria for the PBC designated use.

The rulemaking adopts numeric criteria for the par tial body contact designated use using the following

decision criteria:

1. Calculate a criterion using the PBC equation using available Rfds. If an Rfd is not available in the

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) but a surr ogate Rfd is available, such as a Minimum Risk

Level (MRL) from the Agency for Toxic Substa nces and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a PBC

criterion is calculated using the MRL; and

2. A criterion for the partial body contact designated us e was not derived if there was no Rfd or MRL.

The following table presents the existing and proposed criteria for the PBC designated use. The table

identifies the pollutant, the current PBC criterion, the proposed PBC criterion, and the reasons for any proposed

changes. The use of a revised water ingestion rate and an RSC factor resulted in more stringent numeric criteria

for the partial body contact designated use. The table lists only those pollutants where a change or repeal has

# 46 been made.47Numeric Water Quality Standards for Partial Body ContactPollutantExisting PBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted PBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for ChangeAcenapthene84,000 56,000 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 6.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Acrolein700467 The standard was calculated usingPBC method (Rfd = 5.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Acrylonitrile56,000 37,333 The standard was calculatedusing PBC method (Rfd = 0.04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Alachlor14,0009,333 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 1.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Aldrin4228 The standard was calculated usingPBC method (Rfd 3.00E-05), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Anthracene420,000 280,000 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 3.00E-01), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Antimony560 T747 T The standard was calculated usingPBC method (Rfd = 4.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 40%.Arsenic420 T280 T The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 3.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Atrazine49,000 32,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 3.50E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Benzene933,733 The standard was calculated usingPBC method (Rfd = 4.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Benzidine4,2002,800 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 3.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.48PollutantExisting PBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted PBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for ChangeBeryllium2,800 T 1,867 T The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether 56,000 37,333 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd 4.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Boron126,000 T 186,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-01), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Bromodichloromethane28,000 18,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day and RSC = 20%.Bromoform28,000 18,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Bromomethane2,0001,307 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 1.40E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Butyl benzyl phthalate280,000 186,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-01), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Cadmium700 T700 T The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 5.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Carbofuran7,0004,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 5.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Carbon tetrachloride9801,307 The standard was calculatedusing PBC method (Rfd = 7.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 40%.Chlordane700467 The standard was calculated usingPBC method (Rfd = 5.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Chlorine (total residual)140,000 4,000 The maximum residualdisinfection level (MRDL) has been adopted from EPA’s 199849PollutantExisting PBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted PBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for ChangeFinal Rule for Disinfectants and Disinfection-By-Products. Proposed concentration isthe level to avoid eye and skin irritation.Chlorobenzene28,000 18,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Chloroform14,000 9,333 The standard was calculatedusing PBC method (Rfd = 0.01), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.2-Chloronapthalene112,000 74,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 8.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.2-Chlorophenol7,0004,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 5.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.ChloropyrifosNot in existingrules2,800 The standard was calculated using PBCmethod (Rfd = 3.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Chromium III2,100,000 T 1,400,000 T The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 1.50E+00, revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Chromium VI4,200 T 2,800 T The standard was calculatedusing PBC method (Rfd = 3.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Chromium (total)100 TNone No Rfd or MRL exists to calculate a PBC criterion.Cyanide (as free cyanide) 28,000 T 18,667 T The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Dalapon42,000 28,000 The standard was calculated usingPBC method (Rfd = 3.00E-02); revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day and RSC = 20%.Dibromochloromethane28,000 18,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.50PollutantExisting PBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted PBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for Change1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 2,800None No Rfd or MRL exists to calculate a PBC method or criterion.1,2-Dibromoethane0.058,400 The standard was calculatedusing PBC method (Rfd = 9.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Dibutyl phthalate140,000 93,333 The standard was calculatedusing PBC method (Rfd = 1.00E-01), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.1,2-Dichlorobenzene126,000 84,000 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 9.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.1,4-Dichlorobenzene560,000 373,333 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 0.4), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.p,p’-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD)5.8 467 The standard was calculated using PBCmethod (Rfd = 5.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.p,p’-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE)4.1 467 The standard was calculated using PBCmethod (Rfd = 5.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.p,p’-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)700 467 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 5.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.1,2-Dichloroethane 280,000 186,667 Thestandard was calculated using PBC method (MRL = 2.00E-01), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.1,1-Dichloroethylene12,600 46,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 5.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene 28,000 18,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Dichloromethane84,000 56,000 The standard was calculatedusing PBC method (Rfd = 6.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.51PollutantExisting PBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted PBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for Change2,4-Dichlorophenol4,2002,800 The standard was calculatedusing PBC method (Rfd = 3.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.2,4-Dichlorophenoxyaceticacid (2,4-D)14,0009,333 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 1.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.1,2-Dichloropropane126,000 84,000 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 0.09), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.1,3-Dichloropropene42028,000 The standard was calculatedusing PBC method (Rfd = 3.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Dieldrin7047 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 5.00E-05), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Diethyl phthalate1,120,000 746,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 8.00E-01), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate 840,000 560,000 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 6.00E-01), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 28,000 18,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.2,4-Dimethylphenol28,000 18,667 The standard was calculatedusing PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol5,6003,733 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 0.004), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.2,4-Dinitrophenol2,8001,867 The standard was calculatedusing PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.2,4-Dinitrotoluene2,8001,867 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-03), revised PBC water52PollutantExisting PBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted PBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for Changeingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.2,6-Dinitrotoluene 5,600 3,733 Thestandard was calculated using PBC method (MRL = 4.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Di-n-octyl phthalate560,000 373,333 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 0.4), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Dinoseb1,400933 The standard was calculated usingPBC method (Rfd = 1.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Diquat3,0802,053 The standard was calculated usingPBC method (Rfd = 2.20E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Endosulfan sulfateNNS5,600 The standard was calculatedusing PBC method (Rfd = 6.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Endosulfan (total)8,4005,600 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 6.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Endothall28,000 18,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Endrin420280 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 3.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Ethylbenzene140,000 93,333 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 1.00E-01), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Fluoranthene56,000 37,333 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 4.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Fluorene56,000 37,333 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 4.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.53PollutantExisting PBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted PBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for ChangeFluoride84,000 140,000 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 6.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 50%.Glyphosate140,000 93,333 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 1.00E-01), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Heptachlor700467 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 5.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Heptachlor epoxide1812 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 1.30E-05), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Hexachlorobenzene1,120747 The standard was calculatedusing PBC method (Rfd = 8.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Hexachlorobutadiene 280 187 Thestandardwas calculated using PBC method (MRL = 2.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Hexachlorocyclohexane alpha 11,2007,467 Thestandard was calculated using PBC method (MRL = 8.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Hexachlorocyclohexane beta 840560 The standard was calculated using PBC method (MRL = 6.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Hexachlorocyclohexanegamma (lindane)420 280 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 3.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 9,80011,200 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 6.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 40%.Hexachloroethane1,400933 The standard was calculatedusing PBC method (Rfd = 1.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Isophorone280,000 186,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-01), revised PBC water54PollutantExisting PBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted PBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for Changeingestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.MalathionNot in existingrules18,667 The standard was calculated using PBCmethod (Rfd = 2.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Manganese196,000 T 130,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 1.40E-01), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Mercury420 T280 T The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 3.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Methoxychlor7,0004,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 5.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Napthalene28,000 18,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Nickel28,000 T 28,000 T The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 30%.Nitrate2,240,000 3,733,333 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 1.60E+00), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 50%.Nitrite140,000 233,333 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 1.00E-01), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 50%.Nitrobenzene700467 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 5.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 133,000 88,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (MRL = 9.5E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Oxamyl35,000 23,333 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2.50E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.55PollutantExisting PBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted PBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for ChangeParaquatNot in existingrules4,200 The standard was calculated using PBCmethod (Rfd = 4.50E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Pentachlorophenol42,000 28,000 The standard was calculatedusing PBC method (Rfd = 3.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.PermethrinNot in existingrules46,667 The standard was calculated using PBCmethod (Rfd = 5.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Phenol840,000 280,000 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 3.00E-01), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Picloram98,000 65,333 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 0.07), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs)28 19 The standard was calculated using PBCmethod (Rfd = 2.00E-05), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Pyrene42,000 28,000 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 3.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Selenium7,000 T 4,667 T The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 5.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Silver7,000 T 4,667 T The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 5.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Simazine7,0004,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 5.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Styrene280,000 186,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2.00E-01), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p- 1.4 0.0009 Thestandard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 1.00E-09), revised PBC water56PollutantExisting PBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted PBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for Changedixoiningestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 56,000 93,333 The standard was calculated using PBC method (MRL = 0.04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 50%.Tetrachloroethylene14,0009,333 The standard was calculatedusing PBC method (Rfd = 1.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.)Thallium112 T75 T The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 8.00E-05), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Toluene280,000 373,333 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 0.2), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 40%.Toxaphene1,400933 The standard was calculated using PBC method (MRL = 1.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene14,0009,333 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 1.00E-02), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 1,866,667 Thestandard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2), revised PBC water ingestionrate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5,600 3,733 Thestandard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 2), revised PBC water ingestionrate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Trichloroethylene280,000280 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 3.00E-04), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyproprionic acid (2,4,5-TP)11,2007,467 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 8.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.UraniumNNS2,800 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 3.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.57PollutantExisting PBCCriterion(μg/L)Adopted PBCCriterion(μg/L)Reason for ChangeVinyl Chloride4,2002,800 The standard was calculatedusing PBC method (Rfd = 3.00E-03), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Xylenes (total)2,800,000 186,667 The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 0.2), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.Zinc420,000 T 280,000 T The standard was calculated using PBC method (Rfd = 0.3), revised PBC wateringestion rate of 15 ml/day, and RSC = 20%.

# 58 Numeric Water Quality Standards for A quatic and Wildlife Designated Uses

Currently, there are numeric criteria for 98 pollutants to maintain and protect water quality for the aquatic

life and wildlife (A&W) designated uses. This rulemaki ng establishes new criteria or revisions, to existing

numeric A&W criteria for 59 parameters. In most cases, the § 304(a) national criteria recommendations to protect

freshwater aquatic life have been adopted. The national crite ria for total residual chlori ne have been adopted and

will provide for slightly less restrictive criteria for both acute and chronic aquatic life. The current water quality

standards are: acute = 11 μg/L and chronic = 5 μg/L. This rulemaking changes these values to: acute = 11 μg/L

and chronic = 19 μg/L.

New numeric water quality standards for previously unregulated pollutants include new A&W criteria for

chloropyrifos, guthion, hydrogen sulfide, ir on, malathion, mirex, paraquat, para thion, permethrin, and tributyltin.

The numeric water quality criteria for “sulfides” have been repealed and replaced with numeric criteria for

hydrogen sulfide. The current A&W criteria for beryllium has been repealed because EPA has withdrawn its

national § 304(a) criteria recommendations for the pollutant.

Several pollutants have been amended by rounding existi ng criteria to the nearest whole number or to the

first significant figure to the right of a decimal point.

No changes have been made to the current numeric water quality criteria for the aquatic and wildlife

(ephemeral) (A&We) designated use.

Criteria for hardness-dependent metals

The numeric water quality standards for certain metals are expressed as a function of hardness because

hardness can affect the toxicities of the metals to a quatic life. These “hardness-dependent” pollutants include

cadmium, chromium III, copper, lead, nickel, silver, and zi nc. Increasing hardness has th e effect of decreasing the

toxicity of the metals.

Currently, the numeric water quality criteria for these pollutants include a lower hardness cap of 25 mg/L.

This hardness cap is based on an earlier EPA national criteria recommendation that when the hardness of

freshwater is less than 25 mg/L, a hardness-dependent meta ls criterion should be calculated as if the hardness is

25 mg/L. EPA describes the available data for copper, zi nc, and cadmium in the 1-25 mg/L range as “somewhat

limited” and “quite limited” for silver, lead, chromium III, and nickel. EPA subsequently re-evaluated the limited

available data in the current metals criteria documents and determined that the data were “inconclusive.” EPA

expressed concern that capping hardness at 25 mg/L without additional data or justification could result in metals

criteria that provided less protection than that intende d by EPA’s “Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National

Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Orga nisms and Their Uses,” U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Research and De velopment, EPA 822/R-85-100, (1985).

EPA now recommends that hardness not be capped at 25 mg/L or any other hardness value on the lower

end. The rulemaking removes the lower hardness cap for the hardness-dependent pollutants to include numeric

metals criteria in the 1-25 hardness range.

The following table provides the dissolved acute and di ssolved chronic criteria for the hardness-dependent

# 59 metals. Individual tables are shown by metal type and de signated use, and are calculated using the equation and

appropriate hardness criterion.60HARDNESS-DEPENDENT DISSOLVED METALS CRITERIASTANDARDSFRESHWATER CONVERSIONFACTORS (CF)A&WcA&WwA&WedwA&WeAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteCHEMICALmAbAmCbCmAbAmCbCmAbAmCbCmAbAACUTECHRONICCadmium1.0166-3.9240.7409-4.7191.0166-2.5610.7409-3.8941.0166-2.5610.7409-3.8941.0166-1.4971.136672-[(lnhardness)(0.041838)]1.101672-[(lnhardness)(0.041838)]Chromium III0.81903.72560.81900.68480.81903.72560.81900.68480.81903.72560.81900.68480.81904.93610.3160.860Copper0.9422-1.70.8545-1.7020.9422-1.70.8545-1.7020.9422-1.70.8545-1.7020.9422-1.15140.9600.960Lead1.273-1.4601.273-4.7051.273-1.4601.273-4.7051.273-1.4601.273-4.7051.273-0.71311.46203-[(lnhardness)(0.145712)]1.46203-[(lnhardness)(0.145712)]Nickel0.84602.2550.84600.05840.84602.2550.84600.05840.84602.2550.84600.05840.84604.43890.9980.997Silver1.72-6.59−−1.72-6.59−−1.72-6.59−−1.72-6.590.85--Zinc0.84730.8840.84730.8840.84730.8840.84730.8840.84730.8840.84730.8840.84733.13420.9780.978Hardness-dependent metals’ criteriamay be calculated from the following:Acute (dissolved) = exp {mA[ln(hardness)]+ bA} (CF)Chronic (dissolved) = exp {mC[ln(hardness)]+ bC} (CF)

# 61 Criteria for Pentachlorophenol

The criterion equation for pentachlorophenol requires th e insertion of receiving water pH to develop the

applicable water quality standards. Th is rulemaking uses three tables to show for pentachlorophenol standards.

The equations to develop the water quality standards and companion tables are:

A&Wc acute standard: e (1.005 (pH) - 4.830)



# A&Wc chronic standard: e (1.005 (pH) - 5.290)



# A&Ww acute standard: e (1.005 (pH) - 4.830)



# A&Ww chronic standard: e (1.005 (pH) - 5.290)



# A&Wedw acute standard: e (1.005 (pH) - 4.830)



# A&Wedw chronic standard: e (1.005 (pH) - 5.290)



# A&We acute standard: e (1.005 (pH) - 3.4306)



# A&Wedw chronic criterion for dissolved mercury

The rulemaking revises the A&W(edw) chronic standard for dissolved mercury from 0.2 μg/L to 0.01

μg/L. The current A&W(edw) chronic criterion for disso lved mercury of 0.2 μg/L was adopted in 1992. The

following documentation on the calculation of the A&W(edw) chronic criterion for mercury from 1992 explains

how this criterion was derived:

“The proposed standard was based on toxicity to aquatic life. However, mercury has a

propensity to accumulate in tissues of aquatic life to levels that may be harmful to wildlife or

human consumers. These routes of exposure s hould also be considered in developing A&W

standards. The EPA publication “Ambient Wate r Quality Criteria for Mercury – 1984,” U.S.

EPA, Office of Water, EPA 440/5-84-026 (Ja nuary 1985) does not contain information

regarding the effects of mercury on wildlife but does contain information on the effects of

mercury on humans. Setting a standard based st rictly on toxicity to aquatic life may not

adequately protect wildlife. The rulemaking uses an FDA action level as a surrogate to protect

wildlife. This seems appropriate because wildlif e is more like humans than aquatic life. The

mercury standard has been recalculated usi ng the more appropriate Final Residue Value

procedure. The equation used is:

FDA action level

(Bioconcentration factor)

Where the FDA action level for mercury is 1.0 mg/kg and the bioconcentration factor for

mercury is 4,994 L/kg. (Criteria Document, p. 47), the recalculated A&Wedw chronic standard

is 0.2 μg/L.”

The methodology used in 1992 to recalculate the A&We dw chronic criterion has been modified. An FDA

action level as a surrogate value is no longer supporte d to protect aquatic life and wildlife in EDWs. The

bioconcentration factor of 4,994 L/kg used in 1992 to cal culate the chronic criterion significantly underestimates

the bioaccumulation potential of mercury in the aquatic environment. More recent information indicates that

# 62 concentrations of total mercury in fish at the top of the food chain may be as much as 10,000 to 100,000 times

higher than the concentrations of inorganic mercur y found in surrounding waters (Source: EPA Fact Sheet,

“Mercury Update: Impact on Fish Advi sories,” EPA-823-F-99-016 (September, 1999).

The rulemaking adopts the same chronic criterion for dissolved mercury that was adopted for the A&Wc

and A&Ww designated uses. The Department empl oyed the EPA methodology described in the national

“Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and

Their Uses,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, EPA 822/R-85-100,

(1985) to derive water quality criteria for mercury. Th e Guidelines methodology calls for the calculation of a

Final Residue Value [FRV] if a maximum permissibl e tissue concentration and at least one acceptable

bioconcentration factor determined from an aquatic speci es are available. The Department calculated a FRV for

mercury using data from EPA’s National Ambient Water Quality Criteria Document for Mercury – 1984. The

FRV of 0.012 μg/L became the A&Wc and the A&Ww criteri on to protect against chronic toxicity from mercury.

The Guidelines Methodology is a more appropriate method to derive A&Wedw chronic criteria than the use of

FDA action levels to calculate the A&Wedw (chronic) criterion.

Numeric Criteria for Total Ammonia for Effluent-Dependent Waters

This rulemaking adopts numeric water quality criteria for total ammonia for the A&Wedw designated use.

The Clean Water Act requires the Department to adopt water quality standards for all uses including effluentdependent waters that contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect designated uses. Ammonia is a

major toxicant of concern in Arizona’s effluent-dependent waters. There is a large body of scientific literature

documenting ammonia toxicity to aquatic life, including t oxicity to species that are known to inhabit effluentdependent waters. Therefore, the Department adopted numeric criteria to protect aquatic life in EDWs. The

adoption of numeric water quality criteria for ammonia fo r the A&Wedw designated use is necessary to protect

the use and will provide an objective basis for the esta blishment of water quality-based effluent limits in

AZPDES permits to control toxic discharges of ammonia in wastewater to Arizona’s effluent-dependent waters.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has repeatedly recommended that the Department include ammonia as a

pollutant to be regulated in Arizona’s effluent-dep endent waters, noting that Arizona’s EDWs are vital

components of southwestern desert ecosystems, provi ding valuable replacement habitat for threatened and

endangered species, including the Gila topminnow, Yuma cl apper rail, and the Southwestern willow flycatcher,

and other native and migratory birds.

The ammonia criteria are based on “1999 Update of Am bient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia,” U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA-822-R-99-014 (December 1999), EPA’s most recent

national § 304(a) criteria recommendations to protect fresh water aquatic life. The proposed ammonia criteria for

A&Wedw, which consist of both acute and chronic criteria, are expressed as total ammonia concentrations (i.e.,

un-ionized ammonia (NH 3 

# ) + ionized ammonia (NH 4 + 

# ).

Acute

# 63 The § 304(a) criteria for total ammonia to protect ag ainst acute toxicity are dependent on pH and the

presence or absence of salmonids (i.e., large trout). Wher e salmonids are present, EPA recommends that the acute

criterion be calculated using the following equation:

Acute criterion = 0.275 + 39.0

1+ 10 7.204-pH 

# 1 + 10 7.204-pH



# The acute criterion for total ammonia was calculate d for the A&Wc designated use using the equation

recommended by EPA above. The results may be found in the fi rst column of Table 25 in the current rules. There

are no revisions of acute A&Wc criteria in this rulemaking.

Where salmonid fish are not present, EPA recommends the calculation of acute criteria for total ammonia

to protect aquatic life using the following equation:

Acute criterion = 0.411 + 58.4

1 + 10 7.204-pH 

# 1 + 10 7.204-pH



# The acute criterion for total ammonia was calculated for the A&Ww and the A&Wedw designated uses

using this equation. The results may be found in the second column of Table 25 in the current rules. There are no

revisions to the resulting numeric criteria for the A&Ww (acute) designated use in this rulemaking.

This rulemaking applies the same numeric criteria fo r the A&Ww (acute) designated use to protect the

A&Wedw (acute) designated use. The A&Wedw (acute) cr iteria has been recalculated using the EPA Guidelines

methodology and adjusting the species toxicity datasets using representative species from effluent-dependent

waters. The use of recalculation procedures did not re sult in any significant differences between A&Wedw and

A&Ww acute criteria because the same species that are sensitive to ammonia toxicity that “drive” the criteria

derivation are found in both warm surface waters and EDWs . The table below illustrate s the minimal differences

between the A&Ww(acute) criteria and the re-calculated A&Wedw (acute) criteria:

pH Calculated

A&Ww

(in mg/L) Recalculated

A&Wedw

(in mg/L)

6.5 47.6 48.9

6.6 45.7 46.9

6.7 43.5 44.6

6.8 41.0 42.0

6.9 38.2 39.2

7.0 35.2 36.1

7.1 32.0 32.9

7.2 28.8 29.6

7.3 25.6 26.2

7.4 22.4 23.0

# 64 7.5 19.4 19.9

7.6 16.6 17.0

7.7 14.1 14.5

7.8 11.8 12.2

7.9 9.9 10.1

8.0 8.2 8.4

8.1 6.8 7.0

8.2 5.6 5.7

8.3 4.6 4.7

8.4 3.8 3.9

8.5 3.1 3.2

8.6 2.6 2.7

8.7 2.1 2.2

8.8 1.8 1.8

8.9 1.5 1.6

9.0 1.3 1.3

Chronic

The A&W(chronic) criteria for total ammonia are de pendent on both pH and temperature. The national §

304(a) recommendations for chronic toxicity for total amm onia that apply when early life stages of fish are

expected to be present have been adopted because of the likelihood that early life stages of fish may be present in

Arizona surface waters (including EDWs) at any time during the year. The following equation was used to

calculate the chronic criteria for total ammonia for the A&Wc, A&Ww, and A&Wedw designated uses:

Chronic criteria = 

# ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

+ +

+ − − 688.7 688.7 

# 101 487.2

101 0577.0

pH pH 

# * MIN 2.85, 1.45 * 10 0.028 * (25-T)



# The results are found in Appendix A within Table 26. The chronic criteria are not species dependent and

apply equally to the A&Wc, A&Ww, and A&Wedw designated uses. The chronic criteria for total ammonia

become more stringent as temperature and pH values increase.

The following table shows proposed changes to the aqua tic and wildlife criteria. The table identifies the

pollutant, the current A&W criteria, the proposed A&W criteria, and the reasons for any proposed changes.65Numeric Water Quality Standards for Aquatic and Wildlife Designated UsesPollutantExisting A&W Criteria(μg/L)Adopted A&W Criteria(μg/L)Reason for ChangeAldrinA&W(c) acute: 2.0A&W(w) acute: 2.0A&Wedw acute: 2.0A&W(c) acute: 3A&W(w) acute: 3A&Wedw acute: 3Less stringent. The § 304(a) national criteria recommendations foraldrin have been adopted.AmmoniaA&Wedw acute: NNSA&Wedw chronic: NNSAcute and chronicA&Wedw criteriaSee Tables 25 and 26The ammonia criteria for A&Wedw have been updated based onEPA’s § 304(a) national criteria recommendations. See discussionunder “Numeric Water Quality Standards for Aquatic and WildlifeDesignated Uses” above.ArsenicA&Wc acute: 360A&Ww acute: 360A&Wedw acute: 360A&Wc chronic: 190A&Ww chronic: 190A&Wedw chronic: 190A&Wc acute: 340A&Ww acute: 340A&Wedw acute: 340A&Wc chronic: 150A&Ww chronic: 150A&Wedw chronic: 150More stringent. The § 304(a) national criteria recommendations forarsenic have been adopted.BerylliumA&Wc acute: 65A&Ww acute: 65A&Wedw acute: 65A&Wc chronic: 5.3A&Ww chronic: 5.3A&Wedw chronic: 5.3NoneEPA has withdrawn its national § 304(a) criteria recommendationsto protect aquatic life for beryllium.ChlordaneA&Wc acute: 2.4A&Ww acute 2.4&Wedw acute: 2.4A&Ww chronic: 0.21A&Wc acute: 2.4A&Ww acute: 2.4A&Wedw acute: 2.4A&Ww chronic: 0.2The standard has been rounded to the first significant figure to theright of the decimal point.66PollutantExisting A&W Criteria(μg/L)Adopted A&W Criteria(μg/L)Reason for ChangeA&Wedw chronic: 0.21 A&Wedw chronic: 0.2Chlorine (total residual)A&Wc acute: 11A&Ww acute: 11A&Wedw acute: 11A&Wc chronic: 5A&Ww chronic: 5A&Wedw chronic: 5A&Wc acute: 19&Ww acute: 19A&Wedw acute: 19A&Wc chronic: 11A&Ww chronic: 11A&Wedw chronic: 11Less stringent. The § 304(a) national criteria recommendations forchlorine have been adopted.ChloropyrifosNoneA&Wc acute: 0.08A&Ww acute: 0.08A&Wedw acute: 0.08A&Wc chronic: 0.04A&Ww chronic: 0.04A&Wedw chronic: 0.04New parameter. The § 304(a) national criteria recommendationsfor chloropyrifos have been adopted.p,p’-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD)A&Ww chronic: 0.02A&Wedw chronic: 0.02A&Ww chronic: 0.001A&Wedw chronic: 0.001More stringent. DDD and DDE have been consolidated with DDT.The more stringent chronic criterion for DDT (0.001) has beenadopted for DDD. DDD is a daughter product of DDT. Thecriterion is based on EPA § 304(a) national criteriarecommendations.p,p’-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE)A&Ww chronic: 0.02A&Wedw chronic: 0.02A&Ww chronic: 0.001A&Wedw chronic: 0.001More stringent. DDD and DDE has been consolidated with DDT.The more stringent chronic criterion for DDT (0.001) has beenadopted for DDE. DDE is a daughter product of DDT. Thecriterion is based on EPA § 304(a) national criteriarecommendations.DieldrinA&Wc acute: 2.5 A&Wc acute: 0.2 The more stringent acute criteria and less stringent chronic criteria67PollutantExisting A&W Criteria(μg/L)Adopted A&W Criteria(μg/L)Reason for ChangeA&Ww acute: 2.5A&Wedw acute: 2.5A&Wc chronic: 0.002A&Ww chronic: 0.002A&Wedw chronic: 0.005A&Ww acute: 0.2A&Wedw acute: 0.2A&Wc chronic: 0.06A&Ww chronic: 0.06A&Wedw chronic: 0.06for dieldrin based on EPA § 304(a) national criteriarecommendations have been adopted.EndosulfanA&Wc acute: 0.22A&Ww acute: 0.22A&Wedw acute: 0.22A&Wc acute: 0.2A&Ww acute: 0.2A&Wedw acute: 0.2The standard has been rounded to first significant figure to right ofdecimal point.Endosulfan sulfateA&Wc acute: 0.22A&Ww acute: 0.22A&Wedw acute: 0.22A&Wc acute: 0.2A&Ww acute: 0.2A&Wedw acute: 0.2The standard has been rounded to first significant figure to right ofdecimal point.EndrinA&Wc acute: 0.18A&Ww acute: 0.18A&Wedw acute: 0.18A&Wc chronic: 0.002A&Ww chronic: 0.002A&Wedw chronic: 0.002A&Wc acute: 0.09A&Ww acute: 0.09A&Wedw acute: 0.09A&Wc chronic: 0.04A&Ww chronic: 0.04A&Wedw chronic: 0.04The more stringent acute criteria and less stringent chronic criteriafor endrin based on EPA § 304(a) national criteriarecommendations have been adopted.Endrin aldehydeA&Wc acute: 0.18A&Ww acute: 0.18A&Wedw acute: 0.18A&Wc chronic: 0.002A&Ww chronic: 0.002A&Wedw chronic: 0.002A&Wc acute: 0.09A&Ww acute: 0.09A&Wedw acute: 0.09A&Wc chronic: 0.04A&Ww chronic: 0.04A&Wedw chronic: 0.04The rulemaking adopts more stringent acute criteria and lessstringent chronic criteria for endrin aldehyde. Proposed criteria arebased on EPA § 304(a) national criteria recommendations.GuthionNoneA&Wc chronic: 0.01 New parameter.The criteria are based on EPA § 304(a) national68PollutantExisting A&W Criteria(μg/L)Adopted A&W Criteria(μg/L)Reason for ChangeA&Ww chronic: 0.01A&Wedw chronic: 0.01criteria recommendations.HeptachlorA&Wc acute: 0.52A&Ww acute: 0.52A&Wedw acute: 0.58A&Wedw chronic: 0.013A&Wc acute: 0.5A&Ww acute: 0.5A&Wedw acute: 0.6A&Wedw chronic: 0.01The standard has been rounded to first significant figure to right ofdecimal point.Heptachlor epoxideA&Wc acute: 0.52A&Ww acute: 0.52A&Wedw acute: 0.58A&Wedw chronic: 0.013A&Wc acute: 0.5A&Ww acute: 0.5A&Wedw acute: 0.6A&Wedw chronic: 0.01The standard has been rounded to first significant figure to right ofdecimal point.HexachlorobenzeneA&Ww acute: NNSA&Wedw acute: NNSA&Ww chronic: NNSA&Wedw chronic: NNSA&Ww acute: 6A&Wedw acute: 6A&Ww chronic: 3.7A&Wedw chronic: 3.7The rulemaking adopts criteria for A&Ww and A&Wedw based onEPA § 304(a) national criteria recommendations.Hexaclorocyclohexane gamma(lindane)A&Wc acute: 2.0A&Ww acute: 3.4A&Wedw acute: 7.6A&Wc chronic: 0.08A&Ww chronic: 0.28A&Wedw chronic: 0.61A&Wc acute: 1A&Ww acute: 1A&Wedw acute: 1A&Wc chronic: NoneA&Ww chronic: NoneA&Wedw chronic: NoneBased on EPA § 304(a) national criteria recommendations, themore stringent acute criteria has been adopted and the chroniccriteria for lindane has been repealed.Hydrogen sulfideNoneA&Wc chronic: 2A&Ww chronic: 2A&Wedw chronic: 2New pollutant. Replaces “sulfides.” Proposed criteria are based onEPA § 304(a) national criteria recommendations.IronNoneA&Wc chronic: 1,000 New pollutant.The § 304(a) national criteria recommendations69PollutantExisting A&W Criteria(μg/L)Adopted A&W Criteria(μg/L)Reason for ChangeA&Ww chronic: 1,000A&Wedw chronic: 1,000have been adopted.MalathionNoneA&Wc chronic: 0.1A&Ww chronic: 0.1A&Wedw chronic: 0.1New pollutant. The § 304(a) national criteria recommendationshave been adopted.MercuryA&Wedw acute: 2.6A&Wedw chronic: 0.2A&Wedw acute: 2.4A&Wedw chronic: 0.01See discussion under “Numeric Water Quality Standards forAquatic and Wildlife Designated Uses” above.MethoxychlorA&Wc chronic: NNSA&Ww chronic: NNSA&Wedw chronic: NNSA&Wc chronic: 0.03A&Ww chronic: 0.03A&Wedw chronic: 0.03The § 304(a) national criteria recommendations have beenadopted.MirexNoneA&Wc chronic: 0.001A&Ww chronic: 0.001A&Wedw chronic: 0.001Newly regulated pollutant. The § 304(a) national criteriarecommendations have been adopted.ParathionNoneA&Wc acute: 0.07A&Ww acute: 0.07A&Wedw acute: 0.07A&Wc chronic: 0.01A&Ww chronic: 0.01A&Wedw chronic: 0.01Newly regulated pollutant. The § 304(a) national criteriarecommendations have been adopted.ParaquatNoneA&Wc acute: 100A&Ww acute: 100A&Wedw acute: 100A&Wc chronic: 54A&Ww chronic: 54Newly regulated pollutant. The § 304(a) national criteriarecommendations have been adopted.70PollutantExisting A&W Criteria(μg/L)Adopted A&W Criteria(μg/L)Reason for ChangeA&Wedw chronic: 54PermethrinNoneA&Wc acute: 0.3A&Ww acute: 0.3A&Wedw acute: 0.3A&Wc chronic: 0.2A&Ww chronic: 0.2A&Wedw chronic: 0.2Newly regulated pollutant. The § 304(a) national criteriarecommendations have been adopted.PhenanthreneA&Wedw acute: 54 A&Wedw acute: 30 The EPA § 304(a) national criteria recommendation for A&Wedwacute criterion have been adopted.SeleniumA&Wc acute: 20 TA&Ww acute: 20 TA&Wedw acute: 50 TA&Wc acute: NoneA&Ww acute: NoneA&Wedw acute: NoneThe § 304(a) national criteria recommendations for acute criteria,expressed as concentrations of selenate and selenite have beenrepealed.SulfidesA&Wc acute: 100A&Ww acute: 100A&Wedw acute: 100A&We: 100None“Sulfides” has been replaced with “hydrodgen sulfide.”2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)A&Wedw acute: 0.12A&Wedw chronic: 0.01A&Wedw acute: 0.1A&Wedw chronic: 0.005The A&Wedw acute standard has been rounded to the firstsignificant figure to right of decimal point. The more stringentA&Wedw chronic criterion has been adopted to be consistent withEPA § 304(a) national criteria recommendations for dioxin.ToxapheneA&Wc acute: 0.73A&Ww acute: 0.73A&Wedw acute: 0.73A&Wc acute: 0.7A&Ww acute: 0.7A&Wedw acute: 0.7Acute criteria have been amended by rounding to the firstsignificant figure to the right of the decimal point. The morestringent A&Ww chronic and A&Wedw chronic criteria have been71PollutantExisting A&W Criteria(μg/L)Adopted A&W Criteria(μg/L)Reason for ChangeA&Wc chronic: 0.0002A&Ww chronic: 0.02A&Wedw chronic: 0.02A&Wc chronic: 0.0002A&Ww chronic: 0.0002A&Wedw chronic: 0.0002adopted to be consistent with the § 304(a) national criteriarecommendations for toxaphene.TributyltinNoneA&Wc acute: 0.5A&Ww acute: 0.5A&Wedw acute: 0.5A&Wc chronic: 0.07A&Ww chronic: 0.07A&Wedw chronic: 0.07Newly regulated pollutant. The § 304(a) national criteriarecommendations for A&Wc, A&Ww and A&Wedw have beenadopted.1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene A&Wedw acute: NNSA&Wedw chronic: NNSA&Wedw acute: 1,700A&Wedw chronic: 300The current acute and chronic A&Ww criteria for A&Wedw havebeen adopted.

# 72 Appendix B. Surface Waters and Designated Uses

Appendix B lists surface waters and their designated us es. The geographic descriptions in Appendix B have

been updated and reformatted. Lake cate gories have been added, when known.

The following 29 new effluent-dependent waters have been classified using information provided to the

Department in the context of AZPDES permitting. The ne w effluent-dependent waters are created by point source

discharges of wastewater to ephemeral waters. Inform ation from AZPDES permit applications, fact sheets, and

discharge monitoring reports for each point source document discharges of wastewater to the ephemeral waters.

1. Coconino Wash from the South Grand Canyon Sanitary District Tusayan WRF outfall to 1 km

downstream.

2. Unnamed wash from Grand Canyon National Park Desert View WWTP to Cedar Canyon.

3. Unnamed wash from Valle Airpark WRF outfall to confluence with Spring Wash.

4. Tyson Wash from Town of Quartzsite WWTP to 1 km downstream.

5. Puerco River from Sanders Unified School District WWTP to 0.5 km downstream.

6. Unnamed wash from High Country Pines II WWTP to Turkey Draw to confluence with Black

Canyon Creek.

7. Unnamed wash from Bison Ranch WWTP to Pierce Seep.

8. Unnamed wash from Black Mesa Ranger Station WWTP to confluence with Pierce Wash.

9. Bow and Arrow Wash and two unnamed washes, tribut aries of the Rio de Flag from Estates at Pine

Canyon Golf Course storage ponds 4I, 6E, and 10D.

10. Agua Fria River from City of Avondale WWTP to Gila River.

11. Andorra Wash from Town of Cave Creek WWTP outfall #1 to Cave Creek Wash.

12. Galloway Wash from Town of Cave Creek WWTP outfall #2 to confluence with Andorra Wash.

13. McMicken Wash from City of Peoria Jomax WWTP to Agua Fria River.

14. Mountain Valley Park ponds from Town of Pr escott Valley WWTP outfall #002 to Navajo Wash.

15. Salt River from City of Mesa Northwest WWTP to Tempe Town Lake.

16. Siphon Draw from Superstition Mountains Community Facilities District WWTP to 6 km

downstream.

17. Unnamed wash from City of Phoenix Cave Creek WRF to 0.5 km downstream.

18. Unnamed wash from North Florence WWTP, tributary to Gila River.

19. Wagner Wash from Town of Buckeye Festival Ranch WRF to 2 km downstream.

20. Black Wash from Pima County WWMD Avra Valley WWTP to Brawley Wash.

21. North Branch of Santa Cruz Wash from C ity of Casa Grande WRF to 1 km downstream.

22. Santa Rosa Wash from Palo Verde Utilities WWTP to Gila River Indian Reservation.

23. Unnamed wash from Arizona City Sanitary District WWTP to Santa Cruz Wash.

24. Unnamed wash from Saddlebrooke WWTP to Canada del Oro.

25. Unnamed wash from Fort Huachuca WWTP to Soldier Creek to Babocomari River.

26. Pinal Creek from Lower Pinal Creek WTP to See Ranch Crossing.

27. Unnamed wash from Cobre Valley Plaza WWTP to Russell Gulch.

# 73 28. Unnamed wash from Sedona Venture WWTP to confluence with Dry Creek and Dry Creek for 0.5

km downstream.

29. Unnamed wash from Flagstaff Meadows WWTP to Volunteer Wash.

This rulemaking removes the Cholla Reservoir from Appendix B. In the early 1990s, the Cholla Reservoir,

a manmade cooling pond for the Arizona Public Service Co. (APS) Cholla Power Plant near Joseph City,

Arizona, was issued a National Pollutant Discharge E limination System permit by EPA based on the agency’s

understanding that the reservoir had been constructed in a water of the United States. As a result of this

understanding, the Cholla Reservoir was added to the state’s list of surface waters in Appendix B. Recent

investigation finds that the Cholla Reservoir is a 100 acre manmade impoundment constructed by APS in 1961. It

is a terminal impoundment without any outflow to what w ould otherwise be considered a “water of the United

States.” The source of water for the Cholla Reservoir is pumped groundwater. As the Cholla Reservoir was not

created by impounding any “water of the United States,” nor was the reservoir created within a “water of the

United States,” the reservoir has been removed from Appendix B based on a new exclusion at R18-11-102(B)(3).

Appendix C. Site-Specific Standards

This new Appendix lists site-specific standards.

Site-Specific Standards for Yuma East Wetlands

The site-specific standards for total selenium and total residual chlorine for the Yuma East Wetlands

Project are supported by a request by the City of Yuma to modify the two standards on grounds of net ecological

benefit. The modification of the water quality standards fo r selenium and total residual chlorine will enable the

City of Yuma to discharge spent filter backwash water from their Main Street Water Treatment Plant to the Yuma

East Wetlands Project. The Yuma East Wetlands Project is a multi-million dollar river ecosystem restoration

effort designed to restore, enhance, and augment riparian habitats for native and sensitive riparian plant and

wildlife species, and to create natural history and cultu ral interpretation centers and recreational facilities along

the Lower Colorado River. The restoration of these habitats depends upon the discharge of filter backwash water

to maintain adequate flows of water in the wetlands, pa rticularly during periods of low flow in the Colorado

River. Without the discharge of the filter backwash wate r, the viability of a large portion of the Yuma Wetlands

East Project would be jeopardized.

Under R18-11-106, the Director may modify a water quality standard on the grounds that there is a net

ecological benefit associated with the discharge of effluent to support or create a riparian and aquatic habitat in an

area where water resources are limited.

The Director has determined the conditions of R18- 11-106 have been met to support modifications of the

water quality standards for selenium and total residual chlorine and to allow the discharge of filter backwash

water for flow augmentation in the Yuma East Wetlands on grounds of net ecological benefit

The environmental benefits associated with the discharg e of filter backwash water to support the restoration

of the Yuma East Wetlands outweigh the environmental co sts associated with eliminating the discharge. The

discharge of filter backwash water for flow augmentation is essential to the maintenance and restoration of open

# 74 water and marshland habitats within the wetlands. Only the discharge of filter backwash water can assure the

continual water flow necessary to maintain the marshes of the Yuma East Wetlands.

The cost of treatment to achieve compliance with th e selenium and total residual chlorine standards are

prohibitive and it would be more cost-effective to eliminate the discharge of the filter backwash water to the

wetlands instead of installing the necessary treatment pr ocesses. Achieving compliance with the total residual

chlorine standard would require the installation and opera tion of a dechlorination facility at the water treatment

plant. The City of Yuma estimates that the capital cost of a de-chlorination facility is in excess of $1 million. The

estimated cost of compliance with the selenium standard would require the installation of reverse osmosis or a

similar treatment process to remove dissolved solids from the spent filter backwash water. The City of Yuma

estimates the capital cost of selenium treatment to be $8.2 million with estimated operation and maintenance

costs of $1.3 million per year and further describes thes e costs as “economically impossible.” Moreover, it is

feasible for the City of Yuma to completely eliminate the discharge of filter backwash to the Yuma East

Wetlands. Spent filter backwash is currently recycled within the water treatment plant and is not discharged.

There are no costs associated with maintaining the status quo of recycling the filter backwash water instead of

discharging it to augment flows in the wetlands. The City of Yuma could avoid the compliance costs associated

with meeting the selenium and chlorine standards by not discharging their filter backwash water to the wetlands.

However, the success of the wetlands project would be jeopa rdized if the City of Yuma exercised that option.

The discharge of filter backwash water that meets the site-specific standards will not cause or contribute to

a violation of a water quality standard for a downstream surface water. The concentration of total residual

chlorine in the filter backwash water is not anticipated to cause or contribute to a violation of the chlorine

standard that applies to the adjacent Colorado River. Concen trations of chlorine are expected to dissipate in the

filter backwash water pipeline, at the point of discharg e to the wetlands, and by retention within the wetlands and

marsh habitats. With regard to selenium, the City of Yuma does not add or remove selenium from the filter

backwash water at its water treatment plant. The concentr ation of selenium in the filter backwash water is the

same as the concentration of selenium in its raw intake water from the Colorado River.

The City of Yuma demonstrated that it is implementing all practicable discharge control programs to

reduce and limit the concentration of chlorine in its filter backwash water. The Department agrees with the City

that there are no practicable discharge control programs that the City can implement to reduce selenium in its raw

source water or in its filter backwash water.

The discharge of filter backwash water does not produce or contribute to the concentration of a

bioaccumulative pollutant that is likely to be harmful to humans or wildlife through food chain concentration.

This condition is met with regard to chlorine because chlorine is not a bioaccumulative pollutant. While selenium

is a bioaccumulative pollutant, the discharge of filter b ackwash water does not produce or contribute to selenium

concentrations in either the Yuma East Wetlands or in the Colorado River. The concentration of selenium in the

filter backwash water is the same as that found in the raw source water from the Colorado River.

The rulemaking modifies the water quality standard appli cable to this discharge for total residual chlorine

to protect aquatic life from acute and chronic toxicity. Th e acute criterion is 33 μg/L and the chronic criterion is

20 μg/L. These criteria are based on EPA recalculation procedures and the species list for chlorine toxicity, which

# 75 is located on the EPA website at www.epa.gov/region7/water/chlorine. The only adjustment made in the

recalculation procedure was to remove the organism Daphnia magna from the toxicity dataset. The resulting

chlorine criteria, calculated from the modified da taset, are the criteria of 33 μg/L and 20 μg/L.

The rulemaking modifies chronic selenium criterion appli cable to this discharge to protect aquatic life of

2.2 μg/L. This concentration is based on the highest se lenium concentration that has been measured in the

receiving water within the Yuma East Wetlands. This concentration represents the observed background

concentration in the lower Colorado River. The site-specific criterion is slightly less stringent than the default

A&Ww chronic criterion for selenium of 2 μg/L in the cu rrent rules and it is more stringent than EPA’s 304(a)

national recommended chronic criterion for selenium to prot ect freshwater aquatic life of 5 μg/L. The Department

notes that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has written a letter of support for the site-specific modifications of the

selenium and chlorine standards for the Yuma East Wetlands project.

Site-Specific Standard for Copper for Rio de Flag

The site-specific dissolved copper standards for the Rio de Flag have been moved from R18-11-113(F) to

Appendix C.

7. A reference to any study relevant to the rule that the agency reviewed and relied on in its evaluation of o r

justification for the rule, where the public may obtain or review each st udy, all data underlying each study,

and any analysis of each study and other supporting material:

“Antidegradation Implementation Procedures,” Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Water

Quality Division, (July 2008)

Draft “Biocriteria Implementation Procedures,” Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Water

Quality Division, (April 2008)

“Technical Support Documentation for the Narrative Bi ocriteria Standard,” Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, (April 2007)

“Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biol ogical Effects and Control,” American Fisheries Society Monograph 7,

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland (1995)

Draft “Narrative Bottom Deposits Standard Implementa tion Procedures for Wadeable, Perennial Streams,”

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, (April 2008)

Draft “Narrative Nutrient Standard Implementation Procedures for Lakes and Reservoirs (April 2008)

“Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria – 1986, ” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Water, EPA 440/5-84-002 (January, 1986)

“Fossil Creek: State of the Watershed Report, ” Northern Arizona University (July 2005)

“Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Hu man Health: Methylmercury,” U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Sc ience and Technology, EPA-823-R-01-001 (January 2001)

“Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteri a for the Protection of Human Health,” U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, EPA-822-B-00-004,

(October 2000)

# 76 “Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic

Organisms and Their Uses,” U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, Office of Research and Development, EPA

822/R-85-100, (1985)

“Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Mercury – 1984,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Water, EPA 440/5-84-026 (January 1985)

“1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Water, EPA-822-R-99-014 (December 1999)

“Pinto Creek Site-Specific Water Quality Standard for Dissolved Copper,” Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, (March 12, 2007)

“Lakes and Reservoirs Statistical and Modeling Analysis Report,” Malcolm Pirnie, February 2005

“Addendum to Lakes and Reservoirs Statistical and Modeling Analysis,” Malcolm Pirnie, February 2005

“Potential Nutrient-related Targets for Arizona La kes and Reservoirs,” Malcolm Pirnie, April 2005

“San Pedro and Santa Cruz Rivers: Nutrient Standa rds Review,” Arizona Department of Environmental

Health Services (ADHS) (September, 1985)

“An Exploration of Nutrient and Community Variab les in Effluent Dependent Streams in Arizona,”

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, OFR 05-09

8. A showing of good cause why the rules are necessary to promote a st atewide interest if the rules will

diminish a previous grant of authority of a political subdivision of this state:

The proposed amendments do not diminish a previous gr ant of authority of a political subdivision of this

state.

9. The summary of the economic, sm all business, and consumer impact:

Water quality standards are provisions of state law re quired by the Clean Water Act, and require review

and revision once every three years. These standards ar e implemented through various surface water programs at

the Department, including the AZPDES permitting program, authorized under § 402 of the Clean Water Act for

point source discharges of pollutants. Persons most aff ected by this rulemaking are AZPDES permittees. From an

economic cost standpoint, permittees may experience cost s through conditions established in future AZPDES

permits to achieve the surface water quality standards of th ese rules. Some permittees, such as private and public

wastewater utilities, mining operations, and electric utilitie s, may be required to make wastewater treatment

changes to comply with new permit conditions to regulate their discharges.

In addition to costs, there are benefits to these rules. These rules ensure that clean water will be available as

a source for drinking water, bathing, cooking, washing cl othes, and is safe for swimming, fishing, boating,

wading, or other water-based recreation. The rules also protect aquatic and ri parian ecosystems that are dependent

on a surface water. It is, however, much more difficu lt to quantify these benefits in monetary terms.

The Department does not require the costs of wastewater treatment to be submitted as part of the AZPDES

permitting program, so any specific information on costs has been obtained from permittees or knowledgeable

individuals in the area of wastewater treatment.

# 77 For purpose of this analysis, the Department define s annual costs or revenues on a cost-revenue scale as

follows:

Minimal

 less than $10,000

Moderate

 $10,000 to $1 million

Substantial

 more than $1 million

A. Estimated Costs and Benefits to the Department of Environmental Quality.

The Department may incur minimal costs in implementing this rulemaking. It is possible that new or

revised water quality standards and new implementation pr ocedures for narrative standards may lead to an

increase in the number of surface waters that are id entified as impaired waters. This may result in a

corresponding increase in the number of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that the Department would

be required to complete under the Clean Water Act. The Department does not anticipate any increase in

FTEs or state funding to complete additional TMDLs.

There are some new costs for monitoring under narrative standards, but the Department expects these costs

to reduce over time due to fewer sampling visits in th e field. Narrative standard measurements provide a

longer, more direct measure of the water quality and can show a recent history of the health of a surface

water, instead of just a snapshot as with a chemical-based numeric standard. Accordingly, monitoring costs

incurred by the Department may be reduced by this rulemaking.

B. Estimated Costs and Benefits to Political Subdivisions.

Political subdivisions are affected by the rules if th ey own or operate sewage treatment plants, and

their costs are discussed below in section C. There may be additional costs for some political subdivisions

that have a pretreatment program under the Clean Wa ter Act. The pretreatment program requires political

subdivisions to control industrial wastewater discharged to the sanitary sewer before it is mingled with

domestic sewage and discharged at the treatment facility. These facilities, called publicly-owned treatment

works (POTW), have the authority to establish wate r quality standards and issue permits to industrial

facilities that discharge pollutants to the sanitary sewer to control the industrial wa stewater and ensure that

water quality standards are met. POTWs may incur minimal-to-moderate costs in reviewing the new

surface water quality standards to ensure their own compliance and to evaluate the need to change limits

and controls on local industrial wastewater to ensu re compliance under their AZPDES permit. If changes

are necessary, a POTW would make necessary changes to its future permits issued to industrial facilities or

through its local regulations.

Local industries generating industrial wastewater coul d indirectly be affected if the POTW requires

changes in local limits in order to meet new su rface water quality standards. Currently, 21 Arizona

municipalities have pretreatment programs.

C. Businesses Directly Affected By the Rulemaking

Surface water quality standards are implemented through various general and individual permits

# 78 under the AZPDES permitting program, authorized under § 402 of the Clean Water Act and A.R.S. Title

49, Chapter 2, Article 3.1 for point source discharges of pollutants. Businesses affected by this rulemaking

are AZPDES permittees who discharge as a point source to a water of the United States.

Below are the numbers of authorizations for the curre nt five-year AZPDES general permits. Most of these

permits are held by businesses:

AZPDES GENERAL PERMITS

General Permit Category # Per Category

Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) 1039

Construction General Permit (CGP) 3800

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer

System (MS4) (Phase II permits) 41

De Minimus General Permit 472

There are potential impacts to those discharging under an AZPDES general permit; however, the

Department does not expect these rule changes to a ffect significantly large numbers of permittees. The De

Minimus permit regulates minor discharges resulting from specified activities and is generally restricted to

discharges containing minimum pollutant amounts. Th e other three general permits regulate stormwater

discharges primarily by requiring the use of best mana gement practices (BMPs) to lessen pollutants. These

rules may impact a permittee if a surface water change s classification, such as ephemeral to effluentdependent, or if a numeric standard becomes stricter . The rules also may impact a permittee if under the

new narrative standards criteria, a water is listed as impaired under 18 A.A.C. 11, Article 6. A project

located near an impaired or water that seeks general permit coverage, especially the CGP and De Minimus,

could see increased monitoring requirements or add itional BMPs being required to protect water quality.

For example, a small or medium MS4 is not typically required to monitor under the current general permit.

This would change if the MS4 had to determine the source of a pollutant if its stormwater discharge

contributed to an exceedance of a new water quality standard. Any facility permitted under a general permit

with discharges that are above a new water quality st andard could lose eligibility under the general permit

and be required to seek an individual permit with mo re specific requirements. The Department expects only

minimal, if any, impact to each permittee discharging under general permits.

The outstanding Arizona water (OAW) classification can affect existing and potential facilities that

discharge to an OAW. Tier 3 of the antidegradation rule prohibits a new or expanded point source directly

discharging to an OAW. Antidegradation protection in cludes a tributary to, or upstream of, an OAW. An

AZPDES applicant must demonstrate that the regulated discharge will not degrade existing water quality in

the downstream OAW. OAW designation does not prohibit a discharge activity but it generally may make

it more expensive in treatment costs or to divert a discharge.

# 79 The Department is designating two new surface waters as OAWs; Fossil Creek and Davidson

Canyon. Fossil Creek is located on U.S. Forest Serv ice land, with some of the area designated as a

Wilderness Area. Arizona Public Service (APS) is disc harging under an existing permit but will be ending

its discharge activities in 2011. There are numerous closed mining claims along Fossil Creek

 even

though mining has not been a reported historical activity in this area. Any holder of a closed mining claim

in this area that seeks to reactivate a claim to devel op mining will not be able to discharge to Fossil Creek

in a manner that would degrade the existing water quality. Land use in this area is mainly grazing and

recreation. While Arizona does not have a regulator y program to directly control nonpoint sources of

pollution such as grazing, the intention of the Tier 3 antidegradation policy is that best management

practices be developed and implemented to prevent the degradation of existing water quality in an OAW.

The Department is aware of a few mining claims in the area that would face limitations on

discharging to Davidson Canyon or to any of its tribut aries. The Department has no data that any sand and

gravel or cement operation has been permitted in or around Davidson Canyon.

It is unclear what economic costs a potential discharger to these new OAWs would bear. Any

potential costs of discharging to a designated OAW s hould be weighed with the benefits that come from

increased tourism of the area, as further discussed below.

The Department believes that the changes in thes e rules will affect a relatively small number of

existing AZPDES individual permittees, though costs ma y be moderate or subs tantial, depending on the

specific case. Permit conditions are reviewed and revised as applicable when permittees apply for renewal,

usually every five years. These permittees would incu r costs if their discharge contains pollutants in a

concentration that may result in an exceedance of a new surface water quality standard.

The Department has reviewed the comments regarding the economic impact of this rulemaking.

While the comments present an apparent “worst case scenario”, the Department assumes that permittees

affected by this rulemaking actually will exercise ever y lawful option to delay, defray, and minimize any

costs to their business and consumers. Two options to delay, defray, or minimize costs are offered in

existing rules. One, there is the opportunity to reque st a compliance schedule in a permit when a facility

cannot meet a new water quality standard. This allows the facility time to evaluate, design and construct

treatment or other means of meeting the new standard . R18-11-121 (Schedules of Compliance). In addition,

R18-11-122 (Variances) allow the Depa rtment flexibility in issuing AZPDES permits when there has been

a change in water quality standards. The Department cu rrently has 33 variances for a variety of pollutants,

though some are multiples on the same permitted facility. There are 11 other permits with compliance

schedules to meet water quality standards for a variety of pollutants.

Under new provisions in R18-11-113(E) (Effluent -Dependent Waters), the Department has

flexibility to conclude that acute-only standards are sufficiently protective for point source discharges of

wastewater when the discharge is infrequent, sporadic, or an emergency. This will allow AZPDES permits

to be written without chronic water quality standard s when conditions are appropriate. If applicable, a

discharger that provides adequate treatment will unlik ely exceed acute standards, therefore this provision

would likely result in cost savings to the discharger in not having to institute additional treatment measures

# 80 to meet chronic standards. Under this provision, th e permittee will need to have sufficient discharge and

storage options such that surface water discharge wa s infrequent, sporadic or on an emergency basis.

The table below shows the number of AZPDES individual permits, broken down by category type.

The individual permittees most likely to be affect ed by this rulemaking include owners of domestic

wastewater treatment plants (sewage treatment plants ), and some industries such as mining and electric

power generation. Other industries could be impacted on a case-by-case basis, similar to how permittees of

general permits could be impacted.

AZPDES INDIVIDUAL PERMITS

By Industry # of Permits

Sewage treatment plants (municipal & private) 113

Drinking water treatment plants & well discharges 7

Power Generation 7

Mining 12

WQARF/Remediation projects 7

Miscellaneous (EPNG, Lakeside, Rio Salado, FD) 4

Fish hatcheries 4

Truck Stops 3

Marinas 2

Industrial (other) 1

Costs to Sewage Treatment Plants

Rule changes may require some sewage treatment plants to incur costs to meet water quality-based

discharge limitations established in an AZPDES perm it. There are possible minimal increased monitoring

costs based on a new numeric standard, but a number of variable factors make it difficult to quantify any

increased costs for public and privat ely owned sewage treatment plants.

Sewage treatment plants collect a nd treat wastewater, which is mostly sewage, and is as most people

think, “untreated wastes from toilets, baths, sinks, lavato ries, laundries, other plumbing fixtures, and waste

pumped from septic tanks in places of human habitation, employment, or recreation.” R18-9-101(35).

Federal and state laws require primary and secondary treatment before the sewage is discharged to a

receiving water. Basic treatment processes are physi cal (removes solids), biological (uses bacteria to

consume organic matter), and chemical (chemicals used to create changes in pollutants or kill harmful

organisms).

Compliance costs for a typical sewage treatment pl ant can be difficult to quantify because of the

various contributing factors, including:

● Capital costs of new equipment and land;

● Operation and maintenance of new equipment;

# 81 ● Waste capture and disposal, selling, or reuse;

● Change in production processes or inputs; and

● Maintenance changes in other equipment.

Whether treated sewage may cause an exceedance of a surface water quality standard to the

receiving water depends on such factors as:

● Type or degree of treatment;

● Size of flow from the treatment plant;

● Characteristics of sewage from the treatment plant;

● Amount and quality of flow from industrial contri butors and the status of pretreatment plans;

● Amount of flow in the receiving water that that can be used for dilution;

● Quality of the receiving waters;

● Amount of mixing between the discharged sewage and receiving waters; and

● Uses of receiving waters.

Assuming a sewage treatment plant is faced with a discharge that has a reasonable potential to cause

an exceedance under the new standards, a number of options exist to achieve compliance. A sewage

treatment plant would first consider the feasibility of low cost options, and only consider the more costly

options if necessary. If adjusting existing operations w ould not be feasible or would not be sufficient to

achieve the desired reductions, the next lowest cost option could be controlling the source of the

wastewater, such as contributions from industrial users. The feasibility of source control efforts depends on

the make-up of the influent. For example, industria l discharges can be regulated through pretreatment

regulations, but residential sources would have to be targeted through public outreach and education, which

may have low participation rates and may not result in adequate reductions.

If the relatively low-cost options would not be sufficient for compliance, alternative discharge

options or end-of-pipe treatment technologies may be necessary, such as diverting flow to recharge or

reuse, land application, impoundments, or changing the outfall location to a different area with different

water quality standards. The feasibility of each option would need to be considered; for example, an

impoundment may not be feasible for a major facility with a large flow because the necessary amount of

land may not be available. Remaining options come with greater capital expenditures, such as reducing the

volume of discharge by reusing effluent, or inst alling treatment technology to reduce pollutants.

An example of the cost of a sewage treatment plan t is the expansion of the City of Casa Grande

Water Reclamation Facility. Due to a 68 percent growth in population, the facility is planning to double its

capacity from 6 to 12 million gallons per day, and incr ease the effluent quality. It is reported that the

expansion will cost $67,129,710 and includes prelimin ary treatment, anoxic/aerobic basins, secondary

clarification and return activated sludge/waste, te rtiary treatment, effluent pumping and conveyance

system, and solids stream expansion. Notably, this expansion was planned before and separate from this

rulemaking, so these actual costs cannot nece ssarily be attributed to these rules.

Another example is Pima County’s major renovati on and expansion of its regional wastewater

system due to aging infrastructure, population growth, and necessary environmental compliance. Pima

# 82 County is planning to construct a new water reclam ation campus to replace its aging Roger Road water

reclamation facility, which first opera ted in 1951. Costs of this new water reclamation facility are estimated

at $235.2 million. Also, as discussed below, the costs of retrofitting a plant can be more than constructing a

new one. Pima County plans to upgrade and expand its Ina Road water reclamation facility, designed in

1973, and constructed from 1975 to 1977. These costs ar e estimated at $244 million. However, these are

gross project costs; the fraction of these costs th at may be required to meet new surface water quality

standards is not specified by the project proponent. This plan was developed in large part for compliance

with existing water quality standards in Pima Count y’s existing AZPDES permits for these facilities.

If a publicly-owned sewage treatment plant must incu r costs to achieve compliance with these rules,

then options exist for financial assistance. The Wa ter Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA) is an

independent agency in Arizona and is authorized to finance the construction, rehabilitation, and/or

improvement of drinking water, wastewater, wa stewater reclamation, and other water quality

facilities/projects. Generally, WIFA offers borrowers below-market interest on loans for 100 percent of

eligible project costs. As a “bond bank,” WIFA is able to issue water quality bonds on behalf of

communities for basic water infrastructure, providing si gnificant savings due to lower interest rates and

shared/reduced closing costs. WIFA is able to lower a borrower’s interest costs to between 70 and 100

percent of WIFA’s tax-exempt cost of borrowing. WIFA’s principal tool for providing low-interest

financial assistance for publicly and privately held sewer treatment plants is the Clean Water Revolving

Fund, which is capitalized by contributions from the st ate and the U.S. Congress. In fiscal year 2007,

WIFA executed loans in the amount of $133,448,342 to nine sewer treatment plants (or sewer-related

projects). Three of the loans awarded were to comm unities with regulatory compliance issues. WIFA also

manages a Technical Assistance (TA) program. The TA program offers pre-design and design grants to all

eligible wastewater and drinking water systems. Bo th pre-design and design loans are available. The

purpose of the TA program is to enhance project readiness to proceed with a WIFA project construction

loan. In fiscal year 2007, WIFA provided $302,756 in gr ants for technical assistance to 11 sewer treatment

plants.

Ammonia Standard

Based on comments received, the Department recognizes that changes in some rules will have more

direct impact on sewage treatment plants than other rule changes.

The new numeric water quality standard for ammonia in surface waters with the A&W(edw)

designated use may result in new water quality-based discharge limitations in AZPDES permits for sewage

treatment plants discharging to existing effluent-dep endent waters (EDW) or ephemeral streams, with

accompanying costs. Ammonia, a regulated pollutant, is a component of total nitrogen. Total nitrogen in

sewage is typically composed of ammonia, nitrate, organic nitrogen, and soluble organic nitrogen. With

only primary and secondary wastewater treatment, nitr ogen usually is not removed to a sufficient level.

Nitrogen discharged into surface waters can cons ume and deplete the oxygen in the water, damaging

aquatic fauna, which also need the oxygen. Nitrogen in th e form of ammonia is highly toxic to aquatic life.

# 83 For sewage treatment plants that have no other ma nagement options to achieve compliance with the

ammonia standard, the most cost-effective method of ammonia removal is accomplished through the

advanced treatment of biological nutrient removal (BNR ) processes. The biological processes that remove

the various forms of nitrogen from sewage ar e called nitrification and denitrification.

BNR Systems Overview

There are at least six common BNR treatment processes currently available to remove ammonia and

nitrate from sewage. The BNR configuration that is a ppropriate for any particular sewage treatment plant

depends on the target effluent quality (e.g., the appli cable ammonia and nitrate criteria), sewage treatment

plant operator experience, influent quality, and exis ting sewage treatment processes (if retrofitting an

existing facility to meet the standards). In general, new sewage treatment plants have more flexibility and

options when deciding which BNR system to implem ent because they are not constrained by existing

treatment processes and sludge handling procedures. Retrofitting an existing sewage treatment plant to

provide ammonia removal involves consideration of the following factors:

● Aeration basin size and configuration,

● Clarifier capacity,

● Type of aeration system,

● Sludge processing units, and

● Operator experience.

The aeration basin size and configuration of an existing sewage treatment plant dictates which BNR

configurations are the most economical and feasible . If a sewage treatment plant has available excess

capacity, it may reduce the need for construction of additional basins which may allow for a more complex

BNR configuration. The need for additional basins may require the sewage treatment plant to purchase

additional land if the space needed is not available. If land is not available, another BNR configuration will

have to be considered. Clarifier capacity influences the effluent-suspended solids concentration, which

affects effluent total nitrogen levels. Existing clarifiers may need to be modified to achieve target total

nitrogen levels in the discharged effluent. Similarly, the sewage treatment plant will need to modify the

existing aeration system to provide for aerobic and an aerobic zones in the sewage treatment train. The

manner in which sludge is processed at an existing sewa ge treatment plant is important to the design of the

BNR system. Sludge must be recycled within the sewa ge treatment process to provide the organisms and

bacteria necessary for ammonia and nitrate removal a nd operators need to adjust treatment processes to

compensate for changing conditions in the plant. BNR treatment processes are sensitive to influent

conditions, including weather events and sludge pro cessing. Sufficient operator skill and training are

essential for achieving the target effluent concentrations of ammonia and total nitrogen.

BNR Systems Costs

BNR treatment systems will differ for new sewage treatment plants and retrofits. New plant BNR

costs are based on estimated influent quality, target effluent quality, and available funding. Retrofit costs

# 84 are more site-specific and may vary considerably for any given size category of sewage treatment plant. No

economic studies have been conducted in Arizona to estimate the costs of upgrading sewage treatment

plants to provide BNR. However, EPA conducted st udies in Maryland and Connecticut for BNR upgrade

costs, Biological Nutrient Removal Processes and Costs, which provides guidance as to potential costs

associated with retrofitting existing sewage treatmentplants in Arizona as may be required on a case-bycase basis as a result of this rulemaking. The cap ital costs ranged from a low of $1,375,866 for a 2.5 mgd

(million gallons per day) plant to a high of $138,305,987, for a 180 mgd sewage treatment plant, all in 2006

dollars. The same EPA report provided costs for BNR upgrades to existing sewage treatment plants in

Connecticut. The total costs of BNR retrofits ranged from $649,320 to $22,074,225.

These figures appear on the low end of what the Department has seen in informal communications

with municipalities in recent years. Based on conversa tions with various municipalities, new plant costs for

BNR technology in Arizona likely range from $6-12 per ga llon while retrofit facilities may cost as little as

$2-4 per gallon but likely average in the $6-8 per gallon range, which is in keeping with EPA’s calculated

average unit capital costs shown below. One example for which there are estimates for full nitrification and

denitrification using the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger pr ocess, is the upgrade to the Nogales International

Wastewater Treatment Plant. The project, currently 30 percent constructed, will cost over $62 million

dollars for a 14.7 mgd facility. Costper-treatment gallon is approximately $4.40 and estimated annual

operating costs are $5.3 million. Another example is th e expansion of the Casa Grande Water Reclamation

Facility, which as part of its $67 million costs, includes $4,239,724 for a nitrification/denitrification and

BOD (biological oxygen demand) removal system.

The EPA study underscores that site-specific factor s such as existing treatment system layout and

space availability may cause costs to vary significantly between treatment plants with the same design

capacities that are implementing the same type of BNR treatment upgrade. The study shows that despite

this variability in costs, the unit cost per million ga llons per day generally decreases as the size of the

sewage treatment plant increases due to economies of scale. EPA calculated the following average unit

capital costs for BNR upgrades at the Maryland and Connecticut sewage treatment plants:

Average Unit Capital Costs for BNR Upgrades at

MD and CT Sewage Treatment Plants

Flow (in mgd) Cost/mgd (in $2006)

> 0.1 – 1.0 $6,972,000

> 1.0 – 10.0 $1,742,000

> 10.0 $588,000

The Department expects similar average unit capital costs for sewage treatment upgrades to provide

ammonia and nitrate removal for existing facilities in Arizona that do not already meet the new standard

with flows of 100,000 gpd (gallons per day) or more. Small BNR systems of less than 0.1 mgd are usually

pre-engineered, factory or field-assembled package plan t systems. Capital costs for package plants for new

# 85 small systems (<100,000 gpd) that can provide ammonia and nitrate removal will vary depending on the

treatment process installed and the size of the pack age plant. Construction costs include all required

facilities for a package plant on a new site and range from approximately $350,000 for a 4,000 gpd package

plant to $1.5 million for a 100,000 gpd package plant. Annual operation and maintenance costs include

labor, electricity, maintenance and repair, solids handling and disposal, administration, laboratory

analytical costs, and chemical costs, and range from $25,000/year for the smallest plant (4,000 gpd) to over

$160,000/year for the largest package plant (100,000 gpd).

The EPA study of BNR costs for retrofitting sewage treatment plants in Maryland and Connecticut

suggests that the cost of upgrading existing sewage tr eatment plants in Arizona to provide BNR treatment

to remove ammonia and nitrate from effluents may be substantial for some communities. However most

sewage treatment plants have already incurred the costs for denitrification treatment upgrades due to

mandates under their required aquife r protection permits (APP). See A.R.S. § 49-241(B)(10); A.A.C. R18-

9-A202. As part of the APP process, a sewage treat ment plant has to demonstrate that it will use Best

Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT) . For sewage treatment plants, the treatment

performance standards for BADCT are specified in ru le at R18-9-B204 through B206. For most sewage

treatment plants, BADCT requires nitrate removal to meet the aquifer water quality standard of 10 mg/L,

which is the same as the surface water quality sta ndard of 10,000 μg/L. See R18-11-406(B); 18 A.A.C. 11,

Article 1, Appendix A, Table 1.

There are 36 EDWs currently identified in the rules that will be affected by the new numeric

ammonia criteria for EDW. This rulemaking adds 29 ne w EDWs. Most facilities discharging to these areas

already provide biological nutrient removal treatment , including nitrification to transform ammonia to

nitrate and denitrification to meet the current BADCT requirements for the APP permitting program. The

Department estimates that as many as 18 sewage treatment plants may be required, over a period of time, to

retrofit their existing facility and upgrade unit treatment processes to meet numeric ammonia standards if

they choose to continue discharging to surface waters. The Department expects that the additional

reductions necessary to meet surface water quality st andards will not require capital expenditures to the

same level as initial upgrades to install BNR systems. Independent of this rulemaking, discharges under

AZPDES permits are prohibited from being toxic to a quatic life. See R18-11-108(A)(5). Several of these

18 facilities have been discharging ammonia at a level showing toxicity to organisms. These facilities are

required to consider the options discussed above, in cluding additional treatment, despite the new ammonia

standard.

Between the new water reclamation facility and the upgrade to the Ina Road facility, Pima County

estimates that the new ammonia standard will cost $9,400 in total additional energy costs, increased

chemical costs of methanol treatment of $37,800 an nually and $300,000 for new storage, pumping and fire

safety equipment. The Department considers these estimated increased energy costs to be minimal to

moderate, and notes that in documentation submitted for its existing AZPDES permit, Pima County plans

to use methanol as part of treatment. It is unclear how much of the estimated costs for methanol is

necessary to meet the requirements of Pima County’s existing AZPDES permit due to existing ammonia

# 86 toxicity and how much is needed to meet the new ammonia standard.

Narrative Nutrient Standard Criteria in R18-11-108.03

A number of comments raised concerns about treat ment requirements to use reclaimed water as

source water in lakes and reservoirs, particularly in urban lakes. As noted in the response to comments,

there is considerable misunderstanding about how th e new narrative nutrient standard will be used to

support AZPDES permitting. The matrix was not deve loped to be end-of-pipe limitations unless all

other options fail. The standard will be applied in AZPDES permits, if necessary, once the assimilative

capacity of the lake is determined and the target parameters chosen based on the in-lake water quality

and the quality of the proposed discharge water.

Most lakes and reservoirs in Arizona are terminal systems, meaning they receive little inflow or

discharge little outflow, or both. Basically what enters the lake stays and accumulates over time.

Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, naturally occur in all surface waters. The natural balance

of these nutrients in a lake can be disrupted due to a wastewater discharge from a sewage treatment

plant, which contains high levels of nitroge n and phosphorus. Too many nutrients means algae

overgrowth, leading to high pH, low dissolved oxyge n, and periodic fish kills. The amount of algae

growth also depends on lake size, configuration, age, retention time and sources of inputs including

stormwater, irrigation runoff, and discharge.

Nitrogen should be less of a concern in algae production because of the new ammonia standard

for surface waters with the A&W(edw) designate d use, as discussed above. However, phosphorus

concentrations in reclaimed water tend to be higher than most lakes can assimilate without increased

algae growth. A wastewater discharge with phosphorus concentrations in the 0.5 mg/l range allows the

natural assimilation processes of a lake to better absorb this nutrient, allowing the lake to meet the

target ranges in the rule matrix.

If necessary, there are basically three options a sewage treatment plant can choose in order to

achieve the 0.5 mg/l phosphorus range for effluent discharging into the lake:

1. Retrofitting the existing sewage treatment plant to provide additional treatment;

2. Constructing a smaller treatment facility to reduce phosphorus before discharging to the

lake; or

3. Treatment in the lake, such as chemicals or aeration.

The treatment options depend on certain factors:

1. How often will effluent be discharged into an urban lake?

2. How much effluent will be discharged into an urban lake?

3. What is the phosphorus level in the effluent?

4. What is the phosphorus level in the lake?

5. How much phosphorus needs to be reduced?

Determining the costs to comply with the new narrative nutrient criteria will require permittees

to answer these key questions first and then weigh th e various options to decide which set of options is

# 87 the most cost-effective for its particular set of circumstances. Since each of these options is casespecific and dependent on factors such as volume of di scharge, level of pollutants in the effluent, and

quality of the receiving water, the Department pr esents a basic comparison of estimated costs by

treatment option.

Treatment Options

If the choice is to retrofit an existing sewage treatment plant, there are a number of treatment

technologies capable of reducing phosphorus in effluent to satisfactory levels. Two common

technologies are:

● Chemical addition with filtration: This involves adding chemicals to wastewater with

aluminum- or iron-based coagulants followed by tertiary filtration, which can reduce total

phosphorus concentrations in the final effluent to very low levels. It requires a capital

investment of chemical feed pumps, chemi cal storage and filters. Sludge production and

disposal will increase.

● Enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR): This is a biological process that

promotes growth of organisms that attract phosphorus. Sewage treatment plants which

utilize EBPR in the secondary treatment process can often reduce total phosphorus

concentrations to 0.3 mg/l or less, depe nding on the quality of wastewater influent.

Below is a cost comparison of the two processes to upgrade flows at a 16 mgd sewage treatment

plant. In this example, the plant upgrades for EB PR cost approximately $ 4.0 million, and reduce the

phosphorus concentration in the effluent from 5 mg/L to 1.1 mg/L (an 80 percent reduction). A plant

upgrade using chemical treatment alone can reduce phosphorus from 5 mg/l to 0.8 mg/l for $7.4 million

in capital costs. These costs increase 600 percent, or to $44.4 million, in order to reduce phosphorus to

0.4 mg/l. A combination of the two processes can produce effluent with a phosphorus concentration of

0.8 mg/l for $11.4 million but reducing to 0.4 mg/l will cost nearly 4.5 times, or $45 million. The cost

comparison underscores the importance of selecti ng the required phosphorus target reduction range.

Treatment Process EBPR

Only Chemical

Treatment Only EPBR +

Chemical Treatment

Target Effluent Phosphorus

(mg/L) 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.4

Total Capital Costs $4,000,000 $7,440,000 $44,440,000 $11,440,000 $48,440,000

Annual O&M Costs $1,870,000 $20, 000,000 $50,000,000 $9,600,000 $37,000,000

Total Costs $5,870,000 $27,440, 000 $94,440,000 $21,040,000 $85,440,000

Instead of retrofitting the sewage treatment pl ant to treat the entire wastewater stream, a

permittee may consider treating only that portion of the wastewater that will actually be discharged into

the lake. The Department looked at the costs of treating 50,000 gallons per day of wastewater to a

# 88 phosphorus concentration range of 0.5 mg/L. This assumes an average urban lake, which is about

fifteen acres, ten feet deep, requires approximately 50,000 gallons per day of makeup water during the

summer months. The costs to build a 50,000 gpd wastew ater treatment plant with chemical addition

and sand filtration, capable of achieving a 96 per cent removal of phosphorus to less than 0.5 mg/L

would be $1.5 to $2 million.

Alternatively, a small wetlands system also can be used to treat the effluent, assuming sufficient

land resources are available. Wetlands are highly eff ective at removing nutrients. The costs to construct

a small wetlands system to treat 50,000 gpd of wastewater would be $250,000 to $500,000. Wetlands

are not difficult to operate but do require periodic maintenance.

A final option to reducing phosphorus levels is in -lake treatment, which can be achieved with inlake alum application, allowing coagulated material to settle to the bottom. An average urban lake of

fifteen acres, ten feet deep, would have a volum e of 490 million gallons, and require approximately

1000 liquid gallons of aluminum sulfate (liquid being the preferred method of application). At $3 per

gallon, the cost per treatment would be $3000 for the ch emicals in addition to labor and materials costs.

The average urban lake might require alum applicati on about three to four times in the summer in order

to remove 80 percent of the available phosphorus from the water column.

Power Generation and Mining

Power plants and mines are also likely to be affected by surface water quality rule changes. As with

sewage treatment plants, some of the rule changes may require a permittee to incur costs to meet water

quality-based discharge limitations established in an AZPDES permit. There are possible minimal

increased monitoring costs based on a new numeric st andard. However, as with the sewage treatment

plants, economic challenges associated with wastewater disposal present themselves with and without this

rulemaking.

Based on public comments, the greatest economic impact will come from the change in the EDW

definition, which will require some permittees to treat their discharges to meet the chronic aquatic life

criteria for the first time, instead of the more lenien t standards for discharges that meet ephemeral water

standards. Under the previous rule, permittees that did not treat their wastewater had been allowed to

discharge higher levels of pollutants at levels that were not protective of aquatic life. The Department

estimates that there at least seven permitted industrial facilities that will be impacted by the change in EDW

definition. These permitted facilities will be eligible to request a compliance schedule or variance, as

discussed above, to delay or defray costs.

This rulemaking clarifies that any discharge of “was tewater” to an ephemeral water will require use

of EDW standards in the AZPDES permit and bri ngs parity to all permitted discharges without

distinguishing between treated and untreated discharges . With this change, all dischargers to the same

waterbody will be held to the same water quality re quirements. The Department acknowledges that some

permittees may incur moderate to substantial cost s to achieve compliance with the new surface water

quality standards under the EDW definition, although it is difficult to quantify those costs. In general,

# 89 power plants have not been required to treat cooli ng tower discharges, which due to cycling of water

through the cooling processes results in increasingly higher concentrations of metals, total dissolved solids

(TDS), and other pollutants. Mining facilities have implemented varying degrees of treatment, depending

on the wastewater generated whether it is stormwater, process wastewater or mine dewatering. Dewatering

is a commonly used method of coping with groundwater s eepage, mine excavations intersecting aquifers or

excessive rainfall on mining operations. These waters contain concentrated levels of metals from the

mineralized area and/or TDS.

To determine what costs a permittee would incur to meet new water quality-based discharge

limitations established in an AZPDES permit at some appropriate time in the future, the following factors

would have to be examined including:

● What are the pollutants for the facility?

● Which pollutants present in the discharge have a reasonable potential to violate a new

standard?

● What is the effect of this rulemaking on the previous wasteload allocation (i.e., what are the

revised AZPDES permit limits considering the revised chemical criteria, changes to the

stream designation, and eliminati on of protected flow provisions?)

● What are the existing effluent levels for each pollutant discharged under the current

AZPDES permit?

● Are the industrial wastewater streams for an individual facility segregated before discharge

and if so, what are the flow ra tes for each wastewater stream?

● Does the facility treat (or pre-treat) its wast ewater and if so, what type of treatment

technology is used?

● Where a reasonable potential to exceed a new standard exists, is additional treatment

necessary or are there alternatives available such as source reduction or recovery to reduce

the existing levels in the wastewater stream?

● What are the influent concentrations for each pollutant prior to any existing or anticipated

treatment process?

● Is eliminating all discharges a cost-effective option?

Most permitted power plants and mining operations have some options as to where wastewater

is discharged. Most power plants have more than one discharge location, with at least one location not

being a water of the United States, where they can discharge at certain times of the year or under

certain conditions. Mining operations generally ar e able to route waste streams to impoundments

within the mine site, except maybe during storm weat her events. Industries affected by this rulemaking

will need to explore these options, as well as c onsider discharge volumes, duration of discharge,

seasons, levels of pollutants, geography and other factors, in order to determine the most cos-effective,

viable and environmentally protective option or combination of options.

For purposes of this rulemaking, the Department has looked at several scenarios that a power

plant or a mine operation might consider if circumstan ces require the facility either to not discharge or

# 90 to treat the waste stream to meet the new standards. Below is a brief description of the disposal and

treatment options considered. Following each option is a discussion of how these options would impact

each industry. While costs depend on the site and operation specifics, there are certain assumptions

made to estimate impacts. For both mines and power plants, the Department assumes the pollutants of

concern will be elevated metals and/or salts in th e process water, dewatering water or cooling tower

blowdown. The Department also assumes due to volume and quality of these waste streams, direct

discharge to surface waters, injection into the aquife r, discharge to municipal sewers, or reusing the

water within the facility are not viable options w ithout treatment. These assumptions may or may not

be accurate in all cases.

Storage and Evaporation Options

In many cases, the simplest method for dispos ing of unusable wastewater is storage and

evaporation in lined surface impoundments. Lined evaporation ponds are a well developed and

common method for disposing of industrial wastewat ers and work extremely well in Arizona’s arid

climate. The costs associated with evaporation ponds are primarily the cost of land and necessary liners

to protect the aquifer and facility security, such as fencing. Optimal depths are less than 40 inches, and

operation and maintenance costs are relatively low. Periodic dredging and transport of sludge is an

added, occasional cost. Ponds work well for small to moderate waste streams. Large ponds in an urban

environment, especially where land prices are high, become less economically feasible. Cost modeling

shows a rapid increase in costs with increases in the volume of wastewater and location. An

evaporation pond sized to contain one million gallons per day of discharge for 30 days could cost

upwards of $20 million if it were constructed today in the East Valley, given land prices estimated in

excess of $200,000 per acre.

Impoundments can be used with other techniques. A new technology called Wind Aided

Intensified evaporation may eventually prove appropr iate for use in the southwest. It reduces the

overall surface area of the ponds by increasing evapor ation through the use of netting. This technology

would reduce the footprint of the ponds and ther efore reduce land costs but would have some

additional capital costs for piping, pumps and netting materials. Impoundments also can be combined

with chemical additions to provide various types of primary treatment to drop out metals and other

pollutants. The types, amounts and costs of the chem icals are directly related to the pollutants of

concern in the waste stream, such as metals, nutrients, and TDS.

Most mining operations are of such a scale th at lined surface impoundments are generally the

chosen method of disposal for excess process wa ter that cannot be discharged under an AZPDES

permit because of the low quality of the water. As most mines are in rural, undeveloped locations, land

prices are generally not prohibitive. For mining opera tions with limited land for storage, especially in

highly developed metropolitan areas or where discha rges are too high, the wastewater may require

treatment prior to disposal. Power plants in rural settings are able to utilize impoundments for

# 91 wastewater disposal, but for those facilities in the metropolitan area, land prices may make large

surface impoundments economically infeasible.

Treatment Options

The power plant industry, as well as municipalities, has been exploring zero liquid discharge

systems, which use a variety of treatment t echniques, often together with smaller surface

impoundments, to treat, recycle and reuse all pro cess wastewater leaving only the solids as a

concentrate. Two technologies are discussed here, both of which are currently being used in the electric

utility industry and could be transferred to other industries, including mining.

Brine concentrators convert highly saturated i ndustrial wastewater, such as process cooling

water, into distilled water for reuse, and a waste st ream. The waste stream is typically five to ten

percent of the influent stream. For example, 100 ga llons of highly saline wastewater would yield 90-95

gallons of distilled water (with low TDS) and five to ten gallons of waste stream concentrate. The

relatively small amount of waste stream concentrate can be disposed of in impoundments or, reduced to

a dry solid through a process that makes solid crystal from the concentrate, which can then be disposed.

The high quality water can be recycled within the plant or discharged under a permit. Brine

concentrators can treat about 700 gallons per minute or 1.2 million gallons per day. A limiting factor is

the cost of power to operate, which can range from 60-100 kilowatts per hour per 1,000 gallons of

source water. These brine concentrators are reliable and not difficult to operate, but do require trained

personnel to operate, as well as laboratory support.

Standard reverse osmosis (RO) is a separation pr ocess that uses pressure to force a solution

through a membrane that retains the concentrate on one side and allows the higher quality water to pass

to the other side. The membranes are specific to th e pollutants of concern. Depending on the quality of

water needed, RO systems can be constructed for multiple passes or arranged in series to achieve the

necessary water quality. The concentrate is then disposed of in impoundments or by other means.

High Efficiency Reverse Osmosis (HERO) is a newe r RO process that consists of three separate

steps, but upon completion, the RO water (good water) is available for recycling within the plant as

makeup water or can be discharged or injected in to the aquifer under a permit. The concentrated RO

water can be disposed of in impoundments or sent to a crystallizer to produce dry solid for landfilling.

The HERO process has a lower energy requirement but does require specialized personnel to operate

the system. The Griffith Energy Project near Kingm an installed a HERO-based system in 2001. The

plant is a 500 megawatt gas-fired, combined cycle unit. The Griffith facility is approximately the same

size as the Salt River Project K-7 plant in South Tempe and half the size of the Salt River Project

Santan plant in Gilbert. Initial findings at Griffith confirm the ability of the HERO system to reduce the

volume of wastewater by nearly 90 percent. The system was designed to handle approximately 300

gallons per minute.

A cost comparison of the HERO with Eva poration Pond and Brine Concentrator with

Evaporation Pond shows:

# 92 HERO w/ Evaporation Pond

$ x 1000 Brine Concentrator w/

Evaporation Pond $ x 1000

Total Direct Costs 6,450 7,375

Total Installed Costs 1 

# 8,400 9,365

Total Operating Costs

(annual) 430 978

1 

# includes direct and indirect costs



# D. Estimated Costs and Benefits to Private and Public Employment.

Private and public employments are not affected directly by these rules.

E. Estimated Costs and Benefits to Consumers and the Public.

It is easy to describe qualitatively the benefits of clean water as a source for drinking water, bathing,

cooking, washing clothes, and the inherent value of Arizona’s rivers and lakes that are safe for swimming,

fishing, boating, wading, or other wa ter-based recreation. There is also value in maintaining aquatic and

riparian ecosystems that are dependent on surface water. However it is much more difficult to quantify

these benefits in monetary terms. Because these ar e comprehensive rule changes, it would be next to

impossible to separate the benefits derived from each rule change from the overall benefit that surface

water quality standards have in achieving clean water. There are some monetary examples, however, that

help to demonstrate the value and benefit of these rules for ensuring clean water.

Recreation

According to the Arizona Department of Tourism, some of the top Arizona attractions revolve

around water. The following table shows the 2007 attenda nce for some of Arizona’s top water relatedattractions.

ATTRACTION ATTENDANCE

Tempe Town Lake 2,782,000

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 1,894,114

Lake Mead National Recreation Area 1,824,297

London Bridge 1,500,000

Lake Pleasant Regional Park 697,479

Lake Havasu State Park 329,529

Slide Rock State Park 305,759

Clean water is an essential component that cl early relates to these economically important

# 93 recreational activities. One example of the benefit of water quality standards for the designated use of full

or partial body contact is the Ironman Marathon held in Tempe. The swimming portion of the marathon is a

2.4 mile swim in Tempe Town Lake. The 2008 Ironman had just over 2,000 participants from all over the

world, competing for a $75,000 prize. According to the Tempe Convention and Visitors Bureau, the

Ironman competition generated approximately $5.1 million in 2007.

Fishing

A 2002 study on the economic importance of fishing and hunting, sponsored by Arizona Game and

Fish (AZGFD), showed that more than 255,000 a nglers spend an estimated $831.5 million on equipment

and trip-related expenditures annually. This spending supports more than 17,000 jobs, provides residents

with $314 million in salary and wages, and generates more than $58 million in state tax revenue. Based on

AZGFD’s 2006-2007 Annual Report, 483,642 fishing licenses were purchased for 2006, generating part of

the $14,740,686 revenue of hunting and fishing license sales for 2006.

Part of AZGFD’s fishing program includes the Urban Fishing Program, which is supported by the

sale of Urban Fishing Licenses and from fees from the city parks and recreation departments. During 2007,

over $500,000 was spent on stocking over 200,000 pounds of keeper-size channel catfish, rainbow trout,

and sunfish. Last year, over 55,000 urban anglers pa rticipated in fishing and accounted for over 650,000

angler recreation days. The number of urban fishing licenses for 2006 was 32,837. A constant challenge in

Arizona’s warm urban lakes is to monitor and manage pH levels and algae to ensure fish can be stocked.

Out of the 21 urban lakes listed as part of the Ur ban Fishing Program, ten are surface waters protected

under these rules.

Other Monetary Benefits

Agriculture is another measure where clean water is an absolute necessity for ensuring agricultural

productivity. As noted by the Arizona Department of Agriculture, Arizona agriculture produces cotton,

durum wheat, alfalfa, various produce like head lettuce, leaf lettuce, broccoli, cantaloupe, watermelon, and

citrus. Livestock also plays a big role in Ariz ona, both with cattle and sheep. The Department of

Agriculture reports that agricultural sales in Ariz ona generate $2.2 trillion annually, with Yuma County

generating $1,303,492,000. Although a percentage of agricultural productivity depends on groundwater,

surface water quality standards help maintain and prot ect surface water quality for irrigation and livestock

watering.

Another example of the value of clean water is the worth placed on Colorado River water, as

demonstrated through the Central Arizona Project (CAP). One of Arizona’s main sources of water is the

Colorado River, in which water is transported th rough the CAP. This 336 mile long canal provides, on

average, 1.4 million acre-feet (one acre-foot roughly equals 326,000 gallons) of water each year to nearly 2

million citizens and businesses in central and sout hern Arizona. In 2007, CAP delivered 1,700,203 acrefeet to its customers, generating $108.8 million in wa ter operations and maintenance charges. Agricultural,

and municipal and industrial water usage accounted for 975,635 acre-feet. CAP water rates for long-term

# 94 contract customers is at $91 per acre-foot.

Quantifiable benefits also can be demonstrated as the cost avoided, such as for clean-up. The

Department recently awarded a $54,978 grant to fund water quality improvement in Pima County for

Lakeside Lake. This lake, filled mainly by reclaimed water, is a popular recreational and fishing location,

but the lake has become increasingly eutrophic over th e years. These conditions have resulted in noxious

algal blooms, high pH, low dissolved oxygen, limited stocking, and periodic fish kills. A marked decline in

water quality and several fish kills since the early 1990s led to citizen complaints and increased attention

on the part of the City of Tucson, AZGFD, the Univ ersity of Arizona, and the Department. The City of

Tucson reports they spent $250,000 for installing an aeration system on the bottom of the lake, meant to

improve water quality and alleviate st ress on fishes. Declining conditions led AZGFD to stock trout only in

the cooler months and catfish and other warm-water species in the summer months. Under the grant,

Tucson will improve water quality in the lake by reduc ing drainage from surrounding park lands into the

lake, providing bait disposal locations for people who fi sh, and occasionally treating the lake with alum, a

chemical that will help reduce algae growth. Tucson will also remove debris from the lake and surrounding

park.

Deriving both full and partial body contact criteria for non-carcinogenic compounds, changing the

relative source contribution from 100 percent exposure to 20 percent, also results in more protective

standards. The benefit of water quality standards for the designated use of full or partial body contact can

be demonstrated as revenue lost, for instance, wh en Slide Rock Park closes due to exceedances of E. coli

,

which has occurred on average of 12 times annually.

Adding treatment, such as nitrification/denitrifi cation, typically produces a better effluent quality,

meaning lower level of pollutants, such as nitrates, but also other pollutants such as personal care products.

Better effluent quality also allows more options for reuse, such as for irrigation purposes. Even though the

Casa Grande Water Reclamation Facility expansion w ill cost $67,129,710, there is a recognized benefit of

$14.5 million in total capital cost re duction in improving treatment for the overall liquids and solids process

optimization.

Health Benefits

The most important benefit derived from the surface water quality standards is to the protection of

humans for drinking water, swimming, and fish cons umption. Deferred and avoided health care cost

benefits associated with this rulemaking’s incremental human health protections are real but unquantified.

One change to the methodology for deriving standards for non-carcinogens for each of the human health

designated uses, is the use of a relative source contri bution (RSC) of less than 100 percent. The RSC is the

amount of exposure from various sources or routes, su ch as drinking, swimming, or fish consumption.

Setting the RSC at less than 100 percent acknowledges there may be additional routes of exposure for a

pollutant besides that particular designated use. Fo r example, humans can be affected by arsenic from a

variety of sources including oral, dermal and aerial.

# 95 For example, in deriving the fish consumption criteria, the Department has adopted EPA’s

recommendations that resulted in two changes: 1) it increased the default fish consumption number from

6.5 to 17.5 grams/day to more adequately protect the general population of fish consumer, and 2) it

changed the relative source contribution from 100 pe rcent to 20 percent, acknowledging there may be

additional routes of exposure for a pollutant besides i ngestion of fish. Part of the changes regarding fish

consumption include a new fish tissue standard for methylmercury (MeHg), an organic compound of

mercury that bioaccumulates in fish and is one of the most toxic substances known to man. While MeHg

has been linked to a variety of health effects, the primary risk arises from its toxicity to the nervous system,

including the brain. Numerous health studies have dem onstrated that methylmercury is a potent neurotoxin,

particularly in developing organi sms [EPA, 1997; ATSDR, 1999; NAS, 2000.]

Unborn children are as much as 10 times more susceptib le than adults to its detrimental effects. The

most common source of exposure to MeHg is from eati ng fish that contain the mercury. Upon ingestion by

humans, MeHg is absorbed through the gastrointestin al tract and easily penetrates the blood-brain and

placental barriers. Most at risk are infants and unborn children whose mothers consume fish containing

MeHg during pregnancy or while nursing. If the ti ssues of a pregnant or breastfeeding woman are

contaminated with mercury, a disproportionate amount of that mercury may be passed to the baby, where it

can attack the developing nervous system. Chronic exposure to MeHg at elevated concentrations can cause

developmental delays and learning disabilities and acu te exposures may cause gross cranial defects,

cerebral palsy, and a higher infant mortality rate.

One example of costs of MeHg exposure is developmental impacts on children. Using national

blood mercury prevalence data from the Center for Di sease Control, it is estimated that between 316,588

and 637,233 children each year have cord blood mercury le vels greater than 5.8 μg/L, a level associated

with loss of IQ. The resulting loss of intelligence causes diminished economic productivity that persists

over the entire lifetime of these children. This lost produc tivity is the major cost of methylmercury toxicity,

amounting to $8.7 billion annually, with a range of $2. 2 to 43.8 billion (all costs are in 2000 US dollars)

(Trasande et al, 2005).

Adoption of the fish tissue standard is protective of human health and will aid the Department in

notifying the public when it is not safe to consume fish from certain waterbodies. Costs avoided include

reduced infant mortality and direct costs of medical care for exposure to mercury and MeHg, specifically

neurological care for infants and children. Indirect cost s of specialized education for children with learning

disabilities may also be avoided.

The Department has also adopted the new Safe Drinking Water MCL for arsenic of 10 ppb for the

domestic water source designated use. Inorganic arse nic has been recognized as a human poison since

ancient times and EPA has found it to be a Class A carcinogen. Arsenic ingestion has been linked to a

multitude of health effects, including cancer of the bl adder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver, and

prostate. Nonlethal, but high doses, can cause non-can cerous health effects include gastroenterological

effects, shock, continuous pain, and vascular effect s in humans. Other effects that have been reported

include alterations in gastrointestinal, cardiova scular, hematological (e.g., anemia), pulmonary,

# 96 neurological, immunological and reproductive/developmental function. High dosages of arsenic of 70 to

280 mg for 50% of adults weighing 70 kg are lethal. Increased risks of lung and bladder cancer and of

arsenic-associated skin lesions have been observed at drinking-water ar senic concentrations of less than

0.05 mg/L. Children are exposed to arsenic in the same ways that adults are. Since children tend to eat or

drink less of a variety of foods and beverages than do a dults, ingestion of contaminated food, juice or infant

formula made with arsenic-contaminated water may represent a significant source of exposure. There is

some evidence that exposure to arsenic in early lif e (including gestation and early childhood) may increase

mortality in young adults.

The 1999 National Academy of Science report found that the lifetime risk of dying from cancer due

to arsenic in drinking water is generally lower for pe ople drinking low levels of arsenic in tap water (NAS,

1999). A recent study from Finland (Kurttio et al., 1999) found that Finns who drank water containing low

levels pf arsenic (<0.1 ppb) had about a 50 percen t lower risk of getting bladder cancer than their

countrymen who drank water containing higher levels (>0.1 ppb – 0.5 ppb). People who consumed water

with 0.5 ppb arsenic had more than a 140 percent incr ease in bladder cancer rates, compared to those

drinking at levels less and 0.1 ppb. Similar reductions in risk are found for other types of cancers and

cardiovascular diseases at increasingly lower levels of arsenic (BEST, 2001). Costs avoided include direct

costs of medical care for exposure to arsenic. EPA es timated the value of the benefits of adopting the 10

ppb arsenic standard for drinking water to range from as high as $90 million for bladder cancer to $384

million for lung cancer.

These are two examples of human health and cost benefits that may be expected to result from more

protective water quality standards like those adopted in this rulemaking. Though the standards in these

rules are incrementally more protective of human h eath then the previous standards, the Department

believes the overall benefits of the rules outweighs the costs.

Indirect Costs to Consumers and General Public

The Department recognizes that permittees, especially sewage treatment plants, may pass their direct

costs onto their customers, taxpayers or both. If sewa ge treatment plant upgrades are required to comply

with new or revised water quality standards, this can re sult in an indirect cost to some business, industry,

and consumers paying higher utility bills for sewer se rvices, or more for commodities. In particular,

customers served by sewage treatment plants that disc harge to effluent-dependent waters may be affected

by the adoption of numeric water quality standards that will limit discharges of ammonia, but only if the

discharge is not currently toxic, as described above.

Sewage treatment plant upgrades ar e typically financed through rate increases or bonding. Publiclyowned sewage treatment plants also have a fina ncing option of low-interest loans through WIFA.

Consumers could see increased taxes and municipal de bt financing due to public sewage treatment plant

compliance with more stringent standards. Municipal operators of sewage treatment plants typically pay

the debt service on bonds or WIFA loans through increas es in sewer rates and sewer connection fees for

customers in the local community. It is difficult to estimate the costs to consumers and the general public,

# 97 but cost of sewer services will increase for those se wage treatment plants that are required to upgrade

treatment.

An example of how a customer may be affected, the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment

Plant projects a sewage treatment rate increase fro m $6.75 to $9.96 for the base fee over a period of 10

years and an increase in the sewer rate from $1.17 to $1.71 for every 1,000 gallons over the same period.

The City of Casa Grande has low sewer rates of $11. 98 per month, but collects and uses development fees

to help pay for new sewage treatment facilities. Pima County estimates that its customers’ monthly sewer

bills will increase annually for a period of fifteen year s, starting at $21.56 and projected to be $46.05. The

annual percent change increase that a customer could see ranges from 16.9 to 1.7, with five years at zero.

Pima County connection fees would also increase, w ith the annual percent change ranging from 19.9 to a

low of 1.7, again with four years at zero. Connecti on fees start at $6,364 and are projected to climb to

$12,494.

F. Estimated Costs and Benefits to State Revenues.

There are no fees associated with these rules. This rulemaking is expected to have no impact on state

revenues.

Requirements of A.R.S. § 41-1035.

The Department defines a small business as a privat ely-owned permitted facility that discharges less

than 1 million gallons per day. The Department calculates that about 25 out of the 160 individual

permittees would qualify as a small business. For a se wage treatment plant, this facility would serve a

community of no more than 10,000.

1. Establish less stringent compliance and reporting requirements for small businesses.

The rules do not establish any reporting requirements.

2. Establish less stringent compliance or reporting schedules or deadlines for small businesses.

The rules authorize schedules of compliance in A.A.C. R18-11-121, which allows a facility

time to evaluate, design, and construct treatment or other means of meeting a new standard. (The

Department is prohibited by federal law from esta blishing less stringent compliance schedules for

small businesses under 40 CFR 122.47.) The rules do not establish any reporting schedules or

deadlines for small businesses.

3. Consolidate or simplify the rule’s compliance and reporting requirements for small businesses

The rulemaking does not prescribe reporting requirements.

4. Establish performance standards for small businesses to replace design and operational standards.

The rules do not establish design or opera tional standards for small businesses.

# 98 5. Exempt small businesses from any or all requirements of the rule.

Water quality standards are provisions of state law required by the federal Clean Water Act.

The Department has no authority to exempt small businesses from the requirement to comply with

surface water quality standards. However, as explai ned in Section C above, the rules provide other

methods for reducing the immediate impact for disc hargers, including small businesses, such as the

compliance schedules and variances.

10. A description of the changes between the proposed rules, including supplemental notices, and final rules (if

applicable):

Rulemaking changes made as a result of responses to comments are described in item #11. Conforming,

grammatical, formatting, and other minor changes have been made throughout the rule package by the Department

and as suggested by the Governor’s Regulatory Review C ouncil (G.R.R.C.) staff and have not been addressed in

items #10 or #11.

The following changes are the result of Department review and are addressed in this section for the benefit

of the reader.

The proposed rulemaking used the term “municipal park” throughout the rulemaking when referring to

specific lakes. This final rulemaking changed the te rminology from “municipal park” lake to “urban” lake.

The term “pollutant of concern” used in R18-11-107. 01 refers to pollutants with either a numeric or

narrative water quality standards and has been defined in R18-11-107.01(B)(4) and the remaining subsection has

been renumbered. Because the term “pollutant of concern,” found in R18-11-114(D)(7) and R18-11-122(F)(3)

does not pertain to antidegradation, it has been clarified is each case.

R18-11-101. Definitions

The Department believes that by revising the language of the term “designated use” in the proposed

rulemaking, the meaning of the term was changed

 or could be understood in a different manner. The original

definition has been retained.

The term “wastewater,” used in this rulemaking, has the commonly understood meaning. The term is

further clarified in this Section as to which t ypes of discharge are not considered wastewater.

R18-11-107.01. Antidegradation Criteria

The phrase “under an individual AZPDES permit” wa s added to subsections (B)(3) and (B)(3)(c) to

clarify that the antidegradation review only applied to an individual AZPDES permit.

The stem sentence in subsection (C)(3)(a) conflicts with the rest of the subsection. The actions required

for an alternative analysis are covered within s ubsections (C)(3)(a)(i) through (iv). The following language

has been removed from the rule: “ The person shall demonstrate that th ere are no reasonable, cost-effective,

less-degrading, or non-degrading alternatives to the regulated discharge ”

# 99 R18-11-108.03. Narrative Nutrient Criteria For Lakes And Reservoirs

The Department believes that the term “lacustrine” (of or related to the lake”) is too general a term in

this instance and that the term “limnetic” (of or occu rring in the deeper, open waters of lakes or ponds, away

from the shore) was more appropriate. Subsection (B) has been revised as follows:

(B)(2)(c)(v) A nuisance algal bloom is present in the limnetic portion of the lake or reservoir; or

Appendix B

The name of the surface water proposed as “Unnamed Wash,” in the Colorado – Lower Gila (CL)

watershed located at “Town of Quartzsite WWTP outfall at 33°42'30"/114°13'14" to1 km downstream at

33°42'30"/114°13'45"” has been corrected to “Tyson Wash.”

The location of the Gila River (EDW) in the Middle Gila watershed has been corrected as follows:

From the confluence with the Salt River to the Gillespie Dam at 33°13'45"/112°46'07"

The location of the Unnamed Wash in the Middle Gila watershed has been corrected as follows;

North Florence WWTP outfall at 33°03'49.54"/111°23'13.28" to confluence with Gila River at

33°02'59"/111°23'15"

The name of the surface water segment proposed as “S anta Cruz Wash (EDW)” in the Santa Cruz – Rio

Magdalena – Rio Sonoyta watershed, located at “Pal o Verde Utilities WWTP outfall at 33°04'20"/112°01'47" to

the Gila River Indian Reservation” has been correct ed to the “Santa Rose Wash.” The surface water and

designated use information about the corrected Santa Ro se Wash has been positioned above the “Santa Rose

Wash” located “Below Tohono O’odham Indian Reserv ation to the Ak Chin Indian Reservation.”

11. A summary of the comments made regarding the rule and the agency response to them:

All comments in this section are, for the most pa rt, presented as received. Extraneous or repetitive

information has been omitted, as appropriate.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Comment #1

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

While Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) are not addressed in the proposed surface

water quality standards, they are a significant public c oncern and should be addressed in the next Triennial

Review. In the meantime, we recommend that the ADEQ implement testing for at least some of these products

to begin to assess their occurrence in Arizona waters and that it continue to support research at the universities.

These products are found in treated municipal wastewater that is discharged into Arizona waters, so it is

something that should be considered and evaluated.

J. Adrianne Settimo

# 100 Pharmaceuticals and Person Care Products (PPCPs) have become a significant public concern. Trace levels

of these products can be found in treated municipal wastew ater that is being discharged into Arizona waters.

Released wastewater “creates an aquatic environment that supports wetlands and streamside vegetation or may

recharge the groundwater.”

Although the issue of PPCPs is relatively new, “scientists have detected some of the chemicals at levels

linked to adverse impacts on the reproductive systems of cer tain species of fish and frogs that depend on waters

influenced by treated wastewater.” Id.

The possibility that PPCPs may have adverse impact s on humans at higher levels, and water containing

PPCPs may be recharging groundwater is cause for concer n. Science has not yet determined what impact longterm exposure to low levels of pharmaceuticals will have on humans, let alone what impact this exposure will

have on wildlife.

The first step in assessing how big of an issue PPCPs are in Arizona’s water resources is to implement a

testing program. Therefore, the testing of (at least) aquife r water should be added to th e proposed rule. If levels of

PPCPs are higher than trace amounts, action should then be taken to correct the situation.

Response: PPCPs belong to a category of emerging pollutants that have recently come to the attention of

scientists, federal and state regulators, and the public. Th e Department shares the commenter’s concerns about the

potential impact of PPCPs that are making their way into Arizona’s rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs.

Increased monitoring and better analytical test methods have increased awareness of the presence of PPCPs in

surface water and highlighted the need for more information about their potential risks to human health and the

environment. Research has just begun and little data currently exists about the consequences of PPCPs on human

health or aquatic life. Currently, there is no basis for de veloping scientifically defens ible water quality standards

for PPCPs. The Department will follow the development of the regulation and science concerning these pollutants.

Although the Department does not have detailed plans for wh ere and when testing for these pollutants will occur,

the Department has conceptual plans to conduct environmen tal testing over the coming years and will continue to

support university research on this matter as resources allow.

Comment #2

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

ADEQ has failed to revise A.A.C. R18-11-106, net ecol ogical benefit (NEB) to facilitate its intended use

within Arizona.

As Pima County and ADEQ staff have previously discussed and agreed, providing ADEQ with the

information and demonstrations requested by this rule section, in order to provide the Department with grounds to

modify an existing standard, may be impossible to achie ve for many projects given the general and vague nature

of the current rule language. It was obviously not the intent of the Department to create a rule that essentially

could never be used for its intended purpose.

ADEQ staff has previously suggested that this rule c ould be used to allow a modification of standards to

address the short comings of the current water quality sta ndards, to properly regulate riparian habitat restoration

projects such as the Kino Ecological Restoration Project (KERP). However, upon investigation by Pima County of

# 101 the demonstrations required by the rule, it became obvious that the rule was not written in a sufficiently clear and

reasonable way, so that the information and demonstrations can actually be made.

Pima County, at the invitation of ADEQ staff, has previously communicated with ADEQ on these issues in

a letter dated January 26, 2006 (Attachment #6). This lette r discusses the background of this rule language and

makes suggestions for modifying the rule language consis tent with EPA guidance, in a way that will make it

usable for its intended purpose in Arizona. Pima County as ks ADEQ to consider these issues and revise the NEB

language to address these concerns.

In addition we have attached comments from Dr. Ben Parkhurst (Attachment #2) discussing how the state

of Wyoming has modified its water quality standards ru les and produced implementation policies (Attachment #7)

that have allowed the net ecological benefit concept to be used extensively is the state. We ask ADEQ to adopt

similar rules and implementation policies for Arizona to address the problems with the Arizona NEB rule.

Response: “Net Ecological Benefit” is a difficult determin ation for the very reasons the commenter points

to: the comparison and evaluation of social value that a pr oject may have versus the monetary costs of either not

performing the project or meeting the current surface water quality standards required by the Clean Water Act and

the rules. This is a complex issue that is not unique to Arizona and has been a point of discussion in other state

and EPA water quality forums. As noted, the Department reviewed Pima County’s January 26, 2006 letter, other

stakeholder comments, and held discussions with stake holders, however the Department is not proposing changes

to the Net Ecological Benefit rule at this time. The Department has approved modifications to water quality

standards for the Yuma East Wetlands discharge in this rulemaking under R18-11-106, illustrating that the current

rule can be used.

JURISDICTION

Comment #3

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

As reflected in the existing and proposed definition of “surface water,” the standards in A.A.C. R18-11-101

et seq. are intended to apply to waters of the United States as that term is defined pursuant to the CWA (“CWA”).

As ADEQ is aware, the extent of CWA jurisdiction is un certain after the decision of the United States Supreme

Court in Rapanos v. United States , 547 U.S. 715 (2006). Subsequent to that decision, EPA and the Corps of

Engineers issued guidance entitled “CWA Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos

v. United States & Carabell v. United States (June 2007) (the “Guidance”). Pursuant to the Guidance “traditional

navigable waters” (“TNWs”), reasonably permanent tributar ies of TNWs, and other tributaries with a “significant

nexus” to TNWs remain regulated under the CWA. By contrast, swales or erosional features ( e.g., small washes

characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow) are generally not considered jurisdictional.

In a state such as Arizona, where many “waters” ar e ephemeral washes, the Guidance may result in some

waters previously considered jurisdictional no longer being so considered. At this point, it is simply too early to

tell what the ultimate ramifications of the decision and th e Guidance will be in Arizona. For example, the agencies

have not yet fully identified the extent of TNWs within the state, nor clearly defined how the presence or absence

of a “significant nexus” to such TNWs will be measured.

# 102 The AMA believes that the triennial review needs to account for this jurisdictional uncertainty. Currently,

the definition of “surface water” is broader on its face than the corresponding EPA and Corps definitions ( e.g., by

specifically including “ephemeral” streams in the “oth er waters” category), and ADEQ has not proposed any

changes to that definition. See A.A.C. R18-11-101(43)(c). The blanket inclusion of ephemeral streams is

unwarranted, particularly after Rapanos

.

In light of the foregoing, the AMA suggests that the most efficient way to address the issue in the triennial

review is as follows: (1) modify the definition of “surface water” to simply provide that a surface water means a

“navigable water” as that is the term is defined in A.R.S. § 49-201(22), since “navigable water” is the term used in

the governing statutes, specifically A.R.S. §§ 49-221(A) (a uthority to adopt surface water quality standards) & 49-

255(2) (definition of “discharge” for AZPDES program); a nd (2) add language clarifying that the designated uses

in Appendix B apply “if and to the extent that each listed water or reach constitutes a surface water.” (The

tributary rule (A.A.C.R. 18-11-105) already applies on its face only to a “surface water” and so would not need to

be modified if the changes to the definition of “surface water” outlined above were adopted. Absent those or

similar changes, however, the tributary rule would be subject to challenge by virtue of its apparent classification

of every single tributary as a regulated “w ater of the United States” under the CWA.)

The AMA recognizes that ADEQ has authority to a dopt surface water quality st andards for non-navigable

waters pursuant to A.R.S. § 49-221(B), but the Depart ment has not proposed doing so and any such proposal

would need to be accompanied by a separate analysis of the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits

associated with any such standards. Absent such a proposal and accompanying analysis, the AMA believes that

the approach suggested above is the most logical one given the current climate of uncertainty

Response: The Department does not agree that the current rule language needs to be changed as a result of

the Rapanos decision and federal guidance. The federal guidance document pertains to the Clean Water Act § 404

program and is not rule. The Department is required to establish standards under section 303 of the Clean Water

Act. Nothing in the Rapanos decision or the Guidance applies to section 303.

The Department agrees that the proposed surface wate r quality standards are intended to apply to surface

waters or waters of the United States. However, the Department disagrees that it should modify the current

definition of surface water in response to the Rapanos decision and does not believe it is necessary to revise the

definition of surface water to provide that a surface wate r is a navigable water. The term navigable water is

defined in A.R.S. § 49-201(22). The current definition of su rface water already states that it means a water of the

United States, which defines navigable water under both state and federal law.

The Department disagrees that language should be adde d to the definition of surface water to provide that

the surface water quality standards apply “if and to the ex tent that each listed water or reach constitutes a surface

water.” The suggested language is unnecessary because A.A.C. R18-11-102(A) already states that the water

quality standards in 18 A.A.C. 11, Article 1 apply to surface waters. The listing of a water body in Appendix B of

this rulemaking is a Department determination that the listed water body is a surface water as defined under

A.A.C. R18-11-101(41). The water quality standards of 18 A. A.C. 11, Article 1 have applied to surface waters

since 1992. No change has been made to the rule.

# 103 Comment #4

Michele Van Quathem, Superstition Mountai ns Community Facilities District No. 1

One of SMCFD’s primary concerns is based upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Rapanos v. U.S. , 126

S.Ct. 2208 (2006). In Rapanos , the Supreme Court held that the jurisdictional term “navigable waters” under the

CWA includes only relatively permanent, standing or flowi ng bodies of water, not intermittent or ephemeral flows

of water lacking a significant nexus with waters of the United States. Although Rapanos involved consideration of

the Army Corps of Engineers’ regulation of wetlands unde r section 404(a) of the CWA, the same definition of

navigable waters applies to National Pollutant Discha rge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits under section

402 of the CWA. See 33 U.S. §§ 1311(a), 1342(a), and 1362(7); see also A.R.S.§ 49-201(22) (“’Navigable

waters’ means the water of the United States as defined by section 502(7) of the CWA.”). In addition, the Rapanos

decision makes clear that tributaries to waters of the United States that are not themselves waters of the United

States, are viewed as “point sources” of discharge into waters of the United States only if the contaminant-laden

waters in the tributary ultimately reach jurisdictional waters. Rapanos , 126 S.Ct. at 2228.

Siphon Draw is not a Water of the United States

SMCFD operates a wastewater treatment plant that intermittently discharges treated wastewater (or

“effluent”) to an unnamed wash that is tributary to “S iphon Draw.” A stretch of Siphon Draw is proposed in this

rulemaking for listing as an “effluent-dependent wate r” simply because it receives drainage from SMCFD’s

treatment plant. See Appendix B of the proposed rules. Siphon Draw is an ephemeral wash that historically

drained precipitation from the Superstition Mountains. The historic drainage of Siphon Draw was significantly

altered by the construction of the Central Arizona Pr oject’s (“CAP’s”) canal, and intervening residential

development and flood control structures.

Historically, I understand ADEQ has taken the position th at SMCFD’s discharge is jurisdictional because

Siphon Draw is a tributary to Queen Creek, but this is incorrect. Siphon Draw was not historically, and is not

today, a tributary of Queen Creek. See Exhibit C , January 16, 2001 letter from Tom Haws, P.E. to Ed Grabek.

Even if we assume there were drainage patterns leading miles and miles from the SMCFD plant area to a

navigable water (presumably the Gila Ri ver), which is not the case, the Rapanos decision makes clear that

tributary status alone is not enough to invoke CWA jurisd iction – there must be proof that contaminant-laden

waters ultimately reach covered waters.

In the case of Siphon Draw, which even with development changes is at most a lengthy ephemeral wash,

none of SMCFD’s discharges reach a water of the United States. Further, there is no evidence of a significant

nexus of SMCFD’s discharge with any navigable water.

Response: The Department received a number of comments concerning Clean Water Act (CWA)

jurisdiction in the aftermath of the Rapanos decision. As noted in the comment, Rapanos was a plurality decision

where the Supreme Court justices could not agree and as a result, issued five separate opinions, with no single

opinion commanding a majority of the Court. Rapanos was a wetlands decision related to the provisions of section

404, not the NPDES program under § 402 of the CWA. The Rapanos Guidance, which is not in rule, specifically

states in footnote 17, that it “focuses only on those provisions of the agencies’ regulations at issue in Rapanos – 33

CFR 328.3(a)(1), (a)(5), and (a)(7),” which are th e federal regulations for the 404 permitting program

# 104 administered by the Army Corps of Engineers. Furtherm ore when EPA commented on this rulemaking, it did not

note any concerns with jurisdiction issues. Irrespective of the Rapanos decision there are other factors of

importance in Clean Water Act jurisdiction determination including a history of federal Clean Water Act case law

that was not affected by Rapanos , including the tributary rule, commerce clau ses, and interstate waters provisions.

The Department appreciates that this is an important matte r to stakeholders, as it is to the Department. In specific

response to this comment, the Department does not conc ur that Siphon Draw has been removed from jurisdiction

under the Clean Water Act.

Under the tributary rule, R18-11-105, all ephemeral tributaries have applicable surface water quality

standards and are subject to secti on 402 permitting requirements for point source dischargers. Under R18-11-113,

the Director shall classify a surface water as an efflue nt-dependent water by rule, which the Department is doing

with this rulemaking. R18-11-113(E) requires the Depa rtment to use A&Wedw standards for a point source

discharge of wastewater to an ephemeral water. Superstition Mountains Community Facilities District (SMCFD)

has an individual AZPDES permit that authorizes the di scharge of 2.1 million gallons per day (mgd) of treated

effluent to Siphon Draw. That permit is written to be protective of aquatic life and body contact uses. While

SMCFD can direct discharges to underground storage ba sins, there is nothing restricting the District from

discharging the full 2.1 mgd, 365 days a year to Siphon Draw. The SMCFD discharge has an effluent-dependent

ecosystem.

The Department disagrees with the commenter on th e issue of Siphon Draw. The Department considers

ephemeral waters to be surface wate rs as defined under R18-11-101(41). Siphon Draw is being classified as an

effluent-dependent water and is listed in Appendix B in th is rulemaking because it meets the definition of effluentdependent water. The identified reach of Siphon Draw that the Department proposes to classify as an effluentdependent water is from the SMCFD WWTP outfall to a loca tion that is approximately 6 km downstream from the

outfall.

Comment #5

Michele Van Quathem, Superstition Mountai ns Community Facilities District No. 1

We understand from comments made at a previous stakeholder meeting that ADEQ believes it has authority

under A.R.S. section 49-221(B) to expand the jurisdiction of the AZPDES program to apply to state waters that

are not jurisdictional under the federal CWA. However, ADE Q also suggested that it does not intend to exercise

this authority. ADEQ’s non-specific authority to create wa ter quality standards for “waters of the State” in 49-

221(B), and even its specific authority to require persons otherwise covered by permit programs to conduct

monitoring in state waters [see A.R.S. § 49-203(B)(2)], is not accompanied by any specific authority to implement

those standards, and interpretation of section 49-221(B) in the manner suggested contravenes the limitations on

ADEQ’s powers in section 49-203(A)(2) (permit program can be no more stringent that the requirements of the

CWA). See also A.R.S. § 49-202 (section provides no specific author ity to control discharges to state waters);

A.R.S. § 49-231 (TMDL authorizing statutes define “su rface water quality standard” to include only standards

adopted for navigable waters); and A.R.S. § 49-201(41) (definition of “wat ers of the state”). Since it does not

appear the Department can include waters of the state in the AZPDES program rules and permit, and since the

# 105 Department does not intend to exercise that jurisdiction anyway, then it is critical the Department conform its

surface water quality rules to recognize only that jurisdiction permitted under the CWA for “navigable waters.” In

SMCFD’s case, this will require that ADEQ ame nd the proposed Appendix B to remove Siphon Draw.

Response: The Department disagrees that Siphon Draw should be removed from Appendix B for the

reasons outlined in Response #4. The Department adopted the surface water quality standards in 18 A.A.C 11,

Article 1 under the statutory authorities provided at A. R.S. §§ 49-221(A) and 49-222. These statutes provide

authority for the Department to adopt water quality standard s for navigable waters or waters of the United States

as defined by the Clean Water Act. For nearly 30 years, the Department has considered, based on the Clean Water

Act, its regulations and applicable la w, tributary ephemeral and intermittent waters to be waters of the United

States and thus navigable waters. The Department has adopted surface water quality standards for both categories

of surface water. The Arizona Legislature considers ephe meral waters and intermittent waters to be navigable

waters. The Legislature has specifically directed the Depa rtment to consider the effect of local water quality

characteristics “...and the extent to which the natural flow of the stream is intermittent or ephemeral” when setting

numeric standards for the quality of navigable waters. (A.R.S. § 49-221(C)).

Comment #6

Michele Van Quathem, Superstition Mountai ns Community Facilities District No. 1

The Arizona Legislature in A.R.S. § 49-255.01(B) author ized the Department to promulgate rules for the

AZPDES program consistent with the CWA, but the same provision prohibits the Department from adopting

requirements more stringent than the CWA. If the Depa rtment applies AZPDES permit requirements to waters

other than navigable waters as inte rpreted by the Supreme Court in Rapanos , then the Department is applying

more stringent requirements than the CWA in violati on of the prohibition in 49-255.01(B). The definition of

“surface water” greatly exceeds the jurisdiction recognized in Rapanos , and exceeds the Department’s rulemaking

mandate in A.R.S. § 49-255.01(B).

Response: The Department disagrees with the commenter’s interpretation of the requirements of A.R.S. §

49

- 255.01 or that the Department is violating its require ments by adopting the surface water quality standards in

this rulemaking. A.R.S. § 49-255.01 governs the adoption of rules for the administration of the AZPDES permit

program and does not apply to the adoption of the surface water quality standards rules that are the subject of this

rulemaking. It is clear that A.R.S. § 49-255.01(B) pr ohibits the Department from adopting any AZPDES permit

program rules that are more stringent or conflict with any requirement of the Clean Water Act. A.R.S. § 49-255.01

does not apply to the adoption of surface water quality standards. See Response #5.

Comment #7

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

The proposed revisions to Arizona’s SWQS raise several substantial jurisdictional and other related issues.

For example, notwithstanding recent U.S. Supreme Court d ecisions directly affecting the validity of the federal

regulatory definition of “waters of the United States,” ADEQ nevertheless continues to use an expanded version

of this regulatory definition to define the waters s ubject to the state’s SWQS. ADEQ continues to use this

# 106 expanded definition notwithstanding the statutory provisions in A.R.S. §§ 49-221(A) and 49-222 (giving ADEQ

authority to adopt standards for “navigable waters”) , in A.R.S. § 49-255.01(B) (prohibiting ADEQ from adopting

any requirement associated with the AZPDES permit program that is more stringent than or conflicts with any

requirement of the federal CWA), and in A.R.S. § 49-201(22) (defining “navigable waters” as “the waters of the

United States as defined by section 502(7) of the Clean Water Cct (33 United States Code section 1362(7)).”).

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

This definition of surface water encompasses more th an the waters governed by the CWA, i.e., navigable

waters or waters of the U.S.

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

The definition for surface water should be consistent with federal definitions under the CWA. The

definition in the rule for “surface water” includes as a Wate r of the U.S., all other waters such as rivers streams

(intermittent or ephemeral), creeks, wash, draw etc. wher e the degradation or destruction of which could affect

interstate or foreign commerce. It also includes all tributaries of these waters.

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

ADEQ’s proposed definition of “surface waters” is inconsistent with the Rapanos decision because it goes

beyond the scope of the CWA and therefore under Arizona law is beyond the statutory authority of ADEQ and

must be revised (A.R.S. § 41-1052(C)(5)). ADEQ continue s to use this expanded definition notwithstanding the

statutory directives provided in A.R.S. §§ 49-221(A) a nd 49-222 (giving ADEQ authority to adopt standards for

“navigable waters”), in A.R.S. § 49-255.01(B) (prohib iting ADEQ from adopting any requirement associated with

the AZPDES permit program that is more stringent than or conflicts with any requirement of the federal CWA),

and in A.R.S. § 49-201(22) (defining “navigable waters” as “the waters of the United States as defined by section

502(7) of the CWA (33 United States Code section 1362(7)). ”). ADEQ must revise its definition to apply only to

those waters that are in fact “navigable waters” defined as “waters of the United States” within the CWA.

In light of ADEQ’s failure to address these issues in this proposed rulemaking and the fact that a proper

assessment of these issues by ADEQ would involve a si gnificant amount of additional research and discussion

with stakeholders, Pima County recommends that ADEQ w ithdraw those provisions of the rulemaking at this

time.

Response: The Department did not propose any substantive re visions to the definition of surface water in

this rulemaking and disagrees that it is using an expande d regulatory definition of surface water to define water

bodies subject to regulation under the surface water quality standards rules. On the contrary, the Department

proposes to use the same definition for surface water that it has used since 1992. The Department’s decision not to

revise the current definition of surface water is inaccurate ly characterized by the commenter as an expansion of

the current regulatory definition. In fact, there has been no expansion of the regulator y definition of surface water

and the agency’s interpretation of the definition rema ins the same. See Responses #5 and #6. The Department

proposed only minor editorial revisions to the definition of surface water to conform internal cross-references and

the rule numbering within the definition. The current de finition of surface water at R18-11-101(41) is based on,

and consistent with, the regulatory definition of water of the United States that may be found in current EPA

NPDES regulations at 40 CFR §122.2. See Responses #3, #4, and #5.

# 107 Comment #8

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

The recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Friends of Pinto Creek v. EPA , 504 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir.

2007) has potentially significant implications for the regulated community in Arizona, including municipalities,

industrial dischargers, and constr uction and development companies. Under the court’s reasoning, new

dischargers cannot be permitted unless and until they ha ve demonstrated sufficient loading capacity for the

constituent at issue and have developed compliance sche dules designed to bring the waterbody into compliance

with SWQS. The court further clarified its opinion th at establishing a TMDL alone does not satisfy the

requirement to demonstrate loading capacity. The result of this decision, assuming it is not overturned, is that it

likely could ban new potential discharges to impaired wate rs, regardless of the nature of such discharges. The

implications of the Friends of Pinto Creek case call for caution in proposing rules which could expand listings of

impaired waters, particularly those noted below in this section.

Response: See Responses #3, #4, 5, and #7 regarding the comments on jurisdictional issues. These rules

will not, by definition, “expand listings of impaired waters.” Discussion of impaired waters listings and related

permitting implications is beyond the scope of this rulemaking and is more appropriately raised in the context of

the Impaired Water Identification rules at 18 A.A.C. 11, Article 6 or the AZPDES Program rules at 18 A.A.C. 9,

Article 9.

Comment #9

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

Many surface waters impacted by this rulemaking are excluded from CWA authority under Solid Waste

Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Corps of Engineers , 531 US 159 (2001) ( “SWANCC” ). In

SWANCC , the Court held that non-navigable, intrastate and isolated (i.e., not adjacent to open water) waters are

not “navigable waters” for CWA purposes, even though those ponds were arguably connected to interstate

commerce. 531 U.S. at 168. Many urban lakes, and many surf ace waters, such as waters located within the closed

Willcox Playa basin, qualify as isolated , non-navigable, intrastate waters, a nd thus should be non-jurisdictional in

accordance with SWANCC . Importantly, the District of the District of Columbia recently interpreted a federal

regulation defining “waters of the United States” which is even more limited than ADEQ’s proposed definition of

“surface water” as an overly expansive inte rpretation of the applicability of the CWA. See American Petroleum

Institute et al. v. Johnson , 2008 WL 834435 (D.C.Cir. 2008). The decision in Johnson emphasized the ruling in

SWANCC – that the CWA does not extend to the full extent of Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause of

the U.S. Constitution, and thus a water may not be regulated under the CWA based only on its connection to

interstate commerce.

ADEQ’s proposed definition of “surf ace waters” is inconsistent with Rapanos and SWANCC, because it

expands on the jurisdictional scope of regulations which t hose cases limited. ADEQ, to be consistent with law and

not exceed its statutory authority, must refrain from esta blishing designated uses, SWQS or otherwise regulating

# 108 those waters which are either (i) not relatively permanent tributaries to traditional navigable waters or navigable

waters; (ii) wetlands which do not directly abut traditional navigable waters; or (iii) waters which are nonnavigable, intrastate and isolated. ADEQ therefore shoul d revise its definition of “surface water” proposed as

R18-11-101(41), to apply only to navigable waters, define d as “waters of the United States” under the CWA. In

the alternative, the Coalition requests that ADEQ explai n its basis for asserting CWA jurisdiction over those

waters affected by this rulemaking and remove the terms “ephemeral stream” and “wash” from its definition to be

consistent with the federal regulatory de finition, and remove all isolated urba n lakes and all other isolated waters,

including for example all surface waters in the closed Willcox Playa basin from regulation under this proposed

rule. These suggested revisions would allow ADEQ to avoid extending its regulatory authority over waters

deemed non-jurisdictional in light of Rapanos and SWANCC , and thus avoid violation of its obligations under

A.R.S. § 41-1052(C)(5) to ensure that this rulemaking complies with applicable law and does not exceed its

statutory authority.

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

Fred H. Gray, City of Tucson – Parks and Recreation Department

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

ADEQ is only authorized to adopt water quality standa rds for navigable waters. Given the jurisdictional

uncertainty and other implications of the proposed revisions to Arizona’s SWQS, ADEQ should consider

postponing portions of the proposed SWQS rule pending re solution and further discussions on these key issues.

Matthew Oller, Flood Control District of Maricopa County

The District also adopts the Water Quality Coalition comments on the jurisdictional uncertainty after the

Rapanos decision as it is unclear what Waters of the U.S. are.

Robert S. Lynch, Irrigation & Electri cal Districts Association of Arizona

The current definition of “surface water” in R 18-11-101(41) does not comply with either the SWANNC or

Rapanos decisions of the United State Supreme Court. The de finition needs some clarification and revision for it

to be consistent with this applicable case law.

Response: The Department disagrees with the suggested changes to the rule and refers readers to

Responses #3, #4, #5, #7, and #8, which deal with jurisdiction, surface waters, and case law

. Both effluentdependent waters and ephemeral wate rs are included in Arizona’s definition of “surface water,” both have

designated uses and numeric and narrative criteria deve loped to protect their designated uses and EPA has

approved the Department’s water quality standards. These waters are subject to Clean Water Act section 305(b)

assessments, 303(d) listing, and 402 permitting requirements. The Rapanos decision has limited applicability, and

does not apply to the state’s adoption of surface water quality standards.

R18-11-101. DEFINITIONS

R18-11-101(5) and- (8); Aquatic and wildlife (cold water) (A&Wc); Aquatic and wildlife (warm water) (A&Ww)

Comment #10

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

While we support the overall definitions of aquatic and wildlife (cold water) and aquatic and wildlife

# 109 (warm water), we remain concerned about using the 5000 f oot elevation as an absolute cut off to distinguish

these uses. As our comments indicated in the last Triennial Review, we recommend that the ADEQ also

consider other mitigating factors, such as whether or not there is significant shading of a particular stream,

water temperatures, and whether or not there is a co ld-water macroinvertebrate community present. Under

certain conditions, a lower elevation stream may support a cold water aquatic community. For example, our

members have noted the presence of trout in Spring Creek, a tributary of Tonto Creek, at an elevation of 4200

feet. A warm-water designation for this creek and others similar to it would be inappropriate. For those reasons,

we again recommend some greater flexibility in these definitions.

Response: The use of the 5000 foot elevation for applying the A&Ww and A&Wc designated uses was

adopted in 2002. The 5000 foot elevation is applied as a general “rule of thumb” for the appropriate designation of

the A&Wc and A&Ww uses. The Department agrees that there may be some exceptions to the use of the 5000

foot elevation contour, which is why the Department used the phrase “generally occurring” in both definitions of

the A&Wc and A&Ww designated uses. The Department be lieves the use of the phase, “generally occurring” in

the definitions provides the needed flexibility to make appropriate use designations. For example, the Department

adopted the A&Wc designated use for the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam even though it is at an

elevation of approximately 3000 feet because it receives cold water discharged from Glen Canyon Dam and Lake

Powell.

Macroinvertebrates found in streams across Arizona contain cold water and warm water bioindicator

species. The distribution of macroinvertebrate species a nd presence of cold water taxa in streams at various

elevations led to the general conclusion that most co ld water bioindicator species are found in streams at

elevations greater than 5000 feet (Spindler, 1996).

R18-11-101(5) - (8); Aquatic and wildlife (cold water) (A&Wc), Aquatic and wildlife (effluent-dependent water)

(A&Wedw), Aquatic and wildlife (ephemeral) (A&We), Aquatic and wildlife (warm water) (A&Ww)

Comment #11

Robert Hollander, City of Phoenix

The Water Services Department requests that the exis ting definitions be retained. The proposed definitions

imply uses that may be put to the waters as the resu lt of a single species. Section 5 of the Preamble on page 1283

indicates, among other things, that “The Department may consider ... 2. The varying sensitivities of local affected

aquatic populations to these pollutants;” [emphasis added] . Therefore, the designated use should be based on

“aquatic populations” not a single species and that the speci es should be “local.” The existing definitions better

articulate this requirement.

Response: The Department did not intend to substantively change the existing rule. The change had been

proposed to conform to rule writing conventions. The Depa rtment agrees with the commenter and the Department

will use the plural form rather than the singular form fo r “animal, plant, or other warm-water organism” in R18-

11-101(5) through (8):

5. “Aquatic and wildlife (cold water) (A&Wc) ” means the use of a surface water by animals,

plants, or other cold-water organisms, generally occurring at elevations an elevation

# 110 greater than 5000 feet, for habitation, growth, or propagation.

6. “Aquatic and wildlife (effluent-dependent water) (A&Wedw) ” means the use of an effluentdependent water by animals, plants, or or ganisms for habitation, growth, or propagation.

7. “Aquatic and wildlife (ephemeral water) (A&We) ” means the use of an ephemeral water

by animals, plants, or organisms , excluding fis h, for habitation, growth, or propagation.

8. “Aquatic and wildlife (warm water) (A&Ww) ” means the use of a surface water by

animals, plants, or other warm-water organisms, generally occurring at elevations an

elevation less than 5000 feet, for habitation, growth, or propagation.

R18-11-101(6) & (7); Aquatic and wildlife (effluent-dependent water) (A&Wedw) and Aquatic and wildlife

(ephemeral) (A&We)

Comment #12

Michele Van Quathem, Superstition Mountai ns Community Facilities District No. 1

The definitions of “aquatic and wildlife (effluent-dep endent water)” and “aquatic and wildlife (ephemeral)”

are the same, except (1) one use is described as an “e ffluent-dependent water” and one is described as an

“ephemeral water” and (2) the ephemeral definition specifi cally excludes fish. If an effluent-dependent water (as

that term is defined in the current proposed rules) has insufficient volume and flow to sustain fish, does ADEQ

intend to apply the aquatic and wildlife (effluent-d ependent water) use to that water? If so, why?

Response: The definitions of “aquatic and wildlife (ephemeral)” a nd “aquatic and wildlife (effluentdependent water”) designated uses are expressed in general terms that are intended to convey the idea that the two

designated uses are established to maintain and protect water quality for the animals, plants, and other organisms

that inhabit or could inhabit effluent-dependent wate rs and ephemeral waters. Th e definition of “aquatic and

wildlife (effluent-dependent water)” does not include a re ference to “fish” and the presence of fish is not

necessary for the Department to classify a water body as an effluent-dependent water. The Department has

adopted the aquatic and wildlife (effluent-dependent water) designated use for EDWs that have fish and those that

do not. However, all EDWs have animals, plants, and other organisms that deserve water quality protection

through the adoption of appropriate water quality standards.

The commenter points out that the definition of “a quatic and wildlife (ephemeral)” includes the phrase,

“excluding fish.” This phrase was included when the de signated use was originally adopted in 1992 and is not

changed in this rulemaking. The Department had included language in an attempt to clarify that the “aquatic and

wildlife (ephemeral)” designated use was not intended to pr otect fish. The “excluding fish” language was intended

to convey that the method and the toxicity datasets that the Department used to derive the numeric water quality

criteria for the A&We designated use did not include fish species.

R18-11-101(14); Deep lake

Comment #13

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

A deep lake is defined as a lake or reservoir with an average depth of over 6 meters, whereas a shallow lake

# 111 is defined as a lake or reservoir with an average depth of less than 3 meters. There is no definition for a lake with

depths between that of a shallow and deep lake.

Response: A lake that is neither “deep” nor “shallow,” nor located within an urban context, according to

the definitions, will default to either “igneous” or “sedimentary” depending upon which geology and/or soils

predominates. See Response #77.

R18-11-101(17); Effluent-dependent water (EDW)

Comment #14

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

The proposed revisions to the definition of “efflue nt-dependent water” (A.A.C. R18-11-101(17)) would

delete the term "treated" before "waste water," which is itself an undefined term.

Response: The commenter is correct that the term “wastewa ter” is not a defined term in R18-11-101. Since

it is not specifically defined in the surface water qua lity rules, it should be given its commonly understood

meaning. Wastewater includes water that has been used fo r washing, flushing, or in a manufacturing process, and

so contains waste materials, dissolved or suspended matte r or other pollutants. Whether treated or not, wastewater

discharges contain pollutants and must meet a ppropriate and protective water quality standards.

Comment #15

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

ADEQ removed the term treated as a modifier of wastewater in the definition for an effluent dependant

water (EDW). Removing this term makes industrial discharg es subject to Aquatic and Wildlife effluent dependant

water (A&W edw) standards. The A&W edw water quality standards are specifically created for application to

treated wastewater discharges, and may not be appropria te or intended for application to various industrial

discharges. PAG asks if public outreach was conducted to inform industrial dischargers and to give them an

opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations.

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition:

ADEQ proposes to define an “effluent-dependent wate r” (“EDW”) as “a surface water, classified under

R18-11-113, that consists of a point source discharge of wastewater. An effluent-dependent water is a surface

water that, without the point source discharge of wast ewater, would be an ephemeral water.” Proposed R18-11-

101(17). The proposed revision removes the word “treated” as a modifier of the word “wastewater” from the

current EDW definition. This revision would effectively allow an ephemeral water which receives any discharge

other than stormwater to be treated as an EDW. Bu t ADEQ provides no explanation as to why such a “level

playing field” is desirable or sensible. Effluent from a WWTP is quite different from many, if not most, industrial

discharges. Effluent from a wastewater treatment plant is treated differently under the current EDW definition

because it is different. Indeed, EDW criteria are based on assumptions of discharges from WWTPs.

Response: The Department does not agree that the A&Wedw standards are “specifically created” to apply

to domestic wastewater discharges. More accurately, these standards were created to be protective of aquatic life

in intermittently or perennially wet environments. The term ‘treated’ was likely included because the vast majority

# 112 of dischargers under AZPDES permits are publicly owne d treatment works (POTWs) or domestic wastewater

treatment plants that are not allowed to discharge untreated wastewater. However, in applying the rule in permits,

it is clear that some facilities may discharge water that is not sufficiently protective into waterbodies simply

because of an artificial regulatory di stinction. The purpose of having a surface water quality standards is to protect

the waterbody for designated uses. This level of prot ection should not change depending on the source of the

wastewater; either the standard is met or it is not. If water is supplied in any consistent basis in a desert

environment, aquatic (and non-aquatic) lif e will use this critical resource. A discharge needs to be of adequate

quality to protect that life and promote a healthy aqua tic community. The term “treated” has been removed

throughout the rulemaking. This revision will correct this inequity and will protect aquatic environments that

should exist in waterbodies regardle ss of the source of the wastewater.

Under the current rule, an effluent-dependent water ma y be created by the discharge of treated wastewater

from a municipal or domestic wastewater treatment plant or by the discharge of treated wastewater from an

industrial facility to an ephemeral wate r. The Department interprets both the current and the proposed definitions

of “effluent-dependent water” as applying to point sour ce discharges of wastewater from both sewage treatment

plants and industrial facilities.

Public notice and opportunity to comment on this issue was provided to the regulated community through

the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Department received numerous comments specifically

addressing proposed revisions to the definition of effl uent-dependent water from several persons representing

industrial dischargers, including the Salt River Proj ect and the Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

(representing over 5000 members of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Greater Phoenix

Chamber of Commerce).

Comment #16

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

The proposed definition drops “treated” as an adjective for “wastewater.” ADEQ states in their explanation

of the rule that their intent is to expand the EDW appro ach to regulate industrial discharges in addition to treated

domestic and municipal wastewater. The City of Tucson believes that ADEQ should continue with its traditional

approach of using EDW provisions only for discharge of treated domestic and municipal wastewater effluent.

Since “wastewater” is an undefined term and could be viewed as virtually any point source discharge, many

surface waters become eligible to be regulated as EDWs under the proposed rule. Such an approach could, in

effect, characterize many of the “recei ving waters” of stormwater MS4s from ephemeral to EDW, merely by the

presence of industrial, DeMinimus, or other types of point sources. If an MS4’s “receiving water” becomes

regulated as an EDW, the standards used to assess BMP performance would change. While it doesn’t appear to be

the intent of the rule to apply EDW standards generally to stormwater discharges, the rule could be applied in that

manner.

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

The definition provided in the rule does not specify how much effluent, or for how long effluent is

discharged before the stream reach is considered to be an EDW. Therefore, any amount of discharge could trigger

# 113 A&W edw water standards. The mere presence of an AZPDES industrial discharge on an ephemeral water body

could be used by ADEQ to require all dischargers to that water body to comply with A&Wedw standards.

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

ADEQ failed to appropriately evaluate the application of these proposed rules to storm water discharges. It

is generally recognized by the aquatic scientific community that storm water runoff events create a substantially

unique eco-system in receiving waters in the arid West. The standards that have been developed for non arid West

aquatic eco-systems may well be inappropriate during arid West storm water events. ADEQ should have, in this

Triennial Review, rationally evaluated the appropriateness of applying these Standards to storm water discharges.

Response: See Response #15 regarding deletion of the term “treated” from the definition. The changes

proposed in R18-11-113 relating to the application of EDW standards to point source discharges of wastewater

were not intended to encompass stormwater discharges or de minimus discharges. Stormwater flows are shortterm and in response only to precipitation events; this is consistent with the definition of ephemeral flow. This

would cover certain ‘other allowable’ discharges that are permitted under the construction and the multi-sector

general permit for stormwater. Likewise due to the unique nature of discharges authorized under the De Minimus

General Permit (AZG2004-001) there may be instances where the use of ephemeral standards may continue to be

adequate, and in response to comments to retain flexibility for this limited class

. The following language has been

added to R18-11-101 to clarify the Department’s original intent:

48. “Wastewater” does not mean:

1. Stormwater;

2. Discharges authorized under the De Minimus General Permit;

3. Other allowable non-stormwater dischar ges permitted under the Construction General

Permit or the Multi-sector General Permit; or

4. Stormwater discharges from a municipal st orm sewer system (MS4) containing incidental

amounts of non-stormwater that the MS4 is not required to prohibit.

Ephemeral waters that flow only in direct respons e to precipitation because they receive point source

discharges of stormwater regulated under a MS4 permit are ephemeral waters as defined in R18-11-101(18) and

the A&W(ephemeral) standards apply. The formal recla ssification of an ephemeral water to an EDW that will

affect an MS4 permit, will be done through rulemaking. Until or unless reclassified, those streams remain

ephemeral for purposes of the MS4 program. The rule langua ge has been revised to cover incidental amounts of

other discharges that the MS4 is not required to prohib it in its illicit discharge detection and elimination program

under 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2(iv)(B)(1). These include, but are not limited to, air conditioning condensate, foundation

or footing drains not contaminated with process materials, irrigation, and street wash water.

The commenter correctly notes that the MS4 permits tie assessment of BMP performance to the surface

water quality standards and de signated uses of the waters receiving the stormwater discharges. However, R18-11-

113(D) relates to the standard of protection for which individual discharge permits will be written and does not

constitute a formal change in designati on of a waterbody. Discharges of wastew ater to an ephemeral wash may be

required to meet EDW standards in permit limits, but th e wash remains ephemeral until changed by rulemaking.

An MS4 discharging stormwater to such a wash would onl y be responsible for evaluati ng discharges with respect

# 114 to ephemeral standards unless and until the r eceiving water is otherwise designated by rule.

The Department does not have sufficient data to s upport the adoption of “wet-weather” standards that

would apply to Arizona surface waters only during stormwater runoff events. Given the unavailability of wet

weather standards, the default water quality standards apply to Arizona surface waters during storm events.

AZPDES permitting staff will continue to work with all the MS4 permittees to develop renewal permits and work

with the regulated community to clarify rules that are protective of the environment and reflective of local

conditions.

Comment #17

Kevin Wanttaja, Salt River Project

SRP is submitting comments regarding the proposed change to the definition of effluent-dependent water

(EDW) and how implementation of the EDW rule under R18-11-113 will adversely impact SRP’s facilities.

ADEQ proposes to define an effl uent-dependent water (EDW) as “a surface water, classified under R18-

11-113, that consists of a point source discharge of wast ewater. An effluent-dependent water is a surface water

that, without the point source discharge of wastewater, would be an ephemeral water.” The proposed revision

removes the word “treated” from the current EDW definiti on so that any industrial discharge to an ephemeral

water, except stormwater, would be reclassified as a disc harge to an effluent-dependent water. In the rulemaking

preamble, ADEQ provides an example of how the revised definition would be applied.

In each example, ADEQ identifies untreated cooling water from a power plant; untreated cooling water;

and wastewater from a power plant as the regulatory triggers that would require the receiving water’s designated

use to be reclassified from ephemeral to EDW. No other industries are specifically named in the proposed

rulemaking.

In reviewing a list of 181 Major/Minor AZPDES permits currently in service, only 6 permits were issued to

steam-electric facilities (< 4% of the total). Of the 6 perm its, SRP identified only 2 that currently discharge to an

ephemeral water body: SRP’s Kyrene Unit K7 and Santan generating stations. Yet, ADEQ justifies the proposed

rulemaking by stating, “changes in this rule making also level the playing field between businesses and

municipalities that are point source dischargers.”

Furthermore, ADEQ states, “ With this change, an industrial facility w ill be held to the same water quality

requirements as the municipal discharger to the same waterbody.”

Municipal dischargers are different than other discharges. The initial EDW definition and rule were created

because municipal effluents typically contain higher concentrations of conventional and non-conventional

pollutants than other dischargers. (Conventional pollutants include biological oxygen demand, total suspended

solids, fecal coliform, pH and oil and grease. Non-conven tional pollutants include toxicity, chemical oxygen

demand, metals and organic compounds not on the prio rity pollutant list, radioactivity and color.) Municipal

effluents are also known to contain higher concentrati ons of ammonia, phosphate and often-times measurable

concentrations of endocrine disruptors, pharmaceuti cals, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) and

perfluorinaated acids (PFAs) — chemicals which ar e not commonly found in steam-electric effluents.

# 115 In comparison, permitted steam-electric facilities are required to meet stringent discharge requirements for

pH, free available chlorine, total chromium and zinc a nd must be free from any of the 126 priority pollutants.

ADEQ provides no other justification in the preamble for re-defining the EDW definition or R18-11-113

rule change. Nor has ADEQ published the location of the ad ministrative record or technical support document that

provides the foundation or basis to support the proposed rulemaking

If the proposed EDW definition and EDW rule is pr omulgated, and A&Wedw criteria applied, SRP’s

Kyrene Unit K7 and Santan generating stations may lo se their ability to discharge. If these facilities cannot

discharge, they can not generate electrical energy need ed by SRP’s 920,000 customers. This critical issue is not

discussed anywhere in the rulemaking especially in the section titled, “ The preliminary summary of the economic,

small business, and consumer impact.”

For these reasons, SRP again requests ADEQ to postpone the proposed changes and continue to implement

the EDW definition and rule promulgated on March 29, 2002.

Response: See response #15. The effluent limitation guidelin es (ELGs) referenced by the commenter, are

industry standards promulgated by rule which in themselv es, and are not necessarily protective of human health

and aquatic life. For example, the ‘stringent’ ELGs for a steam electric power plant require pH to be between 6-9,

similar to surface water quality standards; however, tota l chromium can be 200 ppm which is above all surface

water quality standards, except possibly ephemeral standa rds depending on hardness and total to dissolved ratios;

total zinc can be 1000 ppm which is above all aquatic and wildlife water quality standards except possibly

ephemeral, depending on hardness and total to dissolved ratios; and Free Available Chlorine can range from 200-

500 ppm, which are levels that are toxic to aquatic life and significantly above total chlorine limits. The Clean

Water Act requires permits to include discharge limits based on both ELGs and water quality standards, the lower

of which drives discharge limits at the outfall. (40 CFR 122.44(d))

For qualifying dischargers, the rules provide for varian ces from certain standards if all provisions of R18-

11-122 are met. Another option would be the development of a use attainability analysis (UAA) to remove a

designated use that is not an existing use, or to adopt a subcategory of a designated use if it can be demonstrated

that the existing designated use can not be attained fo r one or more factors outlined in 40 CFR 131.10(g). These

factors include controls that are more stringent than those required by § 301(b) and § 306 of the Clean Water Act

are necessary to attain the use and that implementation of the controls would result in substantial and widespread

economic and social impact. Considering all the options available to address SRP’s concerns, the Department

anticipates that SRP will not be required to eliminate its discharge immediately, if at all, and will continue to

provide reliable electricity to its customers fro m its Kyrene and San Tan generating stations.

Comment #18

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

In March 2004, the State issued a De Minimus General Permit (No. AZG2004-001), which permits

discharge of pollutants associated with potable and r eclaimed water systems. The permit also allows ADEQ to

review and approve other case-by-case short-term and/or lo w volume discharges that are considered De Minimus.

Under the currently proposed rule, all discharges of wa stewater, including some of those clearly considered

# 116 acceptable under the De Minimus permit would trigger A&W edw water quality standards. Therefore the

proposed rules appear to conflict with the intent of the De Minimus permit and language should be added to

clarify that the De Minimus discharges do not invoke EDW status.

PAG recommends leaving the word treated in the rule to avoid some of the complications stated above.

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

This proposed revision of the EDW definition also runs counter to current and long-standing ADEQ

permitting practices. For example, ADEQ currently make s available a De Minimis General Permit under its

AZPDES program (Permit No. AZG2004-001) for de minimi s discharges with low pollutant levels. Under the

proposed EDW definition, such permitted discharges, no matter how insignificant in amount or environmental

impact, would result in transforming a water otherwise classified as ephemeral into an EDW for SWQS and

AZPDES permitting purposes. Permittees would have no in centive to seek de minimis permit authorization,

because by so doing they would effectively convert their receiving water into an EDW under the proposed

definition.

Response: See Response #16.

Comment #19

Michele Van Quathem, Superstition Mountai ns Community Facilities District No. 1

The definition of “effluent-dependent water” consists of a point sour ce discharge of “wastewater.” It

appears from ADEQ’s explanation of the use of the term “w astewater” that it is inte nded to apply to any liquid

discharge, of any type, volume, and frequency. The definition fails to pr ovide rational criteria distinguishing

effluent-dependent waters from ephemera l waters at the point stream flow enters a water of the United States.

Although ADEQ proposes to add flow criteria in rule sec tion R18-11-113(E) that would authorize, but not require,

ADEQ to apply acute effluent-dependent water standard s to “sporadic, infrequent, or emergency point source

discharges,” this new definition language in R18-11-101( 17) fails to recognize that ephemeral waters receiving

point source discharges may not, in fact, be “effluent-dep endent” at the point they enter a water of the United

States.

Since the definition of “effluent-dependent water” is to be used by ADEQ to apply more stringent surface

water quality standards to point source discharges to ephe meral waters because those waters with the addition of

discharges gain characteristics of intermittent or perenni al flows and may have little or no dilution at the point

where they contribute to a water of the United States, this definition needs to provide criteria for volume,

frequency, and dilution of flow at the point where the tributary joins a water of the United States.

Response: The Department disagrees that the proposed defi nition of effluent-dependent water fails to

provide rational criteria for distinguishing between effluent -dependent waters and ephe meral water, both of which

are waters of the United States. The proposed definition pr ovides a bright-line criterion that clearly distinguishes

the two categories of surface water. The defining charact eristic that distinguishes an EDW from an ephemeral

water is the presence of a point source discharge of wastewater to an ephemeral water.

The difference between ephemeral waters and effluent-dependent waters is best understood by reading the

regulatory definitions of ephemeral water and effluent-dependent water together. A comparison highlights the

# 117 distinguishing characteristic between the two categories. Ephemeral waters and efflue nt-dependent waters are

defined primarily by their flow character istics. An ephemeral water is defined as a surface water that has a channel

that is at all times above the water table (i.e., a normally dry watercourse such as a wash), and that flows only in

direct response to precipitation (See R18-11-101(18)). By contrast, an effluent-dependent water is a normally dry

watercourse that contains flow that is the result of a point source discharge of wastewater to the normally dry

channel. The difference between the two types of surface water is the source of flow; i.e., the presence or absence

of wastewater or effluent. Since the distinction between the two is based on hydrology, the Department disagrees

that the definition of effluent-dependent water needs to provide criteria for a minimum volume of treated

wastewater, a minimum frequency of discharge, or the availability of receiving water for dilution.

Comment #20

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

A similar issue arises with respect to stormwat er permitting. ADEQ has represented in stakeholder

meetings that it will interpret the proposed EDW defi nition such that any ephemeral water receiving any

discharge, other than stormwater, will be treated as an EDW for SWQS purposes. However, stormwater permits

authorize certain non-stormwater discharges. For exampl e, the current Small MS4 General Permit authorizes

certain “occasional incidental non-stormwater discharg es,” such as water line flushing, pumped groundwater,

discharges from potable water sources, foundation drains, air conditioning condensate, and other discharges not

identified as “significant contributors of pollutants. ” (Permit No. AZG2002-002). Similarly, the Construction

General permit allows for certain non-stormwater discharg es, including discharges from firefighting activities, air

conditioning or compressor condensate, and water used in drilling, coring or compacting soil. (Permit No.

AZG2008-001). In light of the proposed EDW definition, it is unclear how such permitted non-stormwater

discharges would be treated.

The Coalition, in light of the above discussion offers a suggested definition:

Effluent-dependent water” means a surface wate r that consists of discharges of treated

wastewater that the Director determines create a significant aquatic ecosystem in terms of size and

location that would otherwise not exist due to flows from precipitation events alone. An effluentdependent water is a surface water that, without the discharge of treated wastewater creating a

significant aquatic ecosystem that would otherwise not exist due to flows from precipitation events alone,

would be an ephemeral water.

Response: The Department cannot support the Coalition’s recommended definition of effluent-dependent

water (EDW) because it requires a subjective determination of the significance of an aquatic ecosystem created by

the discharge of “treated” wastewater before the Depa rtment could designate a surface water as an EDW. A

definition of EDW that relies on a determination of a “significant aquatic ecosystem” cannot be practically

implemented. In the absence of clearly defined and objective significance tests, the determination of significance

becomes little more than a subjective value judgment ra ising a danger of inconsistent decision-making when

classifying EDWs.

The Department has reviewed the comments regarding the incidental authorized discharges under several of

# 118 the general permits and individual MS4 permits and ha s modified the rule language in R18-11-113(D). See

Response #16.

Comment #21

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

ADEQ should similarly revise R18-11-113(C) by either in serting the modifier “treated” before the term

“wastewater,” or by defining the term “wastewater” in that section to m ean effluent discharges from a WWTP.

Additionally, ADEQ could simply replace the term “waste water” in the proposed definition with the term

“reclaimed water” as defined in A.R.S. § 49-201(31), wh ich would make EDW regulation more consistent with

Aquifer Protection Permit and reclaimed water use regulations.

Response: The Department disagrees with the comment that the application of these standards should be

only to municipal sewage plants. See Responses #15 and #16.

The Department disagrees with the suggestion that the term “wastewater” be replaced with the term

“reclaimed water.” Reclaimed water quality standards were not intended to be protective of surface water or

aquatic and wildlife. In particular, reclaimed water often contains residual disinfection byproducts, such as

chlorine and metals, which are toxic to aquatic life.

Comment #22

J Adrianne Settimo

Substituting the term “wastewater” for “discharges of treated wastewater,” under R18-11-113, is too

broad and fails to adequately protect surface water quality. The term “wastewater,” as stated by the ADEQ

indicates that “untreated cooling water and other indus trial process waters” and “discharges of municipal and

domestic wastewater,” will be allowed to enter ephemeral waters, classifying them as effluent-dependent

waters. See , R18-11-113. Making standards more flexible to a llow untreated wastewater into ephemeral waters,

proposed rule at R18-11-113, only puts public health and welfare and “water quality for the protection and

propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and for recrea tion in and on the water,” in jeopardy. Water Quality

Standards, 40 C.F.R. § 131.2 (2007). Broadening the term allows waters possibly containing chemicals,

including potential carcinogens and other pollutants to enter waterways. The proposed rule should not be

adopted as it would potentially degrade the quality of water downstream of these ephemeral waters.

Response: The comment suggests a misunderstanding of the rule proposal. Under the current regulations,

untreated wastewaters may discharge and are being di scharged into waters unde r ephemeral water quality

standards that are not appropriate or protective for these discharges. The current regulations are flawed precisely

because they allow more pollutants to be discharged and less protective standards to be met simply because they

are untreated. This rulemaking rectifies this by regula ting these discharges in the same manner as treated

discharges — thus they would need to meet a higher le vel of protection under these new rules. See Response #17.

In some cases, dischargers may have to treat their wastewater or find other disposal options besides discharge to a

surface water.

The proposed revisions are intended to clarify how A&Wedw standards are applied to any point source

# 119 discharges of wastewater (except stormwater) to epheme ral waters that create effluent-dependent waters. Point

source discharges of “wastewater,” “treated wastewater,” “untreated cooling water,” and “other industrial process

waters” to ephemeral waters, and to EDWs remain subj ect to regulation under the AZPDES permit program which

controls the discharge of pollutants to Arizona’s surface waters.

R18-11-101(20); Fish consumption

Comment #23

Janet Hashimoto, Chief; EPA Monitoring & Assessment Office

The proposed rule would narrow the definition of Fish Consumption (FC) as a beneficial use (section R18-

11-101.20). The current FC definition broadly includes “har vesting aquatic organisms for consumption,” such as

“fish, clams, turtles, crayfish, and frogs” whereas the pr oposed new definition would pertain strictly to fish. The

FC definition affects which water bodies can qua lify for protection under ADEQ standards for human

consumption of aquatic organisms. By narrowing the de finition, ADEQ would preclude determination of water

body impairment on the basis of human consumption of pollutant-contaminated aquatic organisms other than fish.

Even if ADEQ currently only relies on consumption of fish to designate water bodies for FC, the proposed

rule does not provide a rationale as to why narrowing th e definition is warranted. In the future, ADEQ or other

interested parties may identify water bodies in which hum ans are consuming aquatic organisms other than fish. A

broad definition of fish consumption is not without pr ecedent in other areas; for example, several California

Regional boards have established a commercial or sport fi shing (CMM) beneficial use that pertains not only to

fish but to shellfish and other organisms intended for human consumption or bait purposes.

Response: The Department agrees. While fish are the only organisms that are currently being sampled in

support of the fish consumption designated use, it is important to address the possibility that other aquatic

organisms are being harvested and consumed or may be in the future. Except for the added acronym of the term,

“fish consumption,” the original definition will remain unchanged.

R18-11-101(24); Igneous lake

Comment #24

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

An igneous lake would be one that is floored by igneous geology and soils including volcanic or plutonic

igneous materials.

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

Fred H. Gray, City of Tucson – Parks and Recreation Department

The definition in rule of “igneous lake” uses the criteria of “volcanic or basaltic ,” whereas the guidance

document says “volcanic/granitic lithology .” ADEQ shouldn’t use conflicting definitions and should get the

geologic terms straight. If the important factor is the perm eability of the rock beneath th e lake, the rule should just

distinguish between hard rock substrat e and soft rock/alluvial substrate.

Response: The Department agrees there is need for clarif ication and the definition has been revised as

follows:

# 120 24. “Igneous lake” means a lake located in volcanic, basaltic, or granitic geology and soils.”

R18-11-101(28); Outstanding Arizona Water

Comment #25

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

The definition for “Outstanding Arizona Water” should match the previous definition of a Unique Water

and be written as follows “Outstanding Arizona Water mean s a surface water that is classified as an outstanding

state resource water by the Director under R18-11-112.” This clear definition removes any ambiguity about which

waters are designated as OAW. By including some explanator y information in the definitions section, but not all

of the information in R18-11-112, contradicting inte rpretations about what constitutes an OAW might be

introduced.

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

ADEQ proposes to use the term “Outstanding Arizona Water” (“OAW”) in lieu of the term “unique water”

in its proposed SWQS. This definition fails to address th e most important characteristic of an OAW – that the

water has been designated an OAW by ADEQ pursuant to the proposed R18-11-112. The criteria (a) – (c) in the

proposed OAW definition are already adequately addressed under the OAW designation criteria in R18-11-112.

The current definition suggests that a water could qualif y as an OAW without being designated as such, which

would eliminate essential public participation in ma king such designations. The OAW definition would also

confuse permittees as to particular permit conditions that would apply only to OAWs, and give rise to potential

conflicts with the language in R18-11-112. ADEQ should re vise the definition of OAW to mean “a surface water

that is classified as an outstanding state resource water by the Director under R18-11-112.”

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

The AMA concurs with the Coalition's comment that the proposed new definition of outstanding Arizona

water ("OAW") at A.A.C. R18-11-101(28) suggests that waters may qualify as OAWs even without being

classified by rule, which is inconsistent with the text of A.A.C. R18-11-112(A). The AMA supports the Coalition's

suggested revision to that definition.

Response: The Department agrees that an OAW must be classified by the Director through formal

rulemaking and has revised the definition of OAW as follows:

28. “Outstanding Arizona Water (OAW)” means a surface water that is classified as an

outstanding state resource water by the Director under R18-11-112.

Comment #26

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

We are supportive of the name change for “Unique Water” to “Outstanding Arizona Water” as it does

accurately describe the nature of the waters listed.

Response: The Department appreciates the Sierra Club’s support for the Department’s proposed change in

terminology from “unique water” to “Outstanding Arizona Wa ter.” The Department agrees that it more accurately

describes the nature of surface waters that are classified as outstanding state resource waters and the term is more

# 121 consistent with the terminology used in federal regulations to describe waters that are protected under Tier 3 of the

federal antidegradation policy.

R18-11-101(29); Partial-body contact (PBC)

Comment #27

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

We remain concerned about the Partial Body Cont act designation and continue to support a Full Body

Contact designation for all water bodies in which people recreate. Especially for children, there is no real

practical difference between Partial and Full Body Contact . Our designated uses and standards should be set to

protect the most vulnerable.

To simplify the standards and to promote better understanding of the rule and better water quality

overall, we suggest designating all of Arizona's surface water for full body contact (FBC) recreation use and to

eliminate the partial body contact (PBC) designated use a nd standards, unless it is clear that children do not

have access to the area. Because there is almost no difference between partial body contact and full body

contact when it comes to children, we think the most pr otective standards possible should apply to all of these

surface waters in order to adequately protect the hea lth of young children. We would like the department to

build in some kind of safety factor in determining th ese limits and would rather see it default to the higher

standards. Unfortunately, most of the standards are es tablished based on the average weight of a human adult

male (70 kilograms).

Response: The Department did not make a substantive change to the definition of “partial body contact

recreation” in this rulemaking nor did the Department adopt the full body contact designated use for all surface

waters in Arizona where people may recreate. To derive PBC criteria, the methodology for non-carcinogenic

pollutants was used. This results in few differences betw een the two sets of numeric water quality criteria for the

two designated uses.

The Department appreciates the commenter’s concerns but believes there is sufficient evidence that a PBC

standard is warranted, especially in Arizona where ma ny of our streams are intermittent or ephemeral and many

urban lakes are managed for incidental contact.

While the functional differences between full body cont act and partial body contact have narrowed due to

the adoption of more realistic exposure assumptions, the Department believes it is important to continue to

differentiate between the two uses due to the influence of flow on the overall probability of exposure. For created

waterbodies such as listed canals and most effluent-dep endent streams, full body contact is not considered an

appropriate use. In ephemeral waterbodies, the random and episodic nature of the flow precludes “chronic”

consumption (small amounts over a long period of time) and severely limits the likelihood for carcinogenic

exposure. It is only in perennial rivers, streams, and lake s that recreational full body cont act is likely to occur. See

Response #145 for more discussion on how standards are derived for these two designated uses. See Response

#127 for discussion on safety factors in risk analysis.

R18-11-101(31); Pollutant

# 122 Comment #28

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

The ADEQ should not diverge from the statutory wording for this term [pollutant]. In doing so, it seems

that “substances and chemicals” was dropped. The te rms “other agricultural chemicals,” “munitions” and

“petroleum products” are awkward when converted to the singular. ADEQ should consider deleting this definition

and simply relying on the statutory definition of A.R.S. § 49-201(29).

Response: The current definition mirrors statutory language. The Department has restated the current

definition using italics and the statutory citation, followi ng rule writing guidelines. No change has been made to

the rule.

R18-11-101(35); Regulated discharge; R18-11-107.01

Comment #29

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

Under proposed R18-11-101(35), ADEQ defines a “regulat ed discharge” triggering antidegradation review

as a “point source discharge regulated under an AZPDES permit, a discharge regulated by a § 404 permit, and any

discharge authorized by a federal permit or license that is subject to state water quality certification under § 401 of

the CWA.” The proposed definition of “regulated discharg e” violates the statutory restriction on ADEQ authority

to impose more stringent requirements than the CWA and related federal regulations. See A.R.S. § 49-255.01(B).

This definition is also inconsistent with EPA guidance entitled “Tier 2 Antidegradation Reviews and Significance

Thresholds,” (August 10, 2005) (copy enclosed as Attach ment A). The Coalition recommends that ADEQ revise

this definition to be consistent with EPA’s approach – that only new or expanded point source discharges under

AZPDES or new or expanded discharges under sec tions 401 and 404 of the CWA qualify as “regulated

discharges” for purposes of antidegradation review.

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

ADEQ’s proposed antidegradation definition is inconsistent with Arizona law.

The proposed definition of “regulated discharge” found at A.A.C. R18-11-101(35) is more restrictive than

the CWA and therefore violates A.R.S. § 49-255.01(B) that limits ADEQ authority to those requirements found

within the CWA. The proposed definition is also inconsistent with the EPA guidance entitled Tier 2

Antidegradation Reviews and Significance Thresholds, August 10, 2005 (Attachment #10). Pima County requests

that ADEQ revise its proposed definition to be consistent with EPA guidance which stipulates that only new or

expanded point source discharges under AZPES or new or expanded discharges under sections 401 and 404 of the

CWA qualify as “regulated discharges” for purposes of antidegradation review.

David E McNeil, City of Tempe

ADEQ has indicated in stakeholder meetings that an tidegradation review applies to all facility seeking

permit coverage. Tempe is unaware of any other stat e that extends antidegradation review beyond new or

expanded facilities and ADEQ has not clearly explained how antidegradation review would apply to existing

facilities seeking permit renewal. The only suggestion ma de by ADEQ staff during the stakeholder process in

response to questions regarding how and when antidegrada tion review would apply to existing facilities was that it

# 123 could be applied when standards were changed. Tempe is very concerned with the suggestion implying that if

20% of assimilative capacity for a pollutant is consumed for a Tier 2 water body, and a standard becomes more

stringent, that a discharger might be forced to complete ly redesign and rebuild a treatment facility in order to

accommodate the reduction in assimilative capacity resulting from the standards change. There is no way for a

municipality to anticipate all future changes in a standard when designing a treatment facility to meet current and

future antidegradation requirements. Te mpe requests a clear explanation of how and when antidegradation will be

applied to existing facilities, and recommends limiting this rule to new, expanded, or reconstructed facilities.

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

The AMA fully supports the Coalition comments on antidegradation, particularly the comment that

antidegradation review should apply only to new or modi fied discharges (i.e., increased or new pollutant

loadings), not to renewals of existing permits with no changes (o r to aspects of an existing discharge that will not

be changed). To the best of the AMA’s knowledge, that is how EPA and neighboring states implement

antidegradation reviews. The AMA does not even unders tand how an antidegradation review of an existing

discharge would be conducted, especially given that app licable standards likely would have changed over the life

of the discharge (making analysis of assim ilative capacity in the past a moving target).

Response: The Department disagrees that the proposed defi nition of “regulated discharge” in the surface

water quality standards rules violates any statutory restriction found in A.R.S. § 49-255.01(B). A.R.S. § 49-

255.01(B) does not apply to the adoption of the surface wa ter quality standards rules under § 303(c) of the Clean

Water Act (CWA). Rather, it applies to the Department adoption of rules regarding the AZPDES permit program.

The Department disagrees that the proposed definition of “regulated discharge” is more stringent than, or

conflicts with, any requirement of the Clean Water Act. There is nothing in the Clean Water Act that defines

“regulated discharges” and the Department’s defin ition simply summarizes applicable CWA regulations.

The Department has reviewed the comments and revisited EPA guidance document titled Tier 2

Antidegradation Reviews and Significance Thresholds and has changed the rule to limit the Tier 2 antidegradation

tier to “new or expanded” point source discharges. R18- 11-107.01(B)(3) has been revised as follows to modify

when the Tier 2 antidegradation review is triggered:

3. Antidegradation review. Any person propos ing a new or expanded regulated discharge

under an individual AZPDES permit that causes significant degradation shall provide the

Department with the following information:

R18-11-101(40); Significant degradation; R18-11-107.01(B)(2)

Comment #30

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

Additionally, ADEQ’s proposed definition of “signi ficant degradation” under R18-11-101(40) ties the

calculation of significant degradation of Tier 2 waters to the “critical flow conditions,” which is defined as “the

lowest flow over seven consecutive days that has a probability of occurring once in 10 years.” This definition also

provides that significant degradation includes (a) the c onsumption of 20 percent or more of the available

assimilative capacity for a pollutant of concern at critical flow conditions, or (b) any consumption of assimilative

# 124 capacity beyond the cumulative cap of 50 percent of assi milative capacity. This language is redundant with, and

arguably inconsistent with, the provision proposed in R 18-11-107.01(B)(2) regarding significant degradation. The

Coalition recommends that the definition of “significant de gradation” be deleted or that ADEQ simply reference

the language in R18-11-107.01(B)(2) as the definition.

Response: The Department disagrees that the proposed definition of “significant degradation” should be

deleted and that it is redundant or in consistent with the provisions of A.A.C. R18-11-107.01(B)(2). The term

“significant degradation” is an essential term used in the proposed antidegradation implementation rule at R18-11-

107.01. Since it is actually used in the rules relating to Tier 2 antidegradation implementation procedures, a

definition is useful to help the regulated community and the general public read and understand the rules. The term

“significant degradation” has a specific meaning outside the normal, common meanings of the words that make up

the phrase. No change has been made.

The Department agrees that “critical flow condition” is an important concept for significant degradation and

has revised R18-11-107.01(B)(2) as follows:

2. A regulated discharge that meets the follo wing criteria, at critical flow conditions, does

not cause significant degradation:

Comment #31

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

The definition of “Significant degradation” is troubles ome in that it allows one discharge to consume as

much as 20 percent of the assimilative capacity for a pollutant under conditions in which only 50 percent of the

assimilative capacity is remaining. This definition is not protective of the surface water quality standards or the

designated uses, especially in light of the rapid gr owth in Arizona. We strongly recommend that the ADEQ

reconsider this proposal and instead implement the or iginal definition the agency proposed which defined

significant degradation as less than 10 percent of the assimilative capacity for a pollutant.

Response: The comment appears to reflect a misunderstanding of the Department’s proposals regarding the

significant degradation thresholds that trigger comprehens ive Tier 2 antidegradation review procedures. The intent

of the Tier 2 antidegradation policy is to maintain and protect existing water quality in Arizona’s high quality

surface waters. The Tier 2 antidegradation policy does not allow significant degradati on of existing water quality

without making demonstrations that: 1) there are no reas onable, cost-effective alternatives to lowering water

quality, and 2) that allowing degradation is necessa ry to accommodate important social and economic

development. The purpose of the Tier 2 antidegradati on policy is to limit degradation of high quality surface

waters and the consumption of available assimilative capacity in those waters.

The Department chose to target Arizona’s Tier 2 an tidegradation policy on regulated discharges that result

in significant degradation of high quality surface waters. Th e Department has some discretion in determining what

constitutes significant degradation that triggers detaile d antidegradation review procedures. The Department

followed EPA guidance and defined significant degradation in terms of the percent consumption of available

assimilative capacity for pollutants in high quality surface waters. The Department proposed to define significant

degradation as either: 1) the consumption of 20 percent of the assimilative capacity for a pollutant by a regulated

# 125 discharge, or 2) the consumption of any percentage of assimilative capacity by a regulated discharge once 50

permit of the assimilative capacity for a pollutant has been used. The second significance threshold is often called

a cumulative cap on the use of the total assimilative cap acity of a surface water. Once 50 percent of the total

assimilative capacity has been consumed in a high quality surface water, any use of available assimilative capacity

constitutes significant degradation. On the other hand, if more than 50 percent of the total assimilative capacity for

a pollutant is available in a high quality surface water, then a regulated discharge may consume up to 20 percent

of the available assimilative capacity for a pollutant befo re the lowering of water quality is considered significant

degradation. The allowable consumption of up to 20 per cent of available assimilative capacity only applies when

more than 50 percent of the total assimilative capacity remains available in the surface water. The adopted 20

percent significant degradation threshold coupled with a cumulative cap represents a reasonable approach that

maintains and protects existing water quality in high quality surface waters without unnecessarily triggering

detailed Tier 2 antidegradation review requirements on regulated discharges.

EPA has recognized that states may adopt significance th resholds as part of their Tier 2 antidegradation

implementation policies [ See EPA policy memorandum by Ephraim S. King, Tier 2 Antidegradation Reviews and

Significance Thresholds , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water (August 10, 2005)]. EPA has

afforded states discretion in determining what cons titutes significant degradation for purposes of Tier 2

antidegradation reviews. EPA has accepted a number of approaches to defining significance thresholds that trigger

comprehensive Tier 2 antidegradation reviews. States have adopted significance thresholds that range from 5

percent of assimilative capacity to as much as 33 pe rcent of assimilative capacity. The adopted significance

thresholds are well within ranges that have been appr oved by EPA. Moreover, the Department’s approach of

combining the 20 percent significance threshold with a cumula tive cap of 50 percent is an approach that has been

recommended by EPA.

R18-11-101(42); Total nitrogen

Comment #32

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

The proposed definition of Total Nitrogen is inaccurate and should be revised to eliminate a reference to

ammonia (NH 3 

# ).

Response: The Department did not propose any revisions to the definition of “total nitrogen” in this

rulemaking. The Department disagrees that the definition should be revised to eliminate ammonia. Total nitrogen

includes the following forms of nitrogen that are of greatest interest in water and wastewater. These forms are, in

order of decreasing oxidation state, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia and organic ammonia. All of these forms of nitrogen,

as well as nitrogen gas, are biochemica lly interconvertible and are components of the nitrogen cycle. They are all

elements of total nitrogen.

R18-11-101(45); Urban lake

Comment #33

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

# 126 The use of the term “small” renders this defin ition subjective. ADEQ’s guidance document for narrative

nutrients in lakes doesn’t seem to restrict this cate gory by size. ADEQ should delete or quantify this modifier.

Response: The Department agrees that urban lakes are defined by their location, not by their size. The

definition as been modified as follows.

45. “Urban lake” means a manmade lake within an urban landscape.

R18-11-101(47); Wadeable stream

Comment #34

Robert S. Lynch, Irrigation & Electri cal Districts Association of Arizona:

“Wadeable stream” is new, but according to the definition, a wadeable stream could be 8.5 feet deep (8.5’ x

1 c.f.s. = 8.5). Later, in R18-11-118. 01, the rule refers to a wadeable perennial stream. Are these streams

different? If so, the definitions should be clarified.

Robert A. Hollander, City of Phoenix

Wherever the term “wadeable stream” is used throughout the rules (e.g. R18-11-108.01, R18-11-108.02,

R18-11-108.03) it is always linked to “perennial.” Therefore, th e definition should include the term “perennial,”

such as “’Wadeable stream’ means a perennial stream where the product of the water depth in feet multiplied by

the velocity of the water in feet per second is less than nine.”

Response: The Department agrees that the definition of “wadeable stream” should be clarified. The

proposed definition of “wadeable” was based on a “rule of thumb” that Department water quality monitoring staff

used to determine whether a stream could be safely wade d. However, the rule of thumb was not helpful to the

general public.

The term “wadeable” has been defined rather than the phrase “wadeable stream.” The word “stream” has

been removed from the phrase to avoid any potential c onfusion over whether there is a difference between

“wadeable stream” and “wadeable, perennial stream.” By removing the word, “stream,” the separate modifiers,

“wadeable” and “perennial” are each defined in the definiti on section. These separate definitions help the public

understand where the proposed biocriteria and narrative bo ttom deposits standards apply. The definition, which

had been proposed as: “[w]adeable stream means a stream where the product of the water depth in feet multiplied

by the velocity of the water in feet per second is less than nine,” has been revised as follows:

47. “Wadeable” means a surface water can be safely crossed on foot and sampled without a

boat.

R18-11-102. APPLICABILITY

Comment #35

Fred H. Gray, City of Tucson – Parks and Recreation Department

ADEQ has removed from applicability certain types of manmade impoundments. However, another type of

manmade impoundment that should not be governed by these rules is impoundments storing reclaimed water for

beneficial use. ADEQ should include storag e impoundments used for reclaimed water.

# 127 Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

ADEQ has removed from applicability certain types of manmade impoundments; however, impoundments

storing reclaimed water for beneficial use should also be exempted from these rule s. Storage impoundments used

for reclaimed water are comparable to impoundments that ar e part of the waste treatment system. Reclaimed water

permits cover reclaimed storage ponds and require discharg e to them to meet reclaimed water quality standards,

making surface water quality standards inappropriate for these facilities.

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

ADEQ has removed from applicability certain types of manmade impoundments. However, one significant

type of manmade impoundment, which should not be regulated by this rule, has not been included in R18-11-

101(A) – impoundments storing reclaimed water for benefi cial use. ADEQ should list reclaimed water storage

impoundments in this subsection among the instances in wh ich the proposed rule does not apply. This type of

facility is comparable to impoundments that are part of the waste treatment system, which are currently excluded

under R18-11-102(B)(1). Reclaimed water permits already cover reclaimed storage ponds and require discharge

into them to meet reclaimed water quality standards. Surface water quality standards are inappropriate for these

facilities, and ADEQ should exclude them from applicability.

Response: The Department disagrees. The exemption in R18-11-102 is patterned after language in 40 CFR

122.2. Discharges to reclaimed ponds that are built in a water of the United States (WUS) are not exempt, and will

continue to be regulated according to the provisions of the Clean Water Act. Reclaimed standards are not, and

were not intended to be, protective of surface waters or a quatic life. In particular, reclaimed water often contains

residual disinfectants, such as chlorine, that are incompatib le with aquatic life. Reclaimed waters may contain high

concentrations of metals and other pollutants above th e standards and that may be toxic to aquatic life.

Comment #36

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

ADEQ provides in its proposed R18-11-102(B)(2) to ex empt from the SWQS rule any “man-made surface

impoundment and associated ditches and conveyances used in the extraction, beneficiation, or processing of

metallic ores that is not a surface water or is located in an area that once was a surface water but no longer

remains a surface water because it has been and remains legally converted.” [emphasis added]. This exemption is

circular – its suggests that an impoundment used for mine ral processing is not a surface water unless it is a surface

water. ADEQ should therefore remove from this secti on the following language: “is not a surface water or” to

avoid confusion as to which surface impoundments are exempt from SWQS regulation. ADEQ should also

include storage impoundments used for reclaimed water among the instances in which the proposed rule does not

apply. This type of facility is comparable to impoundments that are part of the waste treatment system. Reclaimed

water permits cover reclaimed storage ponds and require discharge to them to meet reclaimed water quality

standards. Surface water quality standards are therefore inappropriate for these facilities, and only serve to

frustrate water conservation efforts relying on reclaimed water.

Response: The Department adopted editorial revisions only to the current exclusion for mining

impoundments and associated ditches and conveyances at R18-11-102(B) in this rulemaking. While the

# 128 Department agrees that the cited phrase “that is not a su rface water or is located in an area that once was a surface

water but no longer remains a surface water because it ha s been and remains legally converted” is somewhat

circular, the Department disagrees that it should be remove d from the final rules. A review of the history of the

mining impoundment exclusion is necessary to understand the reasons for not revising the circular language cited

in the comment.

The Department originally proposed the mining impoundm ents exclusion in the 1992 rulemaking of surface

water quality standards. The original language of the mining impoundments exclusion was similar to the current

R18-11-102(B)(2) with one important difference. As originally proposed and adopted, the mining impoundment

exclusion exempted certain mining impoundments from wa ter quality standards provided discharges from those

impoundments were permitted under the NPDES permit program. The mining impoundments exclusion did not

include language limiting the excluded mining impoundments to those that were created outside what would

otherwise be considered waters of the United States.

In September 1993, EPA disapproved the mining impoundments exclusion as proposed by the Department.

EPA disapproved the exclusion on the ground that it excluded entire categories of mining-related impoundments

without any regard as to whether specific impoundments were waters of the United States. In disapproving the

exclusion, EPA Region 9 stated in its disapproval letter that Arizona must either repeal the mining impoundment

exclusion or “otherwise revise its regulations in orde r that those impoundments which are waters of the United

States are governed by appropriate water quality standards.”

The Department subsequently proposed the repeal of the mining impoundments exclusion to resolve EPA’s

disapproval of that provision. The proposed repeal was strongly opposed by the Arizona Mining Association and

led to a stakeholder effort to explore the second alte rnative offered by EPA Region 9 to resolve the disapproval;

i.e., the appropriate revision of the language of the mining impoundments exclusion. There was an extensive

stakeholder effort in 1995-1996 to come up with acceptable language that would appropriately limit the mining

impoundments exclusion. The language that the commenter st ates is circular is the revised language that was

acceptable to EPA and resolved its concerns. EPA a pproved the current language of the mining impoundments

exclusion by letter to the Department dated April 26, 1996. No change has been made to the rule.

R18-11-107.01 ANTIDEGRADATION CRITERIA

Comment #37

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

Several of our member jurisdictions are concerned th at the Antidegradation Implementation Procedures are

not yet ready for inclusion in the rule. They feel that the previously released guidance document is much better

and should continue to be used rather than putting new la nguage into rule. The term “baseline water quality” aptly

describes the water quality of streams for the purposes of applying antidegradation rules, and should be used

instead of the term “existing water quality” throughout this section.

Response: The Department is required by federal re gulation to develop and adopt a statewide

antidegradation policy and to identify methods for implementing the antidegradation policy (See 40 CFR 131.12).

# 129 The statewide antidegradation policy for Arizona is pres cribed in the surface water quality standards rules at

A.A.C. R18-11-107. Versions of the an tidegradation policy have been in Ar izona’s water quality standards rules

since 1968 [ See Section 6-2-5, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters in Arizona , State Department of

Health, Water Quality Control Council, July, 1968.] While Arizona has had an antidegradation policy in rule for

40 years, the Department has not identified methods fo r implementing Arizona’s antidegradation policy in rule.

EPA has recommended since 1986 that the Department identify methods for implementing the statewide

antidegradation policy. The Department has produced several antidegradation implementation procedures

guidance documents over the last twenty years. This rulemaking adopts antidegradation policy implementation

criteria based on the updated guidance document ( Antidegradation Implementation Procedures (April, 2008)).

The lack of antidegradation implementation procedures in rule was identified by EPA as a deficiency of the

water quality standards rules during the 1992 rulemaking. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service notified the

Department through the consultation process under § 7 of the Endangered Species Act that the lack of

antidegradation implementation procedures for the antidegra dation rule could result in an incidental take of

threatened and endangered species. Other stakeholders in the 1992 rulemaking expressed concern that the

preparation and adoption of the Department Implementation Guidelines for the State of Arizona Antidegradation

Standard should be subject to formal rulemaking procedures b ecause they believed that the guidelines qualified as

rules under the Arizona Administrative Procedures Ac t. The Department agrees that antidegradation

implementation procedures are necessary elements of the water quality standards program and that they are

required by EPA regulations implementing the Clean Water Act.

The Department responded to comments received in the 1992 rulemaking that antidegradation

implementation procedures should initially be contained in guidance documents and that the Department could

subsequently make decisions regarding which procedures should be incorporated into rule after gaining some

practical experience. Sixteen years later, the De partment has written a comprehensive Antidegradation

Implementation Procedures guidance document and, for the first time, proposes to adopt elements of the guidance

document as objective bases for determining complian ce with the Antidegradation Rule (R18-11-107.01). The

Department disagrees that the antidegradation criteria are not ready for inclusion in rule after more than twenty

years of development.

The Department received numerous comments on the Implementation Procedures for the Narrative

Standards which are outside the context of this rulema king. The implementation procedures will be adopted as

policy when finalized. The Department has provided respons es to those comments directly to the authors and will

contact them to participate in upcoming worksessions fo r the Impaired Waters Identification rule and AZPDES

permit program rulemakings, as appropriate. To avoid any confusion, the Department is modifying the title of the

rule to read: Antidegradation Criteria.

R18-11-107.01(A)

Comment #38

Karlene Martorana, (Ryley Carlock & Applewhite) Irrigation Districts

The Proposed Rules appear to attempt to regulate all canals through Tier 1 of the antidegradation rules,

# 130 Proposed Rules R18-11-107 and R18-11-107.01, and the Antidegradation Implementation Procedures.

By law, these regulations can only regulate water in canal s to the extent that the canal otherwise qualifies as

“surface water.” However, the Tier 1 protection appear s to attempt to directly regulate water in canals by

prohibiting degradation of the water quality and by requi ring that water quality standards be achieved. The

Antidegradation Implementation Procedures state that Tier 1 protection constitutes the “default protection level”

for all surface waters, including canals. Through the Antidegradation Implementation Procedures and the

antidegradation rules, it appears that ADEQ is attempting to exercise jurisdiction over the water in all canals.

However, ADEQ does not have jurisdictional authority to regulate water in all canals. Pursuant to A.R.S. §

49-221, ADEQ can implement water quality standards only for “navigable waters.” The Arizona Revised Statutes

incorporate the definition of “navigable waters” from the CWA. A.R.S. § 49-201. The CWA defines “navigable

waters” as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” 33 USC § 1362(7). The Proposed Rules

define “surface water” as a “water of the United States.”

The definition does not contain any changes from the cu rrent definition, and it is very similar to the

definition of “waters of the United States” found at 33 CFR § 328.3 and 40 CFR § 230.3. Most canals do not fit

into this definition of surface water. Most canals are not used for interstate or foreign commerce or recreational

purposes, nor are they an interstate water, a river or stream, an impoundment or a tributary to a surface water.

When a canal does not fit into ADEQ’s definition of “su rface water” or the definition of “water of the United

States,” that canal is not a “navigable water” and ADE Q does not have authority to regulate the water in such

canals.

For the reasons stated above, we request that ADEQ cl arify the Proposed Rules to only apply to canals that

otherwise qualify as “surface water.”

Robert S. Lynch, Irrigation & Electri cal Districts Association of Arizona

R18-11-107.01 attempts to redefine “surface water,” and includes “canals” despite the definition of

“surface water” in R18-11-101 (which doesn’t mention canals). Only those canals listed in Appendix B have been

treated as surface waters and the provi sion of “canal” in R18-11-107.01 should include a limitation to “as listed in

Appendix B.”

Response: The Department does not intend to expand the regulation of canals through this anti-degradation

provision. The Department agrees that not all canals are regulated and would not be subject to this provision.

Canals that are not listed specifically in Appendix B of th e standards rule will continue to be evaluated on a caseby-case basis as issues arise to determine if they otherwise qualify as a surface water.

The Department agrees to clarify the referen ces to a canal in R18-11-107.01(A)(1)(e) and R18-11-

107.01(A)(3) by adding the phrase, “listed in Appendix B” af ter “a canal” to each of the cited references. There

was no intent to regulate water quality in all canals or to exercise jurisdiction over the water in all canals by

including the reference to canals in R18-11-107.01(A)(1)(e ). The Department’s intent was to clarify how

antidegradation is implemented for those canals that are regulated as surface waters and identified in Appendix B

of the surface water quality standards rules. The fo llowing subsections have been revised as follows:

R18-11-107.01(A)(1)(e)

A canal listed in Appendix B

.

# 131 R18-11-107.01(A)(3)

Except as provided in subsections (E) and (F), Tier 1 antidegradation review requirements are

satisfied for a point source discharge regulated under an individual AZPDES permit to an

ephemeral water, effluent-dependent water, interm ittent water, or a canal listed in Appendix B,

provided water quality-based effluent limitations designed to achieve compliance with applicable

surface water quality standards are established in the permit and technology-based requirements

of the Clean Water Act for the point source discharge are met

.

Comment #39

Michele Van Quathem, Superstition Mountai ns Community Facilities District No. 1

The proposed antidegradation rule appears to apply to all “intermittent waters,” “ephemeral waters,” and

“canals” regardless of their connection to a water of the United States. The rule should clarify that antidegradation

protection applies only to intermittent waters, ephemeral wa ters, and canals that are waters of the United States.

Response: The Department disagrees that the antidegrada tion rules should include additional language to

clarify where the antidegradation rule applies. The Depa rtment addresses applicability of the surface water quality

standards rules, including the antidegradation rules, in R 18-11-102 (A), which clearly states that the surface water

quality standards (including antidegradation) apply to “surface waters” (defined in R18-11-101(41)).

R18-11-107.01(A)(2)

Comment #40

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

ADEQ provides in proposed R18-11-107.01(A)(2) that a “re gulated discharge shall not cause a violation of

a surface water quality standard or a wasteload allocati on established in a total maximum daily load under 11

A.A.C. 6.” It is not clear what is meant by causing a vi olation of a wasteload allocation established in a total

maximum daily load. In other relevant contexts, regulations and/or permits refer to a discharge being “consistent”

with a wasteload allocation and associated total maximum daily load ( see Arizona’s Construction General Permit

(Part I.D.4.b); EPA’s Construction General Permit (Part 1.3(C)(5)(a)); and EPA’s 2000 Multi-Sector General

Permit (Part 1.2.3.8.2). Also, the reference to 11 A.A.C. 6 appears to be mistaken. Based on these observations,

the language in proposed R18-11-107.01(A)(2) should read in stead as follows: “A regulated discharge shall not

cause a violation of a surface water quality standard and shall be consistent with any applicable wasteload

allocation established in a total maximum daily load unde r Arizona Administrative Code, 18 A.A.C 18, Article 6.”

ADEQ provides in proposed R18-11-107.01(A)(3) that “Tier 1 antidegradation review requirements are

satisfied for a point source discharge regulated under an AZPDES permit” to certain waters as long as “water

quality-based effluent limitations designed to achieve comp liance with applicable surface water quality standards

are established in the permit.” The language suggests th at any point source discharge regulated under an AZPDES

permit would have to include water quality-based effluent limitations in order to satisfy Tier 1 antidegradation

requirements. The Coalition does not believe that this is th e intent of this language especially given the competing

# 132 language in proposed R18-11-107.01(E) and R18-11-107. 01(F) addressing certain individual and general

stormwater permits. Accordingly, to clarify the scope of the language in proposed R18-11-107.01(A)(3), this

subsection should be revised as follows: “Ex cept as provided in subsections (E) and (F) , Tier 1 antidegradation

review requirements are satisfied for a point source discharge of wastewater regulated under an individual

AZPDES permit to an ephemeral water, effluent-dependent water, or a canal provided water quality-based effluent

limitations designed to achieve compliance with applicable surface water quality standards are established in the

permit and technology-based requirements of the CWA for the point source discharge are met.”

Response: The Department agrees the language in R18-11- 107.01(A)(2) needs clarification to account for

TMDLs authored by either the Department or EP A. The language has been revised as follows:

2. A regulated discharge shall not cause a vi olation of a surface water quality standard or a

wasteload allocation in a total maximum daily load approved by EPA

.

The Department agrees that the language of R18-11- 107.01(A)(3) should be revised to clarify that the

provision applies to point source discharges regulated under individual AZPDES permits and does not apply to

AZPDES general permits and storm water permits. The comment er is correct that the Department intends to take a

different approach to antidegradation implementation for AZPDES storm water permits and general permits and a

clarification is necessary. The Department made th e revisions to R18-11-107.01(A)(3) as recommended by the

commenter with two differences. The Department did not add the unnecessary modifying phrase, “of wastewater”

after point source discharge and retained “intermittent water” as one of surface waters specified in R18-11-

107.01(A)(3). The rule has been revised s follows:

3. Except as provided in subsections (E) and (F), Tier 1 antidegradation review requirements

are satisfied for a point source discharge regulated under an individual AZPDES permit to

an ephemeral water, effluent-dependent water, intermittent water, or a canal listed in

Appendix B provided water quality-based effluent limitations designed to achieve

compliance with applicable surface water quality standards are established in the permit

and technology-based requirements of the Clean Water Act for the point source discharge

are met

.

R18-11-107.01(B)

Comment #41

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

We are concerned about how the baseline water qua lity will be established by a person seeking to

discharge into any perennial water. How will this be accomplished, and how will the agency ensure that the

entity seeking to degrade the water will provide the mo st accurate information? Th ere should be strong quality

control requirements on this.

We support the public participation requirements in this section, although, considering that this section

allows for degradation of water quality, a public hearing should also be required.

Response: The Department addresses how baseline water qua lity will be established in Chapter 4 of the

associated Antidegradation Implementation Procedures (April 2008) guidance document. Chapter 4 contains a

# 133 summary of the Department’s approach to determining ba seline water quality, a description of the baseline water

quality assessment procedures, sampling locations and protoc ols, pollutants of concern, and how the Department

will interpret data to establish base line water quality. The Department believes it is more appropriate to place the

procedures related to determining baseline wa ter quality in guidance document versus rule.

The Department appreciates the Sierra Club’s support for the public participation procedures that the

Department proposed for Tier 2 antidegradation reviews. The Department does not agree that a public hearing

should be required for all Tier 2 antidegradation review s. The proposed rule provides for public notice and an

opportunity to comment on Tier 2 antidegradation reviews of regulated discharges that cause significant

degradation. The proposed rule gives persons an opportun ity to request a public hearing, but does not require a

public hearing in all cases.

Comment #42

Robert S. Lynch, Irrigation & Electri cal Districts Association of Arizona

Under R18-11-107.01(B), a person may explain that degradation of water has occurred because of

environmental justice or social issues. Although vague as to what that means, is the converse true -- that a person

may oppose the Director’s finding of allowable degr adation based upon environmental justice issues?

Response: Persons may comment in support or opposition to a regulated discharge and the Department

antidegradation review. R18-11-107(B)(4) does not limit public comments, so persons may oppose a Tier 2

antidegradation review on environmental justice grounds.

R18-11-107.01(C)(1)

Comment #43

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

Also in connection with general permits, proposed R18-11-107.01(C)(1), establishing Tier 3 protection,

should be narrowed in its application from a “direct tributary” to an OAW to 1/4 mile of an OAW, to be consistent

with the Department’s recently issued Construc tion General Stormwater Permit (see Part I.D.4).

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

The AMA also agrees with the Coalition that th e language in proposed A. A.C. R18-11-107.01(C)(1),

applying Tier 3 antidegradation protection to any tributary to an OAW, is overbroad. This provision potentially

greatly expands the universe of Tier 3 protection, sin ce a single OAW may have numerous direct tributaries and

those tributaries may not possess the characteristics of th e OAW. Moreover, not every activity in a direct tributary

will affect an OAW. The expansion of Tier 3 protection, and the requirement to demonstrate no impact on the

OAW as a result of activities occurring in a direct tri butary (proposed A.A.C. R18- 11-107.01(C)(3)), should apply

only to activities occurring within a reasonable proxim ity of the nearest reach designated as an OAW.

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

The Tier 3 protection applies to a surface water that is an OAW or is a direct tributary to an OAW.

However, the rule does not define how far upstream that protection should extend or what constitutes a direct

tributary.

# 134 Response: The Department disagrees that the scope of Tier 3 antidegradation protection for individual

permits should be narrowed to only those tributaries within 1/4 mile of an OAW. The purpose of Tier 3

antidegradation protection is to maintain and protect existing water quality in OAWs. The establishment of a limit

in terms of a specified distance to an OAW would be arbitrary and inconsistent with the general purpose of

protecting existing water quality in OAWs and prohibiting degradation.

The Department agrees that the meaning of “direct tributary” is open to interpretation. A person who

proposes a regulated discharge to a tributary of an OAW must demonstrate that the regulated discharge will not

degrade existing water quality in the downstream OAW. This distance will vary depending on the specifics of a

discharge scenario. Any discharge that is determined to affect the quality of water in an OAW must be reviewed

under Tier 3. If the Department determines the discharge to the tributary will not affect the OAW, antidegradation

review will proceed based on the appropriate tier of the tributary.

The Department deleted the word “direct tributary” in both R18-11-107.01(C)(1) and (C)(3) and revised the

rule as follows:

1. Tier 3 antidegradation protection applies only to an OAW listed in R18-11-112(G).

3. A person seeking authorization for a regulated discharge to a tributary to, or upstream of,

an OAW shall demonstrate in a permit application or in other documentation submitted to

the Department that the regulated discharge will not degrade existing water quality in the

downstream OAW.

R18-11-107.01(D)

Comment #44

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

Antidegradation review for Section 404 permits involving the discharge of fill material should focus on the

effect of the fill on water quality in surface waters outside the area of fill. In one sense, the fill itself could be

considered degradation, but such activities have been explicitly authorized under Section 404 of the CWA if the

relevant regulations are complied with (Corps regula tions, EPA’s Section 404(b)(1) guidelines). This is how

antidegradation reviews have been conducted in the past, but with the significantly expanded rule language on this

topic, this point should be explicitly stated in the rule language itself.

Response: The Department agrees that an antidegradation review of § 404 permits involving the discharge

of fill to a surface water should focus on a review of the effect on surface water quality outside of the area of fill.

The Department agrees that any discharge of fill could be considered degradation per se if the Department literally

applied the requirements of the antidegradation rule; howev er, such a position is illogical because fill activities are

clearly authorized by the Clean Water Act. EPA speci fically addressed the applicability of antidegradation

requirements to dredge-and-fill activities authorized unde r § 404 of the Clean Water Act in a guidance document

called Questions and Answers on Antidegradation (EPA, 1985). The Department agrees with the following

statement in the guidance document:

“Since a literal interpretation of the antidegradation policy could result in preventing the issuance of any

wetland fill permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and it is logical to assume that Congress intended

# 135 some such permits to be granted within the framework of the Act, EPA interprets 40 CFR 131.12(a)(1) of the

antidegradation policy to be satisfied with regard to fills in wetlands if the discharge did not result in “significant

degradation” to the aquatic ecosystem as defined unde r Section 230.10(c) of the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.”

Arizona’s antidegradation policy does not prohibit dredge -and-fill activities that are authorized by a permit

issued under § 404 of the Clean Water Act. Like EPA, the Department interprets its state antidegradation policy to

be satisfied with regard to activities authorized by a § 404 permit provided the discharge of fill to a surface water

does not result in “significant degradation” to the aquatic ecosystem as defined by § 230.1(c) of the § 404(b)(1)

Guidelines.

The Department disagrees that the details of how the Department will conduct an antidegradation review of

§ 404 permits should be explicitly stated in R18-11-107.01. The proposed rule states, at R18-11-107.01(D), that

the Department will conduct the antidegradation review of a § 404 permit as part of the § 401 water quality

certification process. Reviews of individual § 404 pe rmits will be conducted on a case-by-case basis. The

Department’s Antidegradation Implementation Procedures guidance document, dated April 2008, provides some

of the requested detail on how the Department will conduc t antidegradation reviews of individual and nationwide

§ 404 permits.

R18-11-107.01(D) has been revised as follows to clarify how antidegradation reviews of § 404 permits will

be conducted:

D. Antidegradation review of a § 404 permit. The Director shall conduct the antidegradation review of

any discharge authorized under a nationwide or regional § 404 permit as part of the § 401 water

quality certification prior to issuance of the nationw ide or regional permit. A regulated discharge

authorized by a § 404 permit does not require an individual antidegradation review unless the

discharge may degrade existing water quality in an OAW or a water listed on the 303(d) List of

impaired waters. For regulated discharges that may degrade water quality in an OAW or a water

listed on the 303(d) List of impaired waters, the Director shall conduct the antidegradation review

as part of the § 401 water quality certification process.

R18-11-107.01(E)

Comment #45

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

For AZPDES stormwater permits, the permittee is in compliance with their MS4 permit if they develop a

Stormwater Management Plan that contains Best Mana gement Practices to reduce pollutant levels to the

Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). The additional re quirement stated in this rule “conducting monitoring

activities of discharge water quality” should be deleted b ecause it is more stringent than the AZPDES permit

program requirements and not all MS4 permittees are required to monitor.

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

Under proposed R18-11-107.01(E), ADEQ provides that an individual MS4 general stormwater permittee

meets antidegradation requirements “if the permittee complies with the permit, including developing a stormwater

# 136 management plan containing controls that reduce the level of pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum

extent practicable and conducting monitoring activities of discharge water quality.” All language following

“maximum extent practicable” in that section should be deleted, as certain permits may not require monitoring,

and compliance with the MS4 stormwater permit should be adequate to meet antidegradation requirements.

Additionally, that language violates the statutory limit th at the AZPDES program be no more stringent than the

federal NPDES permit program. A.R.S. § 49-255.01(B). Fu rthermore, this section should provide that it

establishes all applicable antidegradation review fo r individual MS4s notwithstanding any other potentially

applicable language elsewhere in the propos ed rule. The title of this section shoul d also be revised to clarify that it

applies only to individual MS4 permits, not to all AZPDES stormwater permits.

Response: Though the Department will continue to require municipal stormwater monitoring to determine

BMP effectiveness and progress towards attaining standard s, the Department has removed this requirement from

the rule to meet antidegradation criteria. Monitoring in and of itself does not achieve water quality protection.

R18-11-107.01(E) has been revised as follows:

(E) Antidegradation review of an AZPDES stor mwater permit. An individual stormwater

permit for a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) meets antidegradation

requirements if the permittee complies with th e permit, including developing a stormwater

management plan containing controls that redu ce the level of pollutants in stormwater

discharges to the maximum extent practicable.

R18-11-107.01(F)

Comment #46

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

Also in connection with antidegradation review for AZPDES stormwater permitting, ADEQ proposed that a

person seeking authorization to discharge under a gene ral permit is not required to undergo an individual

antidegradation review at the time the Notice of Intent (“NOI”) is submitted unless the discharge may affect an

OAW or an impaired water under CWA § 303(d). See pr oposed R18-11-107.01(F). If antidegradation review is

conducted after issuance of the permit, such review may impose additional conditions which are more

appropriately imposed on a general permit through the initi al issuance process. ADEQ s hould therefore revise this

section so that antidegradation review occurs only at the time of issuance of the general permit, and never at the

time of submittal of an NOI, including for discharges to an OAW or impaired water. This approach would be

consistent with ADEQ’s recently reissued Construction General Permit (see Parts I.D.4 & 5), which simply inserts

additional provisions in the permit (not individual antideg radation review requirements) in the event of potential

discharges to impaired or unique waters.

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

The provision requiring individual antidegradation review of general permit authorizations for activities

that “may affect” an OAW or an impaired water (pr oposed A.A.C. R18-11-107.01(F)) is vague and overly broad

(e.g., for impaired waters, the provision should be limite d to activities discharging the pollutant for which the

water is listed).

# 137 Anti-degradation evaluations are made on a pollutant- by-pollutant basis and are not limited to pollutants

that are causing impairments. As such, a limitation of this provision as proposed would be inappropriate

.

Response: The Department disagrees that the language of R18-11-107.01(F) should be limited with regard

to antidegradation review of discharges authorized by general permit to OAWs or impaired waters. While general

permits are typically written for a class of discharger (e.g., facility) that involves the same or substantially similar

types of operations or pollutants, it is difficult to deve lop a general permit that is adequately protective for

impaired waters, waters meeting standards, and waters of exceptional quality.

It is the Department’s intention to review only individual Notices of Intent (NOIs) that may degrade OAWs

or impaired waters, and condition them, if appropriate, to protect these waters and satisfy antidegradation similar

to how the Department has written the Construction St ormwater General Permit and the De Minimus General

Permit. Other alternatives might be to exclude these di scharges from coverage under general permits, however, the

Department generally considers this ‘blended’ approach to be adequately protective and of benefit to both the

permittee and the agency in terms of process.

The Department agrees that “may affect” may be overly broad. The Department revised R18-11-107.01(F)

and replaced “may affect an OAW” with the phrase “may degrade existing water quality in an OAW.”

F. Antidegradation review of a general pe rmit. The Director shall conduct the

antidegradation review of a regulated discharge authorized by a general permit at the time

the general permit is issued or renewed. A person seeking authorization to discharge

under a general permit is not required to unde rgo an individual antidegradation review at

the time the Notice of Intent is submitted unless the discharge may degrade existing water

quality in an OAW or a water listed on the 303(d) List of impaired waters.

R18-11-108. NARRATIVE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

R18-11-108(A)(1)

Comment #47

Robert A. Hollander, City of Phoenix

This Section requires that surface waters “be free fro m pollutants in amounts or combinations that...settle

to form bottom deposits that inhibit or prohibit the ha bitation, growth, or propagation of aquatic life.” This

standard is intended to prevent excessive sedimentation and siltation in amounts that may adversely affect aquatic

life.

If the standard is directed at solids, and to be consistent with R18-11-108.02.B, R18-11-108.A.1, it should

state “be free from sedimentation and siltation in amounts...” As proposed it could include toxics, which is not the

intent of this standard.

Response: The Department believes that the current sta ndard, as written, is clear, understandable and

accomplishes this intent. There is little risk of R18-11-108( A)(1) being inappropriately applied to regulate toxic

# 138 pollutants in surface waters because a different narrative st andard specifically requires that surface waters be free

from pollutants in amounts or combinations that are toxi c to humans, animals, plants, or other organisms [ See

R18-11-108(A)(5)].

R18-11-108(D)

Comment #48

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

The proposed new standard prohibiting refuse and sim ilar materials being placed in surface waters or on

their banks (proposed A.A.C. R18- 11-108(D)) suffers from numerous problems. (1) The proposed standard is

awkwardly worded, starting out as a “free from” standard but ending with the words “or onto its banks,” which do

not fit with anything preceding that phrase. (2) ADEQ admits that this is intended as a “tool to prevent dumping,”

see 14 A.A.R. at 1287. As such, it is best addressed in the solid waste rules currently in process at ADEQ, not the

water quality standards. (3) To the extent the standard applies to the “banks” of surface waters, such areas are

likely outside the jurisdictional surface waters and thus ar e not subject to surface water quality standards. (4) Such

a provision is unnecessary, as dumping of refuse or solid waste today is likely in violation not only of the

AZPDES program, but also the APP program and the existing solid waste rules. There is no “gap” that needs to be

filled by adopting a new standard. (5) The standard, if adopted, could have unintended (and undesirable)

consequences; for example, it could be construed to prohib it the use of waste rock or overburden from a mine site

in any capacity in bank stabilization efforts. For all th ese reasons, this proposed new standard should not be

adopted.

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

This narrative standard violates ADEQ’s obligations under A.R.S. § 41-1052 to ensure that this rulemaking

complies with applicable law and does not exceed its statutory authority. As noted above, and as ADEQ

acknowledged in its rulemaking, ADEQ’s derives its author ity to establish SWQS pursuant to the CWA, which

scope is limited only to navigable waters. However, this narrative standard expressly applies to the “banks” of

streams, which do not form part of a navigable water. Indeed, the term “banks” is itself vague and ambiguous.

This standard is unnecessary. ADEQ already prohibits wildcat dumping and regulates disposal of solid

wastes. See A.R.S. § 49-701 et seq . Additionally most municipalities in the state prohibit littering and unpermitted

dumping of refuse or rubbish. As such, this proposed na rrative standard provides no additional protection, but is

simply unnecessarily redundant with other well-es tablished programs accomplishing the same effect.

Matthew Oller, Flood Control District of Maricopa County

The District has an interest in the “rubbish” provision proposes in R18-11-108(D). The District tends to

believe that it is beyond the jurisdiction of ADEQ to adopt a rule that applies to the “banks” of watercourses, as

opposed to the waters. This could be a problem with projects that are using native material for bank stabilization.

It is not clear who would have the responsibility to clean it up. The terms are not defined, and there are other

programs to govern trash (as opposed to floatables, which are in SWQS).

Response: The Department believes that the dumping of tras h in Arizona’s surface waters is a significant

water quality problem that is appropriately addressed by th e surface water quality standards rules. It is true that

# 139 there may be other regulatory programs that address th e problem of illegal dumping (e.g., solid waste rules).

However, the existence of other authorities that provide regulatory tools to address illegal dumping (i.e., by the

solid waste program) is not an argument for not using the authority provided under the water quality standards

program to maintain and protect the biological, chemi cal and physical integrity of Arizona’s surface waters.

The Department disagrees that regulation of the banks of surface waters is “outside...jurisdictional surface

waters” and not subject to regulation under the water quality standards program. Improperly placed or managed

waste on stream banks has the potential to impact surf ace water quality and therefore the Department believes it

can be regulated under this Article. The Department agr ees that last phrase in R18-11-108(D), “...into a surface

water or onto its banks,” is inconsiste nt with the construction of the other narratives. The last phrase of subsection

(D) has been stricken and reworded for clarity as follows:

D. A surface water shall not contain solid waste such as refuse, rubbish, demolition or

construction debris, trash, garbage, motor vehicles, appliances, or tires.

The Department disagrees that the narrative standard is unnecessary because it may be addressed by the

AZPDES permit or APP programs. The AZPDES permit pr ogram regulates point source discharges to surface

waters in Arizona and not non-point source discharges of trash and garbage. The APP program regulates

discharges of pollutants to ground water. Neither re gulatory program addresses illegal dumping of trash and

garbage in or adjacent to surface waters that may affect water quality. While the Department may agree that solid

waste program rules address illegal dumping, the existen ce of solid waste program regulations does not preclude

the Department from addressing the problem through appropr iate water quality regulati on. The proposed narrative

water quality standard supplements Department solid wast e regulations and other local ordinances that prohibit

illegal dumping and littering. The adoption of R18-11-108(D) supports implementation of other Department water

quality management programs such as the § 319 grant program to address the problem.

The proposed narrative water quality standard is clear ly intended to address the significant problem of

using Arizona surface waters as illegal dumpsites for trash, garbage, and other refuse or the illegal use of tires,

abandoned cars, or old and discarded appliances for bank stabilization efforts. The new narrative standard is not

intended to prohibit or prevent properly authorized bank st abilization efforts (e.g. such as those authorized by a §

404 permit).

The Department disagrees that the new narrative sta ndard will create any barriers to properly authorized

bank stabilization projects using native materials. The plain language of the proposed narrative standard states that

it is intended keep surface waters free from “solid waste such as refuse, rubbish, demolition or construction debris,

trash, garbage, motor vehicles, appliances, or tires.” This language cannot reasonably be interpreted to preclude

the use of native materials for bank stabilization projects. It is not a deficiency for the proposed narrative standard

to be silent regarding who has responsibility for clean ing up the trash in a surface water. The Department’s

enforcement statutes for water quality control, at A.R.S. §§ 49-261 through 49-263, assign responsibility for the

violation of the proposed “free from” trash standard to the person who violates the standard. The person who

places refuse, rubbish, etc. into a surface water would be responsible under R18-11-120.

Comment # 49

# 140 Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

Wildcat dumping and trash accumulation along waterways is a widespread problem that is very difficult, if

not impossible, to correct completely. If the occurrence of trash and debris on the banks of a stream were used to

indicate impairment of that stream, then most, if not all, streams in Arizona would probably be considered

impaired. Jurisdictions do not have the resources to ensure that all refuse stays out of the waterways at all times,

so this rule should be changed to indicate that refuse (and other stated materials) should be reduced to the

Maximum Extent Practicable. In addition, the CWA regul ates water quality and it does not have jurisdiction over

areas adjacent to waterways such as stream banks. Furtherm ore, the term “banks” is not defined and it is unclear

what constitutes a “bank” and therefore how far outside of the waterway, this rule would apply. This rule would

be particularly difficult to implement in the urban park environment.

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

This proposed section establishes a narrative standard for refuse, rubbish, demolition or construction debris,

trash, garbage, etc., which is so stringent that virtually every watercourse in the state will not meet it. For example,

park areas that comprise the banks of urban lakes and wa tercourses would be out of compliance with this standard,

if any littering were to occur. The standard does not r ecognize that many of these areas are already managed for

public use with BMPs to control trash. Also, there are already solid waste regulations that apply. ADEQ should

delete this provision. If ADEQ insists on this type of narrative, the agency should establish some specific measure

of the presence of the listed solid wastes that protects against an impairment of human health or aquatic and

wildlife use, rather than simply using th e proposed “shall not contain” prescription.

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

ADEQ proposes a new and unprecedented narrative wate r quality standard in R18-11-108(D). In that

section, ADEQ provides that a surface water “shall not c ontain refuse, rubbish, demolition or construction debris,

trash, garbage, motor vehicles, appliances, tires, or othe r solid waste into a surface water or onto its banks.” This

proposed standard is problematic for several reasons. First, ADEQ provides no definition of “refuse, rubbish,

demolition or construction debris.” The regulation is th erefore vague, ambiguous, and subject to an overly broad

application. For instance, many projects, pursuant to state or federal permits, utilize construction material or other

materials for bank stabilization. Presumably these measur es would violate SWQS, despite having the effect of

preserving the integrity and quality of the stream. Fu rthermore, this new narrative standard would prove

unworkable, in that nearly every watercourse in th e state would be out of compliance to some degree.

Response: The Department appreciates the recognition that wildcat dumping and trash accumulation along

Arizona’s waterways are a widespread problem. The fact that wildcat dumping is a widespread problem that will

be difficult to correct is not reason to ignore the problem. The Department does not intend to hold local

jurisdictions responsible for ensuring that trash and re fuse stay out of surface waters. A person who causes a

violation of proposed “free from” trash narrative standa rd is the person who will be held responsible for a

violation. The Department disagrees that the standard should be expressed as the commenter recommends (i.e.,

that refuse and trash should be reduced “to the maximu m extent practicable.”) The water quality goal for Arizona

surface waters should be that they be maintained free from trash and rubbish. The Department does not believe it

is appropriate to set a lesser water quality standard th at accepts levels of trash accumulation based on a reduction

# 141 to the maximum extent practicable. The standard needs to be protective of water quality. How it is implemented

depends on the requirements of each water quality perm itting program. The adoption of a narrative water quality

standard that addresses wildcat dumping will allow the Department to focus water quality management programs,

other than just enforcement, on the problem. For example, the Department could better direct Clean Water Act §

319 grant funds to fund nonpoint source pollution control and watershed clean-up projects to address this problem.

See Response #48.

The Department has adopted other narrative and numeric water quality standards to protect human health

and aquatic life. Narrative standards such as R18-11-108( D) supplement the numeric water quality standards to

protect human health (DWS, FC, FBC and PBC) and a quatic life (A&Wc, A&Ww, A&Wedw and A&We). It is

similar in nature to other narrative water quality standard s that describe general water quality goals such as surface

waters shall be free from objectionable odors, or cause o ff-flavor in drinking water or aquatic organisms, or

change the color of a surface water from natural background color. The narrative standard is intended primarily to

protect the aesthetic qualities of Arizona surface waters. While it is not the intent of this new narrative to be used

for waterbody assessment, before the Department could us e this narrative standard in determining a waterbody as

impaired for solid waste, it must develop implementa tion procedures that identify the specific basis for

determining that a violation of R18-11-108(D) exists under A.R.S § 49-232(F).

R18-11-108(D) has been revised to clarify that ‘refu se, rubbish, demolition or construction debris, trash,

garbage, motor vehicles, appliances, a nd tires” are components of solid waste.

Comment #50

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

This narrative standard is unwieldy in its applica tion. How would ADEQ establish TMDLs for “refuse,

rubbish, demolition, or construction debris”? How would such “discharges” be treated in permits? How would this

standard be enforced, as storm events frequently result in debris and rubbish being washed up to banks or into

rivers? How would such storm events resulting in “exceedances” of this narrative standard comport with

stormwater permits? This narrative standard is inconsis tent with the purpose and history of the CWA and ADEQ

surface water quality regulation, and would prove unworka ble in its application in the TMDL and permitting

contexts. For this reason, and for those discussed above, the Coalition recommends that ADEQ delete R18-11-

108(D) from its proposed SWQS.

Response: The Department disagrees that the proposed narrative standard should be withdrawn because

there are questions about how the standard will be im plemented in the Department water quality management

programs. The proposed “free from” narrative standard at R18-11-108(D) is no different than other narrative

standards. AZPDES-permitted discharges will be required to comply with applicable water quality standards. This

means that an AZPDES-permitted point source discharge will not be allowed to discharge solid waste including

refuse, rubbish, demolition or construction debris, trash, garbage, motor vehicles, or appliances into a surface

water. AZPDES MS4 permits will be written to control the discharges of solid waste... to the “maximum extent

practicable.” Before the Department can list a water as impaired based on that new narrative standard, a

prerequisite to a TMDL, the Department must develop implementation procedures that identify the specific basis

# 142 for determining that a violation of R18-11-108(D) exists. Aspects of the implementation procedures may then be

promulgated in a future rulemaking.

The Department disagrees that the R18-11-108(D) is in consistent with the history of the Clean Water Act

or the Department’s surface water quality regulations. On th e contrary, there is a long history of this type of

regulation by EPA and at the state level. Similar “free-fro m” narrative standards to a ddress the aesthetic qualities

of surface waters have been a part of water quality standa rds regulations since the enactment of the modern Clean

Water Act (See Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (July, 1976)(the “Red Book”).

See Response #49. No change has been made to the rule.

R18-11-108(D) and (E)

Comment #51

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

The Sierra Club supports the changes in the Narrative Water Quality Standards including the addition of

Subsection (D), which prevents dumping of trash and de bris in Arizona’s surface waters, and the addition of

Subsection (E), establishing that a wadeable perennial stream support and maintain a community of organisms

having a taxa richness. This will help further the goal of the Clean Water Act to restore the biological integrity

of the nation’s waters. Preventing trash in the standard s is also appropriate. Recently, we learned of a total

maximum daily load (TMDL) that was developed relative to trash in California. This may be something that the

ADEQ would consider for the future in orde r to help address this growing problem.

Response: The Department appreciates the support of the Sierra Club for the proposed adoption of the

narrative standards at R18-11-108(D) and (E).

R18-11-108(E)

Comment #52

Robert A. Hollander, City of Phoenix

Insert “...with A&Wc or A&Ww designated uses...” after “A wadeable, perennial stream...” to

communicate that the narrative biological standard applies to wadeable, perennial streams with those designated

uses as proposed at R18-11-108.01(A).

Response: The Department does not believe that including the phrase “with the A&Wc or A&Ww

designated uses” in R18-11-108(E) is necessary. The proposed standard at R18-11-108(E) is already limited in its

application to wadeable, perennial streams and R18-11-108.01(A)(1) explicitly states that R18-11-108(E) applies

to “a wadeable perennial stream with either an aquatic and wildlife (cold water) or an aquatic and wildlife (warm

water) designated use.” No change has been made to the rule.

NARRATIVE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

The Department is adopting a new narrative standard fo r biological integrity and narrative criteria for three

narrative standards: biological integrity (R18-11-108(E )); bottom deposits (R18-11-108(A)(1)); and nutrients

# 143 (R18-11-108(A)(6)). The criteria translate the narrative standa rd into objective bases that the Department can use

for determining if the standard is being met.

With the proposed rule, the Department disseminated draft Implementation Procedures to explain the

derivation of each criterion and the use of the criterion in assessment, listing, and development of water-quality

based limits for AZPDES permits. A. R.S. § 49-232(F) requires the Department to adopt implementation

procedures that specifically identify the basis for determin ing that a violation of the narrative or biological criteria

exists. The procedures, when finalized, will provide this guidance and will be adopted as substantive policy.

The Department received numerous comments on the Implementation Procedures for the Narrative

Standards, which are outside the context of this rule making. The Department has provided responses to those

comments directly to the authors and will contact them to participate in upcoming work sessions for the Impaired

Waters Identification rule and AZPDES pe rmit program rulemakings, as appropriate.

Comment #53

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

Fred H. Gray, City of Tucson – Parks and Recreation Department

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

ADEQ has drastically revised its approach to the narrative bottom deposits, biocriteria, and nutrient

standards by establishing proposed objective criteria fo r determining compliance with each. Indeed, ADEQ’s

proposed changes to the narrative standard are so revolutionary in their reliance on objective criteria that the

Coalition questions whether these proposed standards still qualify as “narrative.” The proposed adoption of

objective criteria would overturn years of operating under a more subjective approach and make obsolete agency

guidance upon which the regulated community has relied for some time.

The proposed narrative standards represent such a dras tic and significant change, and require such detailed

technical investigation in order to understand their poten tial ramifications, that the Coalition requests that the

narrative biocriteria, bottom deposits, and nutrient standa rd concepts (proposed R18-11-108.01, R18-11-108.02, &

R18-11-108.03) be (1) removed from the current triennial re view package, and (2) addressed in the standards as

appropriate during the next triennial review period ba sed on implementation through the draft narrative standard

guidance documents.

However, if ADEQ proceeds with this planned approach to narrative standards, the Coalition requests that

ADEQ delete from its narrative water quality standard sections (proposed R18-11-108.01 through R18-11-108.03)

any reference to “implementation procedures.” Thes e proposed regulations provide objective criteria for

determining compliance with narrative SWQS. They do not provide “implementation procedures” for purposes of

TMDLs as required in A.R.S. § 49-232(F). Referring to thes e criteria as “implementation procedures” serves only

to confuse the regulated community as to these cr iteria versus true TMDL implementation procedures

promulgated pursuant to statute.

Response: . The Department disagrees that the new biocriteria and narrative bottom deposits and nutrient

standards rules should be withdrawn. The Department agrees that the proposed narrative bottom deposits,

biocriteria and narrative nutrient standards and their associated criteria rules at R18-11-108.01, R18-11-108.02

# 144 and R18-11-108.03 represent a new hybrid approach to surface water quality standards regulation because it

combines narrative water quality standards with objectiv e criteria that translate the narrative water quality

standards that the Department can use for compliance and assessment purposes. The Department believes that the

development of the narrative translators for these thr ee narrative standards is an improvement over the more

subjective approach. The lack of objective criteria for de termining whether a violation of a narrative standard

exists has been an obstacle to consistent Department im plementation of the narrative water quality standards in the

past. The adoption of objective criteria will provide great er regulatory certainty to the regulated community

regarding whether or not the narrative standards are viol ated and they will provide more specific and objective

criteria that the Department staff can use to fairly and consistently apply the standards. The Department proposed

R18-11-101.01, R18-11-108.02 and R18-11-108.03 to specifica lly identify the objective bases for determining

that the narrative biocriterion at R18-11-108(E), the narra tive bottom deposits standard at R18-11-108(A)(1) or the

narrative nutrient standard at R18-11-108(A)(6) are being met.

The Department agrees that the references to implementation procedures in R18-11-108.01, R18-11-108.02

and R18-11-108.03 may be confusing. The rules are more appropriately titled with the term “criteria,” which

establish the objective bases for determining if the wate r quality standard is being met. The narrative standards

Section titles have been revised as follows:

R18-11-108.01 Narrative Biological Criteri a for Wadeable, Perennial Streams

R18-11-108.02 Narrative Bottom Deposit Criteria for Wadeable, Perennial Streams

R18-11-108.03 Narrative Nutrient Criteria for Lakes and Reservoirs

R18-11-108.01. NARRATIVE BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR WADEABLE, PERENNIAL STREAMS

Comment #54

Robert R. Ressler, Pinal Creek Group (PCG)

The proposed narrative biocriteria standard and associ ated implementation procedures in A.A.C. R18-11-

108(E) and R18-11-108.01 are key issues for the PCG. PCG believes that the threshold for compliance is

inappropriate.

Response: The thresholds for compliance with the proposed biocriteria have been developed following the

EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols guidance document (Barbour et al, 1999) and are based on empirical data.

The 25th and 10th percentiles of the reference macroinverteb rate community were selected based on the ability of

the Arizona warm and cold water Indexes of Biological Integrity (IBI) to detect differences between prior selected

reference sites and stressed stream sites and biological communities.

These biological indexes or biocriteria encompass spatia l and temporal variability of aquatic life in Arizona

perennial, wadeable stream habitats. The IBIs were based on a robust dataset of macroinvertebrate samples

collected from every major watershed across Arizona over a five-year period (1992-97). Approximately 400

samples were collected statewide to develop the warm water and cold water Indexes (WW IBI 221 samples from

112 sites with 61 reference sites; CW IBI 180 samples fro m 79 sites with 43 reference sites). These IBIs were

developed and tested using EPA methodology in two bioc riteria technical reports (Gerritsen & Leppo, 1998;

# 145 Leppo & Gerritsen, 2000) and were updated in the techni cal support documentation for the narrative biocriteria

standard (ADEQ, 2007). See Responses #55 and 56.

Comment #55

Benjamin R. Parkhurst, HAF, Inc., on behalf of the Pinal Creek Group

The language in the narrative biocriterion is clear and unambiguous, and effective and logical given the

associated implementation guidance.

The major issue I have with the accuracy of the indi ces is with the use of the 25th percentile as the

threshold for identifying impairment. No evidence has been presented that shows that the 25th percentile is the

threshold for impairment. Otherwise, I believe the indices are technically sound and accurately defined.

I also don’t agree that the methods will distinguish we ll between impacted and non-impacted sites. This is

because setting the criterion at the 25th percentile of refere nce sites largely is arbitrary and most likely will result

in about 25% of unimpaired sites being identified as im paired. By definition, reference sites are unimpaired.

Joseph S. Volosin, Parametrix, on behalf on the Pinal Creek Group

The selection of the 25th percentile as the biocrite ria threshold for warmwater streams does not seem

justified based on the Biocriteria TSD (ADEQ 2007a). Selec tion of this threshold is critical because it has the

potential to identify any type of reach (reference or stresse d) as impaired 25 percent of the time thus resulting in

incorrect assessments. In fact, as stat ed in the Biocriteria TSD, 23 percent (77 percent, n = 98/128 attained) of the

a-priori warmwater reference site streams did not attain th e 25 percentile (ADEQ 2007a). This is an acceptance of

a relatively high Type 1 error rate when the 25th percentile is used to describe a significant difference (Newman

1995). Would it be acceptable to have a chemical analysis be incorrect 25 percent of the time? A lower Type I

error rate exists when the accepted percentile is smaller, such as the 10th percentile (Newman 1995).

Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

On a technical front, ADEQ provides no explanation for the election of the 25th percentile as its threshold

standard in this narrative standard. Indeed, using the 25t h percentile of reference streams as the threshold means

that 25% of all “unimpacted” reference streams would be cl assified as violating the proposed biocriteria standard

and, by inference, at least 25% of unimpacted, non-referen ce streams will be similarly classified as violating the

standard. A reference stream with a low percentile (i .e., < 25th percentile) score could be impacted from unknown

sources. Also, ADEQ states in its draft guidance document (dated April 2008) on the narrative biocritiera standard

that the odds of making a Type 1 false positive error ar e “very low.” However, the odds of a false positive are

25%, a scientifically unacceptable error rate. The use of th e 25th percentile of reference streams, particularly in

light of a proposed reliance on a single bioassessmen t sample, is therefore fundamentally flawed.

Response: The macroinvertebrate indexes of biological in tegrity are composed of several metrics or

characteristics of the stream bottom dwelling macroinvertebrate community. These metrics are tested for ability to

discriminate between a-priori reference (undisturbed wa terbodies) and stressed (distu rbed waterbodies) samples.

Reference macroinvertebrate samples are collected from pr e-screened sites that meet landscape and reach scale

physico-chemical parameters for reference condition. Th e most powerful metrics in four categories (richness,

composition, tolerance, and trophic status) are selected for inclusion in a multi-metric index. A threshold is then

# 146 selected which best represents the statistical difference between reference and stressed samples and which is based

on the reference distribution of IBI scores. A box and whiske r plot of the distribution of reference versus stressed

samples is typically used to display the distribution of IBI scores and determine a re ference threshold which best

discriminates reference samples from stressed (Barbour et al., 1999). The initial development and testing of the

IBIs was conducted by TetraTech for the Department in a rigorous analysis using approximately 100 reference

samples each for the cold water and warm water indexes. The statistic that best represented the separation of

reference and stressed Arizona samples was the 25th percentile of the reference distribution.

The 25th percentile of the reference IBI distribution di stinguishes well between 75 percent of the reference

samples and 75 percent of the stressed samples in our data set. While it is true that the Department is accepting up

to a 25 percent Type I error rate in the initial reference da taset, there are reasons why this rate is acceptable. The

EPA has recommended a quartile/percentile scoring approach for biocritiera thresholds since the 1999 EPA Rapid

Bioassessment Protocols manual (Barbour et al, 1999). The 25t h percentile value is often found to be the lowest

quartile at which good discrimination between a-priori desi gnated reference and stressed sites can be determined.

According to the EPA Summary of States’ Bioassessment Pr ograms, eleven other states have selected the 25th

percentile of reference condition as their IBI threshold.

While a 25 percent error rate seems high, biologists r ecognize that there is more inherent variability in

stream ecosystems and biological communities than in water chemistry. The Department acknowledges that many

of the reference sites in the lower quartile were only the best available stream sites in a region and not the least

impaired reference sites, because pristine sampling sites were non-existent. There were many reference samples in

the lower quartile that were initially used in IBI deve lopment which will now be exempted from application of

biocriteria for various reasons. There were samples in the dataset from streams which were collected from bedrock

or travertine dominated habitats, for which biocriteria ar e now not applicable. There were samples which are now

thought to have been impaired due to collection following the extreme floods of 1993. These samples (10 of 13

impaired warm water reference samples and 8 of 12 cold water impaired reference samples) were stressed due to

natural conditions and will be exempted from application of the narrative biocriterion.

The variability in reference quality in the lower quar tile of reference condition is acceptable as natural

variation in the reference sample population and selection of a lower percentile target would increase the Type II

error rate. Setting the biocriterion at a lower percentile (such as the 5th percentile) would result in more false

negatives. At the 10th percentile, an estimated false ne gative rate of 48 percent occurs among the warm water

samples in the Department’s dataset. The Department mu st balance the risk of false positive (Type I) errors as

well as false negatives (Type II). The th resholds established balance those ri sks most effectively, with the 10th

percentile as the absolute lowest threshold for a viol ation, the 25th percentile as the minimum threshold for

protecting the aquatic life use, and 10-25th percentile as inconclusive when a verification sample is required.

Comment #56

Joseph S. Volosin, Parametrix, on behalf on the Pinal Creek Group

Some reference sites could be defined as violating th e new biocriteria standard, if after a single sample

collection event, the ADEQ Warmwater IBI score is belo w the 10 percentile (i.e., 39 for ADEQ Warmwater sites).

# 147 Based on spring collected samples from 1992 to 2003, 10 percent of reference sites were determined to

have scores less than the ADEQ Warmwater IBI score. Therefore, about 13 reference sites could have been

determined to be violating the new biocriteria standa rd. Determining that a reference site exceeds the new

biocriteria standard does not seem appropriate. Therefore, what is the justification for the 10th percentile as the

absolute threshold for determining whether the new biocriteri a standard is violated? As this is equivalent to saying

that the reference sites (which represent sites minima lly affected by human activity) are violating applicable

standards 10 percent of the time, there needs to be a more complete explanation of what the biocriterion seeks to

protect, what constitutes an actual violation of the standa rd, and how to differentiate impacts from human activity

from natural variability. As discussed in the IP, “The na turally occurring biological diversity becomes the primary

reference condition used to measure and assess attainment of aquatic life goals.” In as much reference sites define

the range of naturally occurring biological diversity, there is no logical rationale for a site within the range for the

reference condition to be considered in violation for a ttainment of aquatic life goals. Why should not the entire

ADEQ Warmwater IBI range for reference streams be cons idered attaining and anything below that range not

attaining?

Response: The rationale for using the 10th percentile as the threshold for determining that the biocriterion

is violated is that the majority of stressed samples in a box and whisker plot analysis fell below the 10th percentile

of reference condition. This suggests that samples with IBI scores in this range (<10th percentile) are equivalent to

samples that are a-priori known stressed sites, thus th ey do not achieve biointegrity and are violating the

biocriterion. For discussion of why some of the “referen ce samples” are violating the biocriterion, see Response

#55.

Comment #57

Joseph S. Volosin, Parametrix, on behalf on the Pinal Creek Group

ADEQ Warmwater IBI scores for reference sites are comp ared to those for stressed sites in Figure 5 of the

Technical Support Documentation for the Narrative Biocr iteria Standard (ADEQ 2006c). The comparison is for

the 1992 to 2003 data. What is the sample number for each of the site class categories compared? Should there not

be a similar number of stressed sites to compare to refe rence sites so that the sample numbers are balanced?

Similar sample sizes would support a mo re robust statistical comparison than in the present situation with unequal

sample sizes for un-paired samples (Steel and Torrie 1960) . A larger sample size may be needed to support the

conclusions that the 10th percentile is the absolute thres hold for a standard violation determination and that the

25th percentile is the minimum threshold for a standard violation determination for Arizona warmwater sites.

As there was not a significant difference between sites designated as reference and those as non-reference,

why not combine the data to derive the ADEQ Warmwater IBI scores?

Response: The table below provides the number of samples in each of the site class categories shown in

Figure 5 of the technical support documentation for the Na rrative Biocriteria Standard. The number of a-priori

identified reference sites is greater than the number of stressed sites and samples, due to the concentration of effort

to develop reference sites during the first few years of biocriteria research effort. The concentrated effort on

“reference condition” was necessary because the Indexes of Biological Integrity are ultimately based on robust

# 148 reference conditions, not stressed conditions. While a la rger number of stressed samples would be ideal, 30

samples are generally considered a large enough sample size to make inferences about stream conditions. A larger

sample size is not needed to support the use of the 10t h percentile as the threshold for a standards violation

determination because this quantile reflects such a low percentage of reference conditions and approximates the

median of stressed samples in the warm water distributi on and approximates the 75th percentile in the cold water

distribution of stressed samples.

Number of sites Warm water

Reference (a-priori) 131

Non-reference + unknown 189

Stressed (a-priori) 30

Total number of sites 350

Figure X. Box plot distribution of reference and stre ssed Arizona Index of Biological Integrity scores for

warm water and cold water, with proposed biocriteria thresholds (ADEQ, 2007).

The suggestion to use non-reference condition as the basi s for the biocriterion is not valid. Non-reference is

not a scientifically defensible approach to setting biocriteria thresholds. Developing reference condition is critical

to the interpretation of biological surveys. EPA guidance states the “the reference condition establishes the basis

for making comparisons and for detecting use impairment...” Following EPA guidance in the Rapid

Bioassessment Protocols (Barbour et al., 1999), the Department dedicated three years of data collection effort into

developing a dataset of reference site macroinvertebrate samples by which to create indexes of biological integrity

to make biological assessments. Using non-reference sites to establish thresholds is not a technically valid

approach.

Comment #58

Joseph S. Volosin, Parametrix, on behalf on the Pinal Creek Group

Because streams have a fair amount of variability over time and space, a single sample event is

inappropriate to evaluate the biological integrity of th e entire site. Between-year and within-riffle differences can

# 149 be fairly high for some sites. The condition of the macr oinvertebrate community may not necessarily be reflected

in the results of a single sample. More than one sample is needed to evaluate the initial and verification sample (if

needed). For any particular site, multiple samples shoul d be collected over time and for each sample collection

event. Therefore, multiple samples in each of two seas ons should be the minimal sample number collected to

evaluate biotic integrity.

An understanding of this variability is especially needed when a site is scored near the threshold (Barbour

et al. 1999). Furthermore, the variability around a single sa mple should be known and taken in to account even for

reference samples by understanding the standard deviation of repeated measures for streams (Barbour et al. 1999).

Therefore, single sample variability should be take n into account as described in Parametrix (2006).

Response: Streams do have natural variability over space and time. The Department methods and the IBIs

have encompassed that variation by sampling more than 100 cold and warm water reference sites statewide and

over a 5-year period for inclusion in the Indexes of biol ogical integrity. In addition, a large amount of natural

variation is controlled by the sampling protocols (specifi ed sampling habitat, collecting season, standardized

methods), and lab taxonomy protocols (genus level sta ndard taxonomy and standardized lab protocols). The

Department has found low variability in repeat reference samples collected during the early 1990s, with a standard

deviation of the reference site IBI scores of 7 percent (Gerritsen & Leppo, 1998). However, some year-to-year

variation in IBI scores is natural because of flooding or drought conditions. When these conditions result in an

impaired bioassessment score, the assessment process will evaluate the cause as natural. Riffle-to-riffle variability

is not an issue because the Department sampling method specifically calls for compositing within the available

riffle habitats in the reach. Compositing over 9m 2 

# (a much larger area than most state bioassessment methods) of

stream bottom maximizes the taxa richness estimate for the study reach and reduces the amount of variability

between samples.

The Department made a large investment in developing robust IBIs that encompass spatial and temporal

variability in reference stream macroinvertebrates and represent a composite condition by which to measure single

samples from study sites. A single sample is sufficient fo r determining whether the biological integrity standard

has been met for the following reasons: 1) a single macroinvertebrate sample represents long term, ongoing

conditions because they reside in streams year-round, 2) Department sampling protocols limit variability by

targeting specific habitat, collection period, and sampli ng conditions, 3) the Department Indexes of Biological

Integrity are robust tools, including metrics from four cate gories of structural and functional measures that limits

variability associated with a single metric approach; 4) a large, statewide reference dataset collected over a 6-year

period was used to develop the reference thresholds; and 5) the 10th percentile of reference will be used as the

threshold for identifying impairment for a single macroinvert ebrate sample. This is a very low threshold at which

there is a high certainty of correctly identified impairment.

The supporting documents that describe the development of the IBIs include references to two different

time periods. The abstract for the “Development and Testing of a Biological Index for Warmwater Streams of

Arizona” states that the warm water IBI is based on the analys is of benthic macroinvertebrate data collected from

1992-1997 (5 years). The abstract for the “Development and Testing of A Biological Index for Coldwater Streams

of Arizona” states that the coldwater IBI is based on the anal ysis of macroinvertebrate data collected by ADEQ

# 150 from 1992-1998 (a 6-year period). See Response #55.

Comment #59

Joseph S. Volosin, Parametrix, on behalf on the Pinal Creek Group

In Table 1 of the Biocriteria TSD, the discriminato ry power of the separate metrics are evaluated by

comparing “ref” (reference) and “edw” (effluent dominated) streams. If effluent dominated streams are not to be

evaluated under the implementation of the narrative biocrite ria standard, then why are effluent dominated streams

used to evaluate the discriminatory pow er of the separate metrics? Should not a-priori stressed sites be used to

evaluate the discriminatory power of the separate metrics?

Response: Macroinvertebrate samples from effluent-depende nt waters were used in the IBI analysis

because they were known to be stressed from high nutri ent concentrations and possibly other contaminants.

Samples from known stressed sites and multiple stressors ar e a necessary dataset for testing the discriminatory

ability of the IBI to detect impairment of biological integrity. The effluent-dependent streams in the Department’s

dataset fit the stream class the IBI was designed for: pe rennial, wadeable streams. Samples from sediment stressed

sites in wadeable, perennial streams were used in the stressed sample dataset. The proposed biocriteria do not

apply to effluent-dependent streams because the Depa rtment does not know what the attainable biological

integrity of these water bodies is.

Comment #60

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

The draft guidance document (dated April 2008) for the narrative biocriteria standard includes application

elements that are not specified in R18-11-108.01, but are critical components of the proposed biological standard.

These additional application elements include that wadeab le, perennial streams must contain fast-flowing riffle or

run habitat, not be dominated by bedrock or travertine, and be sampled during the spring index period. These

additional elements should be included in the rule to clar ify that if these elements are not present the narrative

biological standard is not applicable. Further, the inclusion of these additional elements will help to ensure that the

narrative biological standard proposed by ADEQ in R18-11- 108(E) applies only to wadeable, perennial streams

capable of supporting the type of fauna inte nded to be protected by the proposed rule

Response : The language in the biocriteria rule is clear a nd concise. The language regarding wadeable and

perennial is included in the rule to specify the appropria te stream type to which one of the IBIs will apply.

However, the other application elements are part of the broader sampling methodology that is discussed in the

Implementation Plan guidance document and the sampling pr ocedures are fully disclosed in the appendix of the

guidance document. It is unnecessary to address all th e sampling methodology in rule, especially when it is

provided in an approved QAPP (ADEQ, 2006). No change has been made to the rule.

Comment #61

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

ADEQ should revise proposed R18-11-108.01 as follows:

# 151 R18-11-108.01 Narrative Biological Standard Implementation Procedures

A. The narrative biological standard implementation procedures in R18-11-108(E) this Section apply

applies only during the spring index period (April-May fo r warm water streams and May-June for cold water

streams) to a wadeable, perennial stream with fast-flowing riffle or run habitat with a heterogeneous substrate

that is not dominated by bedrock or tra vertine and the wadeable, perennial stream has either an aquatic and

wildlife (cold water) or an aquatic and wildlife (warm water) designated use.

B. The biological standard in R18-11-108(E) is met when a bioassessment result, as measured by the

Arizona Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) for cold or warm water is:

1. Greater than or equal to the 25th percentile of reference condition, or

2. Greater than the 10th percentile of reference condi tion and less than the 25th percentile of reference

condition and a verification bioassessment result is greater than or equal to the 25th percentile of reference

condition.

C. Arizona Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) scores.

Index of Biological Integrity Scores

Bioassessment Result A&We A&Ww

Greater than or equal to the 25th

percentile of reference conditions ≥ 52 ≥ 50

Greater than the 10th and less than the

25th percentile of reference condition 46 - 51 40 - 49

D. A violation of the biological standard in R18-11-108(E) shall be determined based on the IBI goal in

subsection (B) and the biocriteria implementation proce dures adopted by the Department in accordance with

A.R.S. § 49-232(F)

.

E. Application or use of the biological standard in any AZPDES permit shall be as described in the

biocriteria implementation procedures adopted by the Department in accordance with A.R.S. § 49-232(F)

.

Response: The Department disagrees that R18-11-108. 01 should be revised as recommended by the

Coalition. The objective criteria for determining whether the na rrative biocriteria standard is met are prescribed in

the rule at R18-11-108.01(B) and (C). The Department agrees that compliance with the proposed biocriteria

standard is determined from bioassessment results as measured by the Arizona Indexes of Biological Integrity for

cold or warm water streams. However, the Department does not agree that this compliance determination is

dependent on the adoption of “biocriteria implementati on procedures adopted by the Department in accordance

with A.R.S.§ 49-232(F).” The proposed rule already states how the Department will determine compliance with

the narrative biocriteria standard. There is no need to refer to other implementation procedures adopted under

A.R.S. § 49-232(F).

The Department disagrees with the commenter’s a ddition of new subsection (E). The Department is

adopting surface water quality standards rules, not rule s for the AZPDES permit program. The appropriate place

for rules addressing implementation of biocriteria in AZPDES permits are the AZPDES permit rules found in 18

A.A.C. 9, Article 9.

# 152 Comment #62

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

ADEQ also fails to disclose whether it performed a trul y independent analysis of its methods in selecting

data sets providing the basis of its biocriteria standard. A data set should be comprised of a priori unclassified,

impacted and no-impacted, non-reference sites, and ADE Q should have then determined how well its methods

correctly identified sites that would be meeting or not meeting the proposed biocriteria standard.

The Coalition therefore recommends that ADEQ e xplain its methods for selecting data sets.

Response: A complete discussion of how the Indexes of Bi ological Integrity for macroinvertebrates were

developed is provided in the “Technical Support Document ation for the Narrative Biocriteria Standard” (ADEQ,

2007). The analytical methodology for developing the refe rence condition dataset is provided as well as the

rationale for testing and development of the Indexes. Th e statistical analysis was conducted by TetraTech Inc., for

the Department and followed standard EPA statistical a pproaches for development and testing of IBIs. This

included development of the Indexes using one dataset (sta tewide), then independently testing the resulting Index

using a separate and independent dataset (Verde River basin).

Comment #63

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

This provision adds a new important aspect to the surface water quality standards and will aid the ADEQ

substantially in working toward the goal of restoring bi ological integrity to our surface waters. The health and

diversity of the biological community can provide important information on how the surface water system is

functioning.

Response: The Department appreciates the comment.

Comment #64

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

On their face, the new implementation procedures (“IPs”) associated with the narrative biological integrity

criterion apply to any wadeable perennial stream with a cold water or warm water aquatic life use designation

(i.e., any water that is not ephemeral or EDW). See proposed A.A.C. R18-11-108.01(A). However, the draft

implementation procedures themselves (p. 3) include a dditional applicability factors that are not, but should be,

specified in the rule. These criteria are: (1) presence of fast-flowing riffle or run habitat; (2) water is not

dominated by bedrock or travertine; and (3) sampling occurs during the spring index period. The rule should make

clear that these factors must be present in order to assess compliance with the biological criterion.

Response: The Department disagrees that the proposed R18-11-108.01(A) should include additional

applicability factors based on the sampling protocols described in the draft implementation procedures document.

The proposed rule clearly states that the narrative biocrite ria standard applies to wadeable, perennial streams with

the A&Wc or A&Ww designated use. No change has been made to the rule.

# 153 R18-11-108.02. NARRATIVE BOTTOM DEPOSIT CRITERIA FOR WADEABLE, PERENNIAL

STREAMS

Comment #65

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

Similar to the proposed narrative biocriteria standa rd language, ADEQ should clarify that the proposed

narrative bottom deposits criteria apply only to wadeable, perennial streams, and that they do not constitute

“implementation procedures” as that term is understood in the TMDL context. As such, the Coalition recommends

that ADEQ revise its proposed R18-11-108.02 as follows:

R18-11-108.02. Narrative Bottom Deposits Standard Implementation Procedures

A. The narrative bottom deposit implementation procedures standard in this Section applies only apply

to wadeable, perennial streams with an aquatic and wildlife (cold water) or an aquatic and wildlife (warm water)

designated use.

B. The narrative water quality standard for bottom deposits at R18-11-108(A)(1) is met when:

1. The percentage of fine sediments in the riffle hab itats of a wadeable, perennial stream with an

A&Wc designated use, as determined by a riffle pebble count, is less than or equal to 30 percent.

2. The percentage of fine sediments in the riffle and run habitats of a wadeable, perennial stream with

an A&Ww designated use, as determined by a reach l evel pebble count, is equal to or less than 50 percent.

C. A violation of the narrative bottom deposits standard at R18-11-108(A)(1) shall be determined

based on the criteria in subsection (B) and the narrati ve bottom deposits standard implementation procedures

adopted by the Department in accordance with A.R.S. § 49-232(F).

D. Application or use of the narrative bottom deposits standard criteria in any AZPDES permit shall be

as described in the narrative bottom deposits standard im plementation procedures adopt ed by the Department in

accordance with A.R.S. § 49-232(F).

Response: The Department will change the Section title to be clear that this rule is not the implementation

procedure that will be adopted as agency guidance and that this rule applies only to wadeable, perennial streams.

See Response #53. The language for A&Ww streams has been revised to eliminate the reference to “riffle and

run” and replaced with “all stream habitats.” The Depa rtment does not agree that the language proposed to be

added in subsections (C) and (D) is necessary for the clar ity or implementation of the rule for the same reasons

stated in Response #61. The Department has revised the rule as follows:

R18-11-108.02. Narrative Bottom Deposit Criteria for Wadeable, Perennial Streams

A. The narrative bottom deposit criteria in th is Section apply to wadeable, perennial

streams with an aquatic and wildlife (cold water) or an aquatic and wildlife (warm

water) designated use.

B. The narrative water quality standard for bottom deposits at R18-11-108(A)(1) is

met in perennial waters when:

1. The percentage of fine sediments in the riffle habitats of a wadeable,

perennial stream with an A&Wc designat ed use, as determined by a riffle

pebble count, is less than or equal to 30 percent.

# 154 2. The percentage of fine sediments in all stream habitats of a wadeable,

perennial stream with an A&Ww designat ed use, as determined by a reach

level pebble count, is equal to or less than 50 percent.

Comment #66

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

We are supportive of this change in the standards as it again helps to implement the goal of restoring

biological integrity to our surface waters. Sedimentation of our streams and rivers can adversely affect the benthic

macroinvertebrate community, a key component of a healthy surface water, and greater sedimentation can

adversely affect species of trout. The Sierra Club has par ticipated in one training and has also done at least one

field trip using the procedures outlined in the Narrative Bottom Deposits Standard Implementation Procedures for

Wadeable, Perennial Streams

, April 2008 . These procedures are clear and relatively easy to implement in the

field. They will help to determine the biologi cal condition of our state’s wadeable streams.

Response: The Department appreciates the comment.

Comment #67

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

The standard applies on its face to any wadeable, perennial stream. See proposed A.A.C. R18-11-

108.02(A). The draft IPs make clear that the standard only ma kes sense in the context of riffle and run habitat, as

that is the environment in which high sediment can adversely affect benthic macroinvertebrates and other

organisms using stream bottoms (e.g., fish laying eggs). This should be made explicit clear in the applicability

section of the rule (R18-11-108.02(A)). Absent such clarif ication, the procedures could be applied to a “water”

such as the tunnel and lined channel at the Asarco Ra y Mine (which as noted above carry an aquatic life

designation), even though those areas lack riffle or run habitat and thus logically should not be subject to these

IPs.

Response: The Department disagrees with the suggestion that language relating to riffle and run habitats be

added to the applicability subsection in R18-11-108.02( A). The Department believes that the recommended

language limiting the applicability of the narrative bottom standard is unnecessary because the target sampling

habitats are specified in R18-11-108.02(B). See Response #65. The narrative bottom deposits standard applies to

wadeable, perennial streams with natural substrates and not to concrete-lined tunnels and channels such as those

constructed at the Asarco Ray Mine. The Department coul d not follow either the riffle pebble count or the reach

level sampling protocol in such a highly modified system.

R18-11-108.03. NARRATIVE NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR LAKES AND RESERVOIRS

Comment #68

Janet Hashimoto, Chief; EPA Monitoring & Assessment Office

We commend ADEQ’s development of implementation procedures for narrative nutrient standards for

# 155 lakes and reservoirs as an important step to advan ce the quality of nutrient assessments. The implementation

procedures proposed in section R 18-11-108.03 follow EPA’s national guidance and include a weight-of-evidence

matrix providing the basis for interpreting the narrative nut rient standards. ADEQ has created five functional lake

classes, along with nutrient threshold va lues expressed as ranges of chlorophyll- a , Secchi depth, total nitrogen,

total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorus, percent blue -green algae, and total count of blue-green algae.

To accompany the proposed rule text, ADEQ developed draft guidance titled “Narrative Nutrient Standard

Implementation Procedures for Lakes and Reservoirs,” April 2007 to be used for both ambient water quality

assessment and permit compliance purposes. The guidance does not specify the method by which to translate

narrative nutrient standards into numeric limits for inclus ion in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permits.

Because ADEQ has concurrently proposed to elimin ate numeric nutrient limits for some water bodies

(Theodore Roosevelt, Apache, Canyon, Saguaro, and San Pe dro River from Curtiss to Benson) per section R18-

11-109.E, permit writers would need to rely on the narra tive nutrient guidance to set numeric limits for NPDES

permitted facilities located in these watersheds. We are concerned with the elimination of numeric standards

absent a detailed procedure for translating the pr oposed narrative nutrient standards into permit limits.

The rule should include the frequency of nutrient expos ure, e.g., average peak season value, which is

currently only specified in the guidance.

Response: The Department appreciates EPA’s support for developing the narrative nutrient standard but

disagrees that these permitting details should be included in the standard. They are appropriately included in the

implementation procedures and ultimately in the AZPDES permit program rules. The narrative standard guidance

documents are still being developed for the assessment, listing, and permitting program. Those processes are

independent of surface water quality standards and should not affect adoption of this standard.

The Department received a number of comments concerning use of the narrative nutrient matrix in

AZPDES permits. While the implementation procedures guida nce documents are not being adopted as part of this

rulemaking, it is clear from the comments that the Departme nt has not adequately described in the draft guidance

document how it envisions use of the matrix in AZPDES pe rmits. A review of the latest version of the guidance

documents released in April 2008, finds several inconsistencies in the permitting section that no doubt caused

reader confusion. While the guidance document is not be ing adopted as rule, a brief discussion of the permitting

process is outlined in this response. The Department con tinues to refine its initial approach outlined in the April

2008 draft IP and intends to develop a loading approach tailored to meet a lake-specific biomass target. The

Department does not envision application of the narrative nut rient matrix (Numeric Targets Table) as end-of-pipe

limits in AZPDES permits, at least initially. Proposed nutrient discharges will involve a number of steps including

determining: the receiving water assimilative capacity, ex isting nutrient loads, and proposed loads (including any

necessary lake management activities). This information would be used to determine the appropriate size of the

mixing zone and to develop an appropriate monitoring plan to determine if the narrative nutrient standard is being

attained in a lake or reservoir.

As noted earlier, the Department has provided deta iled responses to comments about the implementation

guidance to the authors and will encourage those commenter s to participate in future work sessions to finalize

# 156 those documents.

Since this narrative nutrient standard only applies to la kes and reservoirs, removal of the nitrate standard on

the San Pedro River is not at issue (see Response #87). If a permit for discharge to one of the four lakes identified

by the commenter is submitted to the Department befo re the implementation procedures are finalized, the

Department standards and permitting staff will work with th e permittee to obtain the needed data to determine if

the narrative nutrient standard is being met and to develop the appropriate permit conditions, including in-lake

monitoring if needed, to ensure the standard is being attained in the lake. Currently there are three AZPDES

permits for discharges to lakes. Two permits are small wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) at the marinas at

Roosevelt and Canyon Lakes and the third permit is the discha rge of reclaimed water to Lakeside Lake in Tucson.

The Department will incorporate the provision of the narrative nutrient criteria in the renewal permits as

appropriate.

While the rule currently has the frequency of exposure, the Department agrees th at the language should be

clarified and has revised the first paragraph of R18-11-108.03(B) as follows:

B. The narrative water quality standard for nutrients at R18-11-108(A)(6) is met if, based on

a minimum of two sample events conducted during the peak season for lake productivity,

the results show an average chlorophyll-a value below the applicable threshold for

designated use and lake category in subsection (D).

Comment #69

David E McNeil, City of Tempe

The Department has proposed to establish numeric criteria for implementation of the existing narrative

water quality standard requiring surface waters to “not c ontain pollutants in amounts or combinations that cause

the growth of algae or aquatic plants that inhibit or prohibit the habitation, growth, or propagation of other aquatic

life or that impair recreational uses” (R18-11-108.A(6)), al so known as the “narrative nutrient standard.” The City

of Tempe opposes the establishment of the numeric criteria, as proposed, for several reasons:

Many states have had challenges implementing the na rrative nutrient standard due to the relationships

between causal and response variables that are unique to each water body. Accordingly, EPA has responded to

recent correspondence from both the Association of State a nd Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators

(ASIWPCA) and the National Resources Defense Counc il (NRDC) urging EPA to establish technology-based

nutrient criteria by initiating the development of guida nce on nutrient removal technology. Pending completion

and distribution of this guidance to the states, which is expected in August, proceeding with the promulgation of

nutrient criteria in Arizona is premature. The upcoming guidance should provide valuable information regarding

the costs and feasibility of implementing nutrient removal technology, and may even suggest the use of

technology-based criteria in lieu of numeric translators for the narrative standard.

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

For example, many states have struggled to implemen t narrative nutrient standards due to the relationship

between the causal and response variables unique to each waterbody. As such, the Association of State and

Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (“ ASIWPCA”) and the National Resources Defense Council

# 157 (“NRDC”) have urged EPA to establish technology-base d nutrient criteria through the development of guidance

on nutrient removal technology. EPA has responded that it intends to provide such guidance. ADEQ therefore

should delay finalization of any narrative nutrient standard pending issuance of EPA’s guidance on

implementation of nutrient removal technology.

Response: The Department agrees that it has been cha llenging to develop criteria that translate the

narrative nutrient standard into objective criteria that can be measured to determine whether the narrative standard

is met. However, the Department disagrees that it is “premature” for the Department to propose numeric

translators for Arizona lakes and reservoirs in this rulemaking.

The Department will follow efforts by EPA, ASIW PCA and the NRDC to develop technology-based

standards to control the discharge of nutrients. Howeve r, the potential future development of technology-based

nutrient standards is not a substitute for the water quality-b ased approach developed by the Department to protect

Arizona’s lakes and reservoirs with this new standard.

Comment #70

David E McNeil, City of Tempe

The proposed approach establishes chlorophyll- a as the primary criteria which, in concentrations below the

numeric target range established in subsection D, indi cates attainment of the nutrient standard. Weight-ofevidence criteria such as nitrogen and phosphorous are only evaluated for assessment purposes if chlorophyll- a is

above the lower end of the target range. This approach to the narrative standard concludes that the response

variable of chlorophyll- a is, by itself, a good indicator of attainment.

The complex relationship between different causal variables and chlorophyll- a makes such a demonstration

of assimilative capacity implausible. In addition, a lim itation on the extent of chlorophyll-a response amounts to

the inappropriate establishment of an antidegradation requirement for the narrative standard. Any attempt to

preempt impairment by requiring dischargers to meet target thresholds for causal variables also ignores a lake

manager’s authority and ability to attain the standa rd by managing the response variables using physical,

biological, or chemical control of weeds and algae as established in A.A.C. R18-11-117. Accordingly, the

proposed rule should specify that it is to be used for la ke assessment only, and shall not be used to establish

effluent limitations in the absence of a TMDL.

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

The determination of assimilative capacity is nearly impossible due to the complex relationship between

causal variables. Also, ADEQ’s limitation on the degree of chlorophyll- a response amounts to an inappropriate

establishment of an antidegradation standard through th e draft guidance document. Furthermore, ADEQ’s efforts

to prevent impairment by requiring permittees to meet target thresholds for causal variables fails to consider a lake

manager’s ability, under A.A.C. R18-11-117, to manage response variables usi ng physical, biological, or chemical

controls to attain SWQS.

ADEQ should clarify that the proposed narrative nutrient standard applies only to lake assessment, and is

not relied upon in promulgating discharge limits absents ADEQ’s establishment of a total maximum daily load

(“TMDL”) for the lake in question.

# 158 Response: The Department is adopting the chlorophyll-a cr iterion as the primary endpoint for meeting the

narrative nutrient standard (except when the lake is designated as a shallow lake outside of the urban context – see

rule clarification below). Chlorophyll-a is an EPA-approved surrogate for aquatic plant biomass and is included in

the National Nutrient Criteria established for Lakes and Reservoirs in 2001/2002. The Department disagrees that

the limitation on the degree of chlorophyll- a response is an antidegradation standard. It is a primary end-point for

meeting the standard as established in EPA documents and scientific literature. Although the causal-response

relationship is complex and always in flux, chlorophyll-a, in combination with the standards for dissolved oxygen

(DO), pH, and ammonia, is considered to be the most feasible alternative in assessing support of aquatic and

wildlife designated use with regard to nutrients. The De partment disagrees that determination of assimilative

capacity is impossible. It is similar to determining sta ndards attainment at the edge of a mixing zone. The mixing

zone rule has been in the standards since 1992 and a number of permits have been written with them. See

Response #68.

The Department disagrees that the proposed narrative nutrient standard applies only to assessments and

cannot be used to establish effluent limitations in the absence of a TMDL. Narrative standards are independently

applicable in determining whether a waterbody is m eeting its designated uses. However, how the narrative

nutrient standard and matrix is to be used in assessments, impaired waters listings and in discharge permits is still

under development and will be discussed in the cont ext of guidance documents and in the appropriate

rulemakings.

To clarify the standard for shallow lakes outside of an urban context, the the following minor revisions to

R18-11-108.03(B)(3) have been made:

3. For a shallow lake. In addition to meeting the mean chlorophyll-a concentrations in (B)(1)

or (2) above, submerged aquatic vegetation covers 50 percent or less of the lake bottom

and there is less than a 5 mg/L swing in diel dissolved oxygen concentration measured

within the photic zone

.

Comment #71

David E McNeil, City of Tempe

The establishment of Total Nitrogen as supporting criteria for chlorophyll- a concentrations to assess

compliance with the narrative nutrient criteria is not supported by the 2005 Statistical Modeling and Analysis

Report. While the data supports a strong pos itive correlation between TKN and chlorophyll- a , the data also

establishes that the correlation between Total Nitrogen and chlorophyll- a is only moderate (Report, p. 4-13; p. 4-

28;) and that the correlation between chlorophyll- a and nitrate as well as nitrate-plus-nitrite is weak (Report, p. 4-

4; p. 5-1). The data also indicates that TKN generally comprises upwards of 70% of Total Nitrogen (Report, Table

B-2) and that the correlation between TKN and Total N itrogen is one of the strongest observed correlations

(Report, Table 4-2). This demonstrates that the moderate correlation between Total Nitrogen and chlorophyll- a is

incidental to the TKN/chlorophyll- a correlation, and not demonstrative of a causal relationship. Concentrations of

Nitrogen species other than TKN are not statistically correlated with nutrient impairment, making the use of Total

Nitrogen as supporting criteria arbitrary.

# 159 The use of the remaining nutrient targets independently as supporting criteria for chlorophyll- a

concentrations to assess compliance with the narrative nutri ent criteria is also not supported by the Statistical and

Modeling Analysis Report. As described above, any correlation between Total Nitrogen and chlorophyll- a appears

to be incidental to the TKN/chlorophyll- a correlation, making the use of Total Nitrogen as supporting criteria for

chlorophyll- a arbitrary in the absence of elevated TKN. Th e report also concludes that the strong correlation

between TKN and chlorophyll- a is partially derived from (TKN’s) correla tion with Total Phosphorous (Report, p.

4-14). In addition, Total Phosphorous becomes much more of a causal factor when TKN (and accordingly Total

Nitrogen) concentrations decrease (Report, p. 4-4). This information demonstrates that TKN and Total

Phosphorous have a synergistic rather than independent effect on chlorophyll- a . Accordingly, the use of TKN and

Total Phosphorous target ranges independently as suppor ting factors in assessing compliance with the narrative

nutrient criteria is arbitrary. The language in proposed A.A.C. R18-11-108.03(B)(2)(c )(vi) should exclude Total

Nitrogen, and the word “or” should be replaced with “and.”

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

ADEQ’s establishment of target criteria for Total N itrogen is erroneous, because the correlation between

Total Nitrogen and chlorophyll-a established in ADEQ’s st atistical modeling report is incidental to the TKNchlorophyll-a concentration.

Response: The Statistical and Modeling Analysis Report by Malcolm Pirnie is comprised of various data

analysis techniques applied to Arizona lake and re servoir data. The goal was three-fold: 1) develop a

lake/reservoir classification system to support nutrient-related initiatives, 2) derive numeric and non-numeric

endpoints for assessment, and 3) incorporate these elements into formal implementation procedures for assessment

of lake conditions and determination of compliance with the narrative nutrient standard. The analyses discussed in

this report laid the empirical foundation for the second document, Potential Nutrient-related Targets for Arizona

Lakes and Reservoir, which culminated in the matrix of threshold values proposed in this rulemaking. It is

important to understand that the threshold ranges for speci fic nutrients were derived from empirical relationships

found in Arizona lake data. The ranges for total P, to tal N, TKN, and secchi depth are not intended to be

predictive of chlorophyll-a, but are used as corollary information in a weight-of evidence evaluation for

determining evidence of nutrient-related impairment (see R18-11-108.03(B)(2)). Thes e supporting thresholds are

there for the reviewer/evaluator so that if/when future data do not reflect these ranges, it may be a trigger for

further investigation. Regardless, comp arison of future data to these thres hold ranges will be used to solidify or

possibly to refine our understanding of lake classes and/or how a lake that falls in multiple classes may respond.

The inclusion of total nitrogen in the matrix is inte ntional. The commenter is correct in saying that TKN

was found to have the most powerful correlation to chlorophyll-a, but this may or may not be equally predictive.

Including total nitrogen and TKN allows the evaluation of nitrate+nitrite-N by subtraction when comparing

assessment data with matrix thresholds. In addition, along with TKN, the Department will evaluate ammonia

values in combination with TKN values and other event-related lake data to track relationships between physical,

chemical and biological conditions. No change has been made to the rule.

Comment #72

# 160 David E McNeil, City of Tempe

The use of DO and pH standards as supporting criteria for chlorophyll- a concentrations to assess

compliance with the narrative nutrient criteria is not supported by ADEQ’s February 2005 Statistical and

Modeling Analysis Report. Specifically, the Summary a nd Conclusions section of this report indicate that

“dissolved oxygen and pH concentrations were also largely independent of other parameters, and did not even

correlate strongly with algal chlorophyll- a .” The DO and pH standards are stand-alone criteria, exceedances of

which constitute an exceedance of numeric standards. There is no reason or basis for establishing these criteria as

supporting criteria for the response variable of chlorophyll- a , especially when causality has not been established.

There are many issues regarding the proposed narrativ e nutrient standard that warrant removal of the

standard from the current revision of water quality standard s. Alternatively, Tempe requests that chlorophyll-a be

established as stand-alone criteria with a standard at the upper end of the target thresholds presented in the rule. If

a lake is listed for narrative nutrients based on chlorophyll- a, a study of the causal factors specific to a water body

could then be undertaken through the TMDL process.

Response: The Department disagrees that the proposed na rrative nutrient standard should be removed or

reduced to a stand-alone chlorophyll- a criterion

. While the Department agrees that an exceedance of the upper end

of the target thresholds for chlorophyll-a represents an exceedance of the narrative nutrient standard, an

exceedance of the narrative nutrient standard is also demonstrated when chlorophyll- a concentrations are within

the range of thresholds presented in the matrix and there is other evidence of nutrient-related impairments such as

exceedances of target thresholds for dissolved oxygen, pH, Secchi depth, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and

blue-green algae.

While the standards for dissolved oxygen (DO) and pH do stand alone, they are also relevant to aquatic

ecosystem function and nutrient cycling. DO and pH are related to productivity (rate of biomass production and

are therefore relevant to biomass and to the narrative nut rient standard. The matrix includes these parameters in

the weight of evidence (see R18-11-108.03(B)(2) and (B)(3 )) used to determine whether a chlorophyll-a value

within the target range may or may not be correlated with exceedances of DO and/or pH, secchi depth, blue-green

algae, TKN, TP, or TN above the corresponding ranges. The ammonia standard is not cited specifically, but

ammonia also is relevant, as it is the preferred nitroge n form over nitrate for uptake, as is orthophospate. So

correlation is not causation, but is used to inform further investigation.

Comment #73

Robert A. Hollander, City of Phoenix

The Water Services Department requests that park la kes that include reclaimed water should be excluded

from meeting the proposed nutrient criteria. There should be no public health impact using reclaimed water in park

lakes with a partial body contact (PBC) designated use especi ally since reclaimed water used for these purposes in

Arizona must meet the restricted use pathogen requi rements under an Aquifer Protection Permit. Many golf

courses that use reclaimed water for irrigation store exce ss reclaimed water for future use in those lakes. The

nutrients in reclaimed water are essential for adequate irri gation and one of the benefits of using reclaimed water.

This could have a major capital and operation and maintenance cost impact on water utilities for further treatment

# 161 facilities and on water resources if the lakes have to be f illed with potable water. Please see the comments, to the

Preamble above, regarding the use of reclaimed water. The proposed rule could eliminate the option of using

reclaimed water in park lakes.

Response: The narrative nutrient standard for urban lakes will only apply to those lakes classified in

Appendix B of the surface water quality standards, not to every impoundment storing reclaimed water. The lakes

listed in Appendix B have met the criteria for waters of the United States and must be protected for aquatic life

support and, at a minimum, for partial body contact. The list of lakes to which the narrative nutrient standard

applies is further limited to those lakes that have been “classified” according to the controlling lake characteristic

(e.g., igneous, sedimentary, urban). The commenter is co rrect in that many golf courses store excess irrigation

water in golf course lakes but the Department believes the vast majority of these lakes are not waters of the United

States and this new narrative nutrient standard w ould not apply to these impoundments. See Response #77.

Comment #74

David E McNeil, City of Tempe

Because nutrient removal to the target ranges estab lished in the proposed narrative nutrient standard is

unachievable without employing reverse osmosis or other similar technology, the rule in conjunction with the

April 2008 draft IP creates an effective prohibition on the be neficial reuse of reclaimed water in Arizona’s lakes.

The rule and IP are inconsiderate of the challenges that Arizona faces in ensuring a sustainable water supply into

the future. As water stewards, it is our responsibility to prepare for cyclical droughts as well as reductions in water

supply induced by climate change. The effective prohibition on the use of reclaimed water in lakes is contrary to

EPA’s March 2008 draft “National Water Program Strategy: Response to Climate Change,” which outlines the

need to consider water sustainability in making regulat ory decisions such as changes in standards or more

stringent permit limits, and emphasizes the need to prom ote the recycling and reuse of water. Establishing

discharge-prohibitive permit limits for causal variables de spite every indication of a healthy water body based on

an assessment of the response variable is not true to EP A’s Climate Change Strategy, lacks foresight, and fails our

commitment to water stewardship.

Response: The Clean Water Act requires criteria that are protective of the waterbody’s highest and best

designated uses. That is why the proposed chlorophyll-a criteria have been tiered from Domestic Water Source

(DWS) down through full body contact to Aquatic and Wild life (A&W) endpoints. Use of lakes as reclaimed

storage impoundments is an ancillary use that may not be compatible with the lake’s ability to handle nutrient

inputs and still meet the appropriate standards for the designa ted uses of the lake. As long as a lake carries (at a

minimum) A&W designated use, the impact of nutrient load ing must be considered because the narrative standard

at R18-11-108(A)(6) was adopted to ensure the pr otection of aquatic life and recreational uses.

Most reclaimed water impoundments that are created in a waters of the United States would likely be

classified as A&W urban. This matrix category has th e least stringent range for protection allowing up to 50 u g/L

for chlorophyll-a. An upper threshold of 50 u g/L for chlorophyll-a is designed to keep the lake from becoming

hyper-eutrophic while meeting DO and pH standards. Lakesi de Lake in Tucson, is the only lake that received

reclaimed water that had a sufficiently robust data set for use in the statistical analysis. For the time period

# 162 modeled, Lakeside Lake was found to be marginally a ttaining its designated uses but required active in-lake

treatment to greatly reduce phosphorus.

The matrix does not require attainment of target values at end of pipe. Rather, it is an assessment of the

lake’s ability to assimilate nutrient inputs. Use of reclai med water as source water for a lake may be considered on

a case-by-case basis, however, current levels of nutrients in reclaimed water are orders of magnitude higher than

those found in surface water. The case-by-case determinati on will, to the degree possible, recognize that impacts

of a reclaimed water discharge may vary with factors including size of the impoundment, quality of other source

water, retention time, surface area, prevailing wind direc tion or currents, depth as well as the volume, setting,

climatic conditions, suspended particulate matter, nutri ent species present and total load, and timing of the

proposed reclaimed water discharge. It is expected that lakes proposed for use of reclaimed water as source water

will require moderate-to-intensive management to meet A&W and contact recreation standards. Even without

reclaimed water, many of these systems require chemical, physical, or biological management on some level. The

narrative nutrient matrix is an active and pre-emptive appr oach to ensuring attainment of the designated uses to

protect human health, aquatic life, and wildlife. See Response #68.

Comment #75

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

ADEQ’s proposed narrative nutrient standard implem entation procedures at R18-11-108.03 establishes

unnecessarily strict nitrogen and phosphorus ta rgets for Arizona lakes and reservoirs.

Pima County believes for the reasons detailed in our attached letter the proposed nitrogen and phosphorus

target levels, which create a strict numeric prohibition, are not scientifically defensible. This proposed rule would

effectively create a prohibition of use of reclaimed wate r into Arizona lakes due to the incorporation of the

proposed nitrogen and phosphorus limits into discharge perm its. These limits would be imposed even if a true

measure of lake impairment could not be verified with chlorophyll-a measurements. In light of the number of

waters in Arizona that are being created as part of ecologi cal restoration projects, that need sources of water such

as reclaimed water to allow them to remain viable a nd healthily without the wasteful use of scarce groundwater,

ADEQ should carefully consider the recommendations of our attached letter and modify its implementation

procedure to accommodate the use of reclaimed water in Arizona lakes under certain circumstances. Most Arizona

constructed wastewater treatment facilities cannot treat effluent to meet the nitrogen and phosphorus limits

proposed in this rule and therefore valuable ecological restoration projects in Arizona will potentially not be

accomplished as a result.

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

ADEQ’s proposed narrative nutrient criteria creates an effective prohibition on the use of reclaimed water

in Arizona’s lakes by mandating the use of nitrogen a nd phosphorus targets to establish permit limits for all

discharges, even if the re sponse variable (chlorophyll- a ) concentrations are not indicative of impairment. Without

costly treatment processes, no reclaimed water plant can meet the nutrient limits that will be established for all

plants in the state based on the proposed procedure (i.e., 1.2 to 1.5 ppm for Total N itrogen; 0.07 to 0.1 ppm for

Total Phosphorus). ADEQ’s proposal therefore has potentially paralyzing consequences with regard to future

# 163 water management and water conservation methods in recycling water in Arizona, par ticularly for municipalities

which operate WWTPs.

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

Fred H. Gray, City of Tucson – Parks and Recreation Department

ADEQ’s proposed narrative nutrient criteria make it nearly impossible to use reclaimed water in Arizona’s

lakes and are contrary to the State’s drought manageme nt and sustainable water management objectives for

replacing groundwater and other sources with reclaimed. The rule could be used by permit writers to require

nitrogen and phosphorus targets as permit discharge lim its, even if the response variable (chlorophyll-a)

concentrations are not indicative of impairment. Without more costly treatment than most denitrifying wastewater

plants achieve, reclaimed water cannot generally meet the nutrient limits that would be based on the proposed

procedure (i.e., 1.2 to 1.5 ppm for Total Nitrogen; 0. 07 to 0.1 ppm for Total Phosphorus). The proposed rule,

therefore, has downside impacts on both cost and water c onservation that have not been considered in ADEQ’s

estimated costs and benefits.

Response: The Department disagrees that the numeric th resholds for total nitrogen and total phosphorus

are unnecessarily strict and scientifically indefensible. The thresholds are based on the statistical analysis of

empirical data obtained from Arizona lakes and reservoirs and summarized in the Lakes and Reservoirs Statistical

and Modeling Analysis Report, which provided the technical supports for the adopted rule. The analyses discussed

in this report laid the empirical foundation for the second document, Potential Nutrient-related Targets for

Arizona Lakes and Reservoir, which culminated in the matrix of threshold values adopted in this rulemaking.

The Department also disagrees that the translator pr ocedures for the narrative nutrient standard will make it

nearly impossible to discharge reclaimed water into an Arizona lake regulated under the proposed surface water

quality standards or to a lake and reservoir that is pa rt of ecological restoration project. See response #74. The

proposed numeric targets for total nitrogen and total phos phorus in the table at R18-11-108.03(D) do not create a

strict numeric prohibitions as they are not independently enforceable numeric water quality standards. Rather, they

represent secondary criteria that are intended to be us ed in combination with the primary response variable,

chlorophyll- a , to determine whether the narrative nutrient standard is attained or not. The numeric targets for total

nitrogen and total phosphorus in the matrix in R18-11- 108.03(D) will be applied using a weight-of-evidence

approach to determine the “sufficient assimilative capac ity,” as increasing nutrient load will trigger increased

productivity, change in biomass, and possible negative sh ifts in aquatic community structure and function.

Weight-of-evidence (see R18-11-108.03(B)(2) and (B)(3)) in th is context refers to the application of matrix

thresholds taken together as a set of parameters that inform the Department’s determination as to whether there is

excessive plant and algae growth that inhibits or prohibits the habitation, growth, or propagation of aquatic life or

that impairs recreational uses proscribed under R18-11-108(A)(6). It is clear from the language of the adopted rule

and the Department guidance that the numeric target levels were never meant to be stand-alone nutrient standards.

A point source discharge of reclaimed water into a lake regulated as a surface water may require higher

levels of treatment to reduce nutrient loads before the recl aimed water can be used as a source of water in a lake.

For some lakes, a higher level of treatment may be necessa ry to maintain and protect water quality for the lake’s

designated uses. This may be the case where reclaimed wate r is a sole source or a significant percentage of the

# 164 water for an urban lake. For example, a small point source di scharge of treated wastewater to a large lake such as

Lake Roosevelt presents a very different set of facts from an urban lake that is created entirely of reclaimed water

(e.g. Lakeside Lake in Tucson) or one where the use of reclaimed water is being considered (e.g. Tempe Town

Lake).

The Department supports the reuse of reclaimed water for beneficial use. As the commenters are aware, the

Department has adopted reclaimed water quality standards for the direct reuse of reclaimed water and has

established a reuse permit program to regulate the direct reuse of reclaimed water for recreational and landscape

impoundments and for other reuse applications. The Department designed the reclaimed water quality standards

and the reuse permit program to encourage the direct re use of reclaimed water. However, the existence of

Department programs to regulate the direct reuse of r eclaimed water does not replace or substitute for the surface

water quality standards program and the AZPDES permit pr ogram which regulates the discharge of pollutants to

waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act.

Comment #76

David E McNeil, City of Tempe

The establishment of standards that will result in extreme nutrient limits in AZPDES should be further

scrutinized in the context of carbon footprint, gree nhouse gas emissions, and sustainability. EPA’s March 2008

draft “National Water Program Strategy: Response to Climate Change” points out that energy use by drinking

water and wastewater facilities accounts for three percent of energy consumption in the United States, resulting in

emissions of approximately 116 billion pounds of CO 2 

# per year. The technology necessary to reduce nutrients to

unrealistic and unnecessary levels will undoubtedly increase energy usage and greenhouse gas contributions from

wastewater utilities. ADEQ’s “General Explanation of This Rulemaking” in section 5 of the rule states that ADEQ

is required to “adopt surface water quality standards by c onsidering (certain) factors,” including “the provisions

and requirements of the Clean Air Act.” In developing proposed standards and implementation procedures for

narrative nutrients, ADEQ has not satisfied this mandate, and has failed to consider the full costs associated with

the proposed rulemaking. ADEQ’s proposal also falls c ontrary to Arizona’s Climate Change Action Plan

developed by Governor Napolitano’s Climate Change Advisory Group in 2006.

Response: The Department appreciates the commenter’s refe rence to state and federal efforts to address

climate change. However, the comment relates only very generally to impacts of nutrient removal technology and

not to state, local and facility specific impacts of this ru le. In fact, as climate change impacts the southwestern

United States, the Department expects longer term and higher impact droughts and higher temperatures, both of

which may impact lake and reservoir quality, especially w ith respect to nutrient impacts. This rule will help

protect Arizona’s lakes and reservoirs from these impacts.

Comment #77

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

Fred H. Gray, City of Tucson – Parks and Recreation Department

# 165 Distinctions between lake categories are unclear, a nd a lake could fall into multiple categories. ADEQ

should clarify how to identify the single controlling lake characteristic that will define each lake for narrative

nutrient standard purposes, i.e., depth, substrate, or urban setting. Alternatively, identifying the lake type could be

left subjective, if ADEQ only relied upon thei r guidance document without rule criteria.

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

First, in establishing the criteria, ADEQ differen tiates between deep, shallow, urban, igneous and

sedimentary lakes. However, the definitions of these type s of lakes are not mutually exclusive – for example, an

igneous lake can be shallow or deep. ADEQ must establis h in the rules or by guidance some way of establishing

what the controlling lake characteristic is that will de fine the lake for narrative nutrient standard purposes.

Response: R18-11-108.03(A) states that the criteria in the ru le apply only to lakes and reservoirs that are

categorized in Appendix B. Appendix B includes a column that specifically identifies each lake or reservoir and

its corresponding lake category. The lake category in A ppendix B establishes the controlling lake characteristic

that the Department will use for implementing the narrativ e nutrient standard. Not all lakes and reservoirs in

Appendix B are classified. The Department cannot us e the criteria in R18-11-108.03 for any unlisted or

unclassified lake.

The lake classification system does account for multiple categories; however, each lake in Appendix B is

assigned its primary category for assessment purposes. A ny non-urban lake with an average depth > 18 ft is

classified as a “deep” lake. Any lake created in an urban environment is classified as “urban.” Any non-urban lake

with an average depth < 12 feet is classified as a “shallow” lake. The remaining lakes are classified based on the

parent geology in which they are situated. The deep, shallo w, and urban classifications are the primary drivers for

lake character; igneous and sedimentary are actually secondary , but if the lake does not fall into one of the primary

categories, the default assignation is ge ology and soils based. See Response #13.

Comment #78

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

Fred H. Gray, City of Tucson – Parks and Recreation Department

There is a statement in the guidance document about lakes with reclaimed water that says, “Lakes with

reclaimed water carry only the partial body contact (PBC) de signated use.” However, there is no separate category

of lakes (in the matrix) with reclaimed water and no mention of PBC for the nutrient standard in the proposed rule.

Response: The adopted rulemaking accidentally omitted the PBC category from the Numeric Targets for

the Lakes and Reserviors Table. A lake having either full body contact (FBC) or partial body contact (PBC) as a

designated use will have to meet the same target endpoints. See Response #68.

There are few lakes listed in Appendix B with recl aimed water as a source water component, let alone

effluent-dependent. These waters carry both A&Wedw a nd PBC designated uses. The matrix driver for these

effluent dependent waterbodies will be the A&Wedw cate gory; lakes that use reclaimed water as part of the

source water, would use the A&Ww urban category. Because of the relatively high nutrient content of reclaimed

water, it is generally less suited as source water for impoundments designated as fisheries. The increase in lake

productivity would require aggressive treatment and la ke management. The FBC use is contraindicated for

# 166 reclaimed source water for several reasons: high biomass, high turbidity, high pH, algal toxins or irritants, and

growth of bacteria. To date, all waters listed as A&Wedw also carry PBC use. Lakes created in waters of the

United States that receive reclaimed water will have to meet A&W Urban chlorophyll targets as those are more

stringent than the PBC targets.

As a result of the above comment, the following two typographical errors and three omissions were

discovered in the matrix table and have been corrected.

NUMERIC TARGETS FOR LAKES AND RESERVOIRS

Designated

Use Lake

Category Chl- a

(μg/L) Secchi

Depth

(m) Total

Phosphorus

(μg/L) Total

Nitrogen

(mg/L) Total

Kjehldal

Nitrogen

(TKN) BlueGreen

Algae

(per ml) BlueGreen

Algae

(% of total Dissolved

Oxygen

(mg/L) pH

(SU)

FBC and

PBC Deep 10-15 1.5-2.5 70-90 1.2-1. 4 1.0-1.1 20,000 6.5-9.0

A&Wedw All 30-50 0.7-1.0 125-165 160 1.7-1.9 1.4-1.7 <50 6.0

(top m) 6.5-6.0

9.0

Comment #79

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

Fred H. Gray, City of Tucson – Parks and Recreation Department

In the table of subsection D, there appears to be no reason for establishing ranges for Secchi depth,

phosphorus, and the two forms of nitrogen. The proposed rule makes no use of this “middle ground,” and it adds

confusion to express a range in the table.

Response: The commenter appears to misunderstand how the matrix works. See more detailed explanation

on how the matrix will be used in Responses #70, #71 and #72. Inclusion of the nutrient and secchi ranges in the

matrix is warranted as they inform the weight-of-evide nce decision of potential nutrient-related impairment when

the chlorophyll-a concentration is within the target range. R18-11-108.03(B)(2)(c) cites conditions that, if

violated, inform that the narrative nutrient standard is not being met.

Comment #80

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

Fred H. Gray, City of Tucson – Parks and Recreation Department

In the table of subsection D, the very restrictive values (in some cases even more stringent than the aquatic

and wildlife protected uses) for nitrogen under DWS and F BC uses do not seem to be justified by the drinking

water standard of 10 mg/l for nitrate. If the limits for these uses are meant to protect human health, they should be

set based upon the drinking water standard.

# 167 D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

The nitrogen values proposed in the table under R18- 11-108.03 are overly stringent; in particular for the

drinking water source designated use, because the safe dr inking water standard for nitrate (10 mg/L) is a much

more relaxed standard than that being applied to the untreated source water.

Response: The nutrient ranges in the matrix represent ambient surface water values that correspond to the

chlorophyll-a targets and can still support the specific de signated uses. In the case of Domestic Water Source

(DWS) use, drinking water is only part of the potential us e, but the ranges conservatively reflect those levels of

nitrogen that would impact formation of total trihalom ethane compounds. Typical nitrate levels in surface water

are three orders of magnitude less than the 10 mg/L specified to protect human health. Further, 10 mg/L of nitrate

in surface water would greatly exacerbate lake productivity and increased biomass and would likely result in the

surface water being unsuitable for drinking.

Comment #81

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

PAG’s jurisdictional members feel that it is premat ure to incorporate the Narrative Nutrient Standard

Implementation Procedures into the rule at this time. Th e draft implementation procedures were released in midApril leaving very little time for jurisdictions to work with ADEQ by reviewing and potentially appealing the

procedures before the final rules were issued on April 25, 2008. There are also many inconsistencies between the

rule and the guidance document. For example, the ta ble shown in R18-11-108.03 D may be interpreted as

containing numeric, not narrative, standards, because it loses the subjective approach laid out in ADEQ’s

guidance document. In addition, the statement in R18- 11-108.03(B)(2)(c) that there shall be “no evidence” of

various nutrient related impairments, contrasts with the language in Subsection 4.4, Applicability of Matrix, in

ADEQ’s guidance document that recommends applying a “wei ght of evidence” approach to these various factors.

Rather than including this section in the rule at this tim e, it would be more appropriate to use the guidance for a

period of time, to solicit stakeholder input, and then, if appropriate, elevate the procedures into rule.

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

Fred H. Gray, City of Tucson – Parks and Recreation Department

The table of subsection D becomes a numeric, not a narrative, standard, because it loses the subjective

approach of ADEQ’s guidance document. R18-11- 108.03(B)(2)(c) states that there shall be no evidence of

nutrient related impairment. However, in subsection 4.4 of ADEQ’s guidance document, it says to apply a weightof-the-evidence approach to these various factors of the matrix . ADEQ’s guidance is set up for lake managers to

use best professional judgment, an approach that is lost in translation to the rule.

Response: The Department disagrees that it is premature to propose R18-11-108.03 to implement the

narrative nutrient standard for lakes and reservoirs. The adopted rule and the associated guidance document have

been in development for several years. Similar pre liminary draft rules and guidance documents have been

informally discussed in public meetings going back to th e spring of 2004. Lake program staff and the contractor,

Malcolm Pirnie, presented several project updates on devel opment of the lake classification system and narrative

nutrient targets in meetings held at ADEQ: Marc h 2004; November 2004; April 2005; and September 2006.

# 168 Additional meeting were held where working drafts of th e Implementation Procedures were made available during

review sessions of the adopted rule.

To the extent there are any inconsistencies between the adopted rule and the associated Department

guidance document titled “Draft Narrative Nutrient Standard Implementation Procedures for Lakes and Reservoirs

(April 2008), the rule controls. The associated guidance document explains the rationale and approach to the

development of the provisions in R18-11-108.03. See Responses #71, #72, #75 and #79 regarding the weight-ofevidence approach.

Comment #82

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

We support addition of these implementation procedures as they will help with implementation of this

standard and better ensure protection of lakes and re servoirs in Appendix B by limiting the nutrients that

contribute to the excessive growth of algae. Including rivers and streams in future standards is also an important

consideration.

Response: The Department appreciates the comment and agrees that the development of the adopted

procedures to translate the narrative nutrient standard fo r lakes and reservoirs is both timely and necessary to

maintain and protect Arizona’s lakes’ and reservoirs’ water quality and to prevent accelerated eutrophication

(excessive algae and weeds) and nutrient-related impairments in Arizona’s lakes and reservoirs.

R18-11-109. NUMERIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

R18-11-109(A)

Comment #83

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

ADEQ has adjusted the partial body contact standard fo r E. coli in R18-11-109(A), without explanation. It

appears that FBC and PBC standards for E. coli listed in R18-11-109(A) are not based on the same ingestion

criteria used for the constituents listed in A ppendix A, creating inconsistency in the rule.

E. coli standards for PBC will be applied in MS4 st ormwater permits. Because of widespread natural

wildlife impacts on stormwater, these levels could be exceeded quite frequently. ADEQ has not factored such

likely costs into the rule’s cost-benefit evaluation. In the past, these E coli standards may have been appropriate to

gauge the impact of domestic and municipal wastewater, but they do not reflect the natural variability seen in

stormwater sources. ADEQ should clarify that these standards only apply when there is a direct human source of

pathogens. Also, ADEQ should consider re vising the description of the geometric mean to reflect the frequency of

sampling expected for stormwater flows of four samples over a period of two years.

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

The definition of partial body contact proposed in this rulemaking states that the exposure is such that

“ingestion of the water is not likely.” In fact, ADEQ, in this proposed rule, has adjusted the partial body contact

standard for E. coli without explanation. It appears that the full body contact and partial body contact standards for

# 169 E. coli are not based on the same ingestion criteria used for the constituents listed in Appendix A of the proposed

rule, evidencing an inconsistency in ADEQ’s application of ingestion rates between these two designated uses.

ADEQ should eliminate the ingestion rate criteria for pa rtial body contact, or at the very least, ADEQ should

adopt the same assumptions for partial body contact incidental ingestion rate as those relied upon by EPA.

Response: The E. coli criteria in R18-11-109(A) were not derived, and never have been derived, using the

same criteria derivation methodologies and water ingestion exposure assumptions used to derive numeric criteria

for pollutants listed in Appendix A. The E. coli criteria are based on EPA’s national criteria recommendations for

bacteria (See Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria – 1986, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, EPA 440/5-84-002, January 1986), which are based on an estimate of bacterial indicator counts and an

acceptable swimming-related rate of gastrointestinal illness obtained from EPA human health effects studies. The

E. coli standards are not ingestion-based standards. The pr oposed changes are minor modifications to comport

with national criteria.

The Department disagrees that the change to the E. coli standards will result in any significant increased

costs to Phase I MS4s as the Department is adopting only minor revisions to the currently effective standards for

E. coli. that have been effective since 2002. The Department adopts the E. coli standards to protect human health

no matter the potential source of the E. coli . Water quality criteria, including the E. coli criteria, are adopted to

maintain and protect water quality for designated uses.

The Department disagrees with the suggestion to revise the averaging period for the calculation of the

geometric mean to reflect the frequency of sampling expected for stormwater flows of four samples over a period

of two years. The proposed sampling period of four samples in 30 days is based on EPA recommendations

regarding the appropriate averaging period for calculating th e geometric mean. There is no technical or statistical

basis for using a 2-year averaging period. There is flexibility within the permitting program to tailor sampling

frequency to the needs of the situation, but the Department disagrees that the standard should be restricted as the

commenter suggests.

R18-11-109(C)(1)

Comment #84

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

Our region is concerned about the suspended sediment concentration limits for surface waters. Arid streams

naturally carry large sediment loads during storm events. The state has struck the provision that the standard only

applies to surface water that is at, or near, base flow conditions and does not apply to surface water during or soon

after a precipitation event. We feel this should be placed back in the rule. Sediment transport is a necessary part of

our ecological balance in our natural alluvial systems and should be allowed in stormflow, which may extend

beyond the 48 hours of a local stormflow event as stipulated in the rule.

Also, changing the way in which the standard is expre ssed to a median value, instead of a geometric mean,

precludes an allowance for natural variation in the system.

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

# 170 ADEQ has removed the provision that the standard only a pplies to surface water that is at, or near base

flow conditions and does not apply to surface water duri ng or soon after a precipitation event. This provision

should be included in the rule. Streams in Pima County have suffered significant erosion, sometimes causing

severe undercutting of flood control structures. This phenomenon has been linked to clear water scour, which

occurs when flowing waters are deprived of sediment and as a result they pick up fine-grained materials along the

watercourse. This occurrence is aggravated by standards that impose limits on suspended sediments in naturally

flowing waters. Sediment transport is a necessary part of our ecological balance in natural alluvial systems and

should be allowed in storm flow, which may extend beyond the 48 hours of a local storm flow event as provided

in the rule.

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

ADEQ has provided no technical justification for the change in this standard. ADEQ should not change

from a geometric mean to a median value, because there is a need to allow for the natural variability of Arizona’s

alluvial stream systems. Also, ADEQ should retain the cu rrent rule language about the standard only applying to a

stream that is “at or near its base flow.” Furthermore, ADEQ should clarify that this standard does not apply to

ephemeral water under any circumstance, because there is no such thing as base flow in ephemeral waters as

defined in the rule.

Response: Suspended sediment is an important water qua lity parameter, and the control of excessive

sediment and siltation is critically important to the main tenance and protection of water quality for the growth and

propagation of aquatic life. The Department adopted th e SSC criteria for the A&Wc and A&Ww designated uses

primarily to protect aquatic life in perennial and in termittent streams. The SSC standards do not apply to

ephemeral waters that flow only in direct response to storm events and transport large amounts of sediment. The

Department did provide a technical justification for re vision of the SSC during the informal rulemaking process

and expands on it here. The current SSC st andard is intended to control excessive levels of suspended sediment in

surface waters to protect aquatic life (i.e., A&Wc and A&Ww).

The Department disagrees that the expression of the standard as a median concentration precludes

consideration of natural variability of SSC concentrations in surface waters. The median and the geometric mean

are both ways of expressing the central tendency of a datase t. The median value is actually a better measure of the

center of a numerical dataset because it is not influenced by outliers (i.e., very large or very small values in the

data set that may be atypical). A median is the point at which there are an equal number of data points whose

values lie above and below the median value. The me dian represents the actual middle of any data set.

The Department has proposed revisions to the current SSC standard for several reasons. First, the U.S. Fish

& Wildlife Service had questioned whether the current SSC numeric criterion of 80 mg/L adequately protected

aquatic life in cold water streams. Second, the current SSC standard was expressed as a geometric mean calculated

from a minimum of four sample results. The expression as a geometric mean raised questions regarding what

averaging period should be used when calculating the geomet ric mean. The current SSC standard is silent on this

point. Finally, the applicability of the current SSC standard is unclear. The current standard applies only “at or

near base flow” and does not apply “soon after a precip itation event.” The Department does not have operational

definitions of at or near base flow or soon after a preci pitation event to interpret the current standard. For most

# 171 surface waters, there are no long-term flow data or gage data that can be used to reliably determine base flow

conditions. For all of these reasons, the Department revised the SSC standard in this rulemaking.

The Department expressed the SSC criterion as a chronic criterion to protect aquatic organisms from longterm (i.e., chronic) exposures to suspended sediment. Mo st of the published reports on the biological effects of

suspended sediment on aquatic organisms address chroni c exposures. The scientific literature the Department

reviewed did not support the proposal of an acute SSC cr iterion. The literature suggests that fish can tolerate

exposures to very high concentrations of suspended se diment (e.g., > 100,000 mg /L) for short periods of time).

There is little or no data or information on acute or short-term effects of suspended sediment on aquatic

organisms. For these reasons, the Department adopted a SSC criterion expressed as a median value. A median is a

better way to express the central tendency of the data, pa rticularly when working with relatively small datasets.

Neither the current nor the adopted suspended sedime nt concentration standards apply to ephemeral or

effluent-dependent waters

. Only the A&Wc and A&Ww designated uses have criteria for suspended sediment.

Comment #85

David E McNeil, City of Tempe

Suspended sediment concentration is an antiquated term and laboratory analysis th at has been replaced with

total suspended solids (TSS). ADHS has confirmed there is a method for “Determining Sediment Concentration in

Water Samples” that is different from residue non-filte rable methods. Determining Sediment Concentration in

Water Samples is ASTM method D 3977-97 and does not cont ain the term “suspended” sediment. It should be

noted that ADEQ has replaced the term “suspended sediment concentration” with “total suspended solids” in the

newly proposed MS4 permits. Accordingly, this change should be made to the water quality standards.

Response: . The Department does not agree that SSC is an antiquated term that has been replaced by TSS.

SSC remains the most accurate way to measure sediments in water. The inclusion of TSS in MS4 stormwater

permits was made to allow permittees to use a quicker and easier method that can serve as an indicator of

sediment pollution. However, permit conditions do not driv e water quality standards, rather the opposite is true.

The presence of an alternative monitoring approach within an AZPDES permit is not justification for a standards

change.

The Department expressed the standards as suspende d sediment concentration (SSC) for several reasons.

First, the analytical method for measuring SSC, AS TM D3977-97, “Standard Test Method for Determining

Sediment Concentration in Water Samples,” is the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) standard method for

determining the concentration of suspended sediment in surface water samples. Second, the measurement of SSC

is the most accurate way to measure the total amount of suspended sediment in an ambient surface water sample.

Studies on the accuracy of the SSC anal ytical method by ASTM and the USGS Survey Branch of Quality Systems

(Gordon, et. al 2000) have shown that SSC analysis repres ents a more accurate and reliable measure of suspended

sediment than the measurement of total suspended solids or turbidity.

Differences between total suspended solids (TSS) and suspended sediment concentration analyses have

been investigated by the USGS (See Gray, John R., et. al , “Comparability of Suspended Sediment Concentration

and Total Suspended Solids Data,” Water Resources Investigation Report 00-4191, U.S. Dept. of Interior, U.S.

# 172 Geological Survey (August, 2000)). The USGS investigat ed differences in the data produced by TSS and SSC

analyses by studying 3,235 paired TSS and SSC samples and 14,466 data pairs from the USGS NWIS database.

The USGS concluded from the statistical analyses of the paired samples that the data produced by the SSC

technique is more reliable than data produced by TSS analysis.

For these reasons, the Department expressed the standa rd as suspended sediment concentration and not as

total suspended solids.

Comment #86

Steven L. Spangle, Field Supervisor, US Fish And Wildlife Service

We are encouraged to see ADEQ propose the revision of its suspended sediment concentration (SSC)

standard. The SSC standard replaced the turbidity standa rd during the 2002 triennial review. We concluded this

change was likely to adversely affect fishes in Arizona (USFWS 2004), particularly salmonids. The SSC standard

in A&Wc and A&Ww was 80 mg/L. ADEQ has proposed to lower the SSC standard in A&Wc from 80 mg/L to

25 mg/L. The newly adopted narrative bottom deposits sta ndard implementation procedures will augment the SSC

standard and should help strengthen the protection of th e aquatic environment against the harmful effects of

excessive sediment. Hopefully, after several years of data collection, the narrative bottom deposit standard will be

expanded for use in ephemeral and intermittent stream s and will be added in future triennial reviews.

Response: The Department appreciates the comment.

R18-11-109(F)

Comment #87

J. Adrianne Settimo

The fast growing city of Benson is highly dependent on groundwater sources for drinking, agriculture,

industrial use and riparian habitat. Benson is located in the San Pedro watershed basin. Lowering the numeric

water quality standards from 10mg/L of nitrate, to Full Body Contact (“FBC”) criterion, under proposed rule R18-

11-109, would put water used for drinking at risk as well as public health. Not only could “incidental ingestion of

nitrate-enriched water during water-based recreation” occur, ingestion could also take place through the

consumption of alluvial groundwater located downstream . ADEQ fails to show that lower standards will not

adversely affect the public through FBC and the consum ption of alluvial groundwater affected by lowered

numeric water quality standards. The proposed rule should not be adopted by the ADEQ.

Janet Hashimoto, Chief; EPA Monitoring & Assessment Office

ADEQ has proposed to eliminate the existing site-speci fic nitrate standard of 10 mg/L for the San Pedro

River from Curtiss to Benson (section R18-11-109). The justifi cation cited is that this stretch of the San Pedro is

not designated as a domestic water source (DWS). ADEQ’ s proposed Full Body Contact standard for nitrate of

3,733 mg/L, orders of magnitude higher than 10 mg/L, would apply in the alternative.

The proposed rule should describe available informa tion supporting that the San Pedro River from Curtiss

to Benson is not being used as a DWS. Also, ADE Q should assess whether any downstream water bodies

# 173 potentially have a DWS use not identified which could be adversely impacted by a higher nitrate allowance in the

San Pedro River segment in question.

Response: The Department repealed the site-specific criterion at A.A.C. R18-11-109(F)(10) for total nitrate

as N that applies to the San Pedro River from Curtiss to Benson. This site-specific criterion is expressed as a

single sample maximum concentration of 10 mg/L, which is the same as the drinking water MCL. The numeric

criterion has been adopted for nitrate to maintain and protect water quality for the domestic water source

designated use.

This segment of the San Pedro River carries designated uses of Aquatic & Wildlife, Fish Consumption, Full

Body Contact, Agricultural Livestock Watering and Agricultur al Irrigation. It is not and never has been designated

for Domestic Water Source, which would have a nitrate standard of 10 mg/L.

The Department researched the origin of the current s ite-specific criterion of 10 mg/L for the cited reach of

the San Pedro River. The Department found that the sour ce of the site-specific criterion appears to be a report

prepared by the Water Assessment Section of the Arizona Department of Health Services titled San Pedro and

Santa Cruz Rivers: Nutrient Standards Review (September, 1985). The purpose of this report was to summarize

water quality data for the San Pedro River and Santa Cruz River to evaluate the need for nitrogen and phosphorus

standards to protect beneficial uses and to determine whether federally-promulgated nutrient standards should be

repealed and replaced by state-adopted standards.

The report stated, in relevant part, that nitrogen add itions in the San Pedro River were occurring in the St.

David area as a result of the inflow of nitrate-contaminated groundwater from the Apache Nitrogen site. The final

recommendation of the report was to promulgate a nitrate standard of 10 mg/L for the San Pedro River, from onemile upstream of the U.S. 80 bridge near St. David to Be nson, investigate the source of the nitrate contamination,

and implement a corrective action program.

The Department has concluded that the site-specific criterion of 10 mg/L for nitrate for the San Pedro River

from Curtiss to Benson should be repealed. The 1985 crite rion appears to be based on drinking water protection

but the identified reach of the San Pedro River was not us ed as a domestic water source in 1985 and this reach of

the river is not used as a drinking water source today. Moreover, if the intention in 1985 was to protect the full

body contact recreation designated use, the site-specific cr iterion of 10 mg/L is overprotective. The Department’s

current water quality criteria for nitrate to maintain a nd protect water quality for the full body contact recreation

designated use is 2,240 mg/L, over 200 times the 1985 site-sp ecific criterion. The current criterion for nitrate for

the full body contact designated use is derived using an in cidental water ingestion exposure assumption. Finally,

the Department has adopted an aquifer water quality sta ndard of 10 mg/L for nitrate to maintain and protect

ground water for drinking water purposes (See R18-11-406(B)). An active corrective action plan is in place at

Apache Nitrogen Products and is addre ssing the source of the high nitrates.

In October 2005, the Department pl aced a publ ic notice in the newspapers serving Benson and Tombstone,

seeking public comment on the proposal to repeal the site-specific nitrate (NO 3 

# ) standard that currently applies to

the San Pedro River from Curtiss to Benson. The notice i ndicated that the Department was seeking information on

whether the public is obtaining drinking water from groundw ater wells that are hydrologically connected to the

shallow aquifer and whether local wells have been impacted by nitrates in this area. No comments were received.

# 174 Based on the available hydrologic data for the area, th e Department staff determined there is no hydrologic

connection between the public water system wells in the St . David area and the San Pedro River. Since the river is

not designated for domestic water source uses and there appears to be no hydrologic connection to the river from

area wells, removal of the site-specific nitrate standard is justified. The existing full body contact standard is

protective of humans that may recr eate in the water in this area.

R18-11-112. OUTSTANDING ARIZONA WATERS

Comment #88

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

Some of the criteria listed as the basis for the Directo r’s designation of an OAW are new as of this rule. The

rule should state that these criteria are the basis for all new designations made by the Director and that they will

not be retroactively applied to any of the OAWs listed in R18-11-112(G) and Appendix B.

Response: The Department disagrees that clarification is n eeded; there is nothing in the rule that suggests

OAWs are to be re-examined after designation. New criteria would affect future designations.

Comment #89

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

We also support adding the clarification that an in termittent water can be considered for Outstanding

Arizona Water designation. Intermittent waters in Arizona provide signifi cant and important wildlife habitat.

Response: The Department appreciates the comment.

R18-11-112(A)

Comment #90

Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

Furthermore, the proposed language in R18-11-112( D)(1), extends the potential scope of the OAW

designation to intermittent waters. ADEQ provides no justifica tion for this extension in the rules. Such a drastic

extension of protection intended for unique, ecologically valu able surface waters to features that may only contain

water on an infrequent basis unnecessarily broadens the scope of this protection. Because of the potentially

significant restrictions on land use activities resulting from OAW designations, this designation is best preserved

for perennial waters which support critical habitats a nd provide recreation, instead of diluting scarce state

resources by extending OAW protection to anywhere in the state that water may be present. ADEQ should revise

the proposed definition of OAW and the OAW regulations at R18-11-112 to clarify that the OAW designation is

limited to free-flowing perennial waters with good water qua lity that exhibit the characteristics specified in R18-

11-112(D)(4).

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

ADEQ has proposed extending potential OAW status to intermittent waters, not just perennial waters.

ADEQ has provided no explanation or rationale whatsoever for this change, and in fact does not even note the

change in the preamble discussion of the rules. Given that the Department in the last triennial review adopted the

# 175 requirement that OAWs must be perennial waters and em phasized repeatedly that intermittent waters were not

eligible for listing, this unexplaine d change in course is puzzling.

The lack of explanation makes it very difficult to co mment on this aspect of the proposal. Nevertheless,

given the broad and vague definition of "intermittent" wa ters found in the rules (those flowing continuously at

certain times of the year), and the fact that intermittent waters, unlike ephemeral and effluent-dependent waters,

are not specifically identified in Appendix B, the AMA is concerned that this proposal potentially dramatically

expands the universe of OAWs in Arizona. Rather than pr otecting only the truly unique and rare waters in the

State, this proposal moves toward allowing OAW status to be conferred anywhere water is sometimes present,

even if infrequently. This is not, and never has been , the intent of the unique water (now OAW) program.

Response: The Department is not drastically extending the scope of eligibility for Outstanding Arizona

Water classification in this rulemaking. The Department is correcting a fairly recent limitation on the eligibility of

surface waters for OAW classification and restoring the uni verse of surface waters eligible for OAW classification

to pre-2002 conditions. The limited eligibility for unique wate r classification to perennial waters was established

in 2002. Prior to 2002, there were no eligibility requirement s for unique water classification based on flow regime

and no limitation only to perennial waters. A person could nominate any surface water for unique water

classification and the Director could classify any surface water as a unique water provided the Director made the

requisite findings that the surface water met the criteria for unique water classificati on prescribed in R18-11-112.

The Department has concluded that there should be no prior restrictions on the eligibility of a surface water

for consideration as a Outstanding Arizona Water based on flow regime. All surface waters should be eligible for

nomination for Outstanding Arizona Water classificati on and a nomination for OAW classification should be

considered on its merits. The Department is persuaded th at prior restrictions of OAW eligibility based on flow

may restrict consideration of intermittent waters th at may qualify as OAWs because they are of exceptional

recreational or ecological significance, essential to the ma intenance and propagation of a threatened or endangered

species, or provide critical habitat for a T&E species.

R18-11-112(D)

Comment #91

Kim S Wilson

The proposed changes to the surface water standards are needed to identify, nominate, and regulate OAWs

in ways that are critical for maintaining their ecological resource values. The inclusion of intermittent waters as

OAWs is especially important because the significant role intermittent waters play in providing wildlife habitat

and watershed resources is often overl ooked. The water quality of intermittent waters needs to be maintained in

consistency with federal and state antidegradation policies, especially as the water resources of Arizona come

under ever increasing pressure due to development and climate change. Some will argue against the inclusion of

intermittent waters as OAWs by indicating that intermittent waters lack value. Howeve r, a rational society would

not categorically exclude these important water sources from OAW protection without consideration of their

unique roles in local ecosystems and their intrinsic value given Arizona’s ever-shrinking inventory of intermittent

waters.

# 176 Response: The Department appreciates the comment.

Comment #92

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

PAG, and its jurisdictions, strongly support the additi on of intermittent waters to the criteria, allowing

intermittent waters to be protected as long as other OAW classification requirements are met. In our region,

perennial and intermittent stream reaches are often inte rmixed. OAW water quality protections are needed on the

intermittent reaches because both intermittent and pere nnial reaches support critical habitats and provide

recreation for Arizona’s citizenry.

Response: The Department appreciates the comment.

R18-11-113G(G)(21)

Comment #93

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

Davidson Canyon is subdivided in to four reaches in Appendix B. It appears that the lower three reaches are

intended for designation as an OAW (although there is some uncertainty over the scope of the proposed

designation, as noted below). However, it has not been ad equately demonstrated that these segments qualify for

listing even under the revised criteria set forth in the proposed rule.

The proposed listing of Davidson Canyon is confusi ng. As noted above, Davidson Canyon is subdivided

into four reaches in Appendix B. The first reach is defined as "headwaters to unnamed spring at

31°59'00"/110°38'46.” However, the proposed listing in A.A. C. R18-11-112(G)(22) reads as follows: “Davidson

Canyon, from its headwaters at the unnamed spring at 31°59'00"/110°38'46" to its confluence with Cienega

Creek." The specified latitude and longitude mark the end of the first (headwater) segm ent, not its commencement.

The nominating petition sought OAW designation only for the lower three reaches and not the upper (headwater)

reach. We presume ADEQ intended to propose the same thing. If any OAW listing is finalized for Davidson

Canyon, which the AMA does not believe is appropriate for the reasons outlined below, ADEQ needs to be more

clear in identifying the delineated segment.

Response: The commenter is correct that Davidson Canyon is divided into four separate reaches in

Appendix B of the surface water quality standards rules a nd that the lower three reaches from the unnamed spring

at 31°59' 00” / 110° 38' 46" to the confluence of Davidson Canyon and Cienega Creek are intended for

Outstanding Arizona Water (OAW) classification. The De partment agrees that the Department may have

inadvertently created confusion over which reaches of Davidson Canyon were proposed for OAW classification

because the Department incorrectly included the phrase, “ from its headwaters” in the description of the proposed

listing at R18-11-112(G)(21). The ephemeral reach of Davidson Canyon from its headwaters to the unnamed

spring at 31°59' 00"/ 110° 38' 46” is not included in th e proposed OAW classification and the phrase “from its

headwaters” has been removed.

Comment #94

# 177 Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

The second (uppermost) segment proposed for OAW designation (from the unnamed spring at

31°59'00"/110° 38' 46" to confluence with unnamed tri butary at 31°59'32.5"/110°38'43.5") may not possess the

requisite "good water quality" required under proposed A.A.C. R18-11-112(D)(3). Designated uses for that reach

are A&W (warm water), fish consumption, full body contact and agricultural livestock watering.

Data is insufficient to demonstrate with any cer tainty that the uppermost stretch of Davidson Canyon

proposed for OAW classification possesses the “good water quality” necessary for such designation. The

lowermost reach proposed for OAW designation (from the unnamed spring at 32°00'54"/110°38'54" to Cienega

Creek) likewise lacks sufficient data to accurately a ssess water quality. Although none of the data provided in

support of the nomination does demonstrate the existence of water quality problems, it is insufficient to allow an

evaluation of overall existing water quality.

Response: The Department disagrees that Davidson Canyon l acks the requisite good water quality required

by R18-11-112(D)(3) for an Outstanding Arizona Water cl assification. Under R18-11-112(D)(3), the Director

may classify a surface water as an Outstanding Arizona Wa ter if the surface water has water quality that meets or

is better than applicable water quality standards. The Pi ma Association of Governments provided sufficient water

quality data to the Department from samples collected in Davidson Canyon from 2002 to 2005 for the Department

to find that Davidson Canyon possesses good water quality. None of the available water quality data indicates the

existence of any water quality problems or exceed ances of applicable water quality standards.

Comment #95

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

The middle reach of Davidson Canyon proposed for OAW designation (the third of four delineated in

Appendix B) extends from the confluence with the unname d tributary at 31°59'32.5"/110°38'43.5" to the unnamed

spring at 32°00'54"/110°38'54.” No water qua lity results appear to have been pr ovided for this reach of the Creek.

However, the reach is listed in Appendix B of both the current and proposed rules as ephemeral. As an ephemeral

reach, it cannot qualify for OAW designation under the current or proposed rules. It therefore should be removed

from the proposal.

Response: The Department agrees that the identified middle reach of Davidson Canyon is listed in

Appendix B of the surface water quality rules as an epheme ral water. However, the ex istence of this ephemeral

reach does not disqualify Davidson Canyon from OAW cl assification. Davidson Canyon from the unnamed spring

at 31°59' 00” / 110° 38' 46" to the confluence of Davids on Canyon and Cienega Creek is more correctly described

as a spatially intermittent stream with reaches of the stream above and below the ephemeral middle reach that

have perennial and intermittent stream flow. The segment of Davidson Canyon nominated for OAW classification

is 3.2 miles in length with approximately 0.75 miles of pe rennial stream flow and 1.25 miles of intermittent stream

flow. The nomination document for Davidson Canyon provides sufficient information for the Department to find

that the nominated segment of Davidson Canyon, considered as a whole, is an intermittent stream that was eligible

for OAW classification under the proposed rule at R18-11- 112(D)(1). The Department has previously classified

surface waters as unique waters (or OAWs) that have pe rennial, intermittent, and ephe meral reaches. It should be

# 178 noted that Davidson Canyon is tributary to Cienega Creek which the Department has already classified as an

OAW and it has a similar hydrology to Cienega Creek. The ex istence of ephemeral reaches in Cienega Creek did

not disqualify Cienega Creek from being classified as a unique water and does not disqualify Davidson Canyon.

Comment #96

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

The listing criteria for OAW designation make clear that it is the attributes of th e surface water that should

determine whether listing is appropriate. As noted above, the water quality data regarding Davidson Canyon is not

conclusive. Moreover, the preamble (as well as the nomination and supporting letters) focuses heavily on

preservation of the area as a local corridor for wildlife migration, particularly as a means for wildlife to cross I-10.

The AMA does not question this characterization, but belie ves it is irrelevant with respect to the question of

classifying Davidson Canyon as an OAW. The areas adj acent to the surface water presumably provide that

migration corridor today, even without OAW status, and th ere is no suggestion that the wildlife corridor functions

of these areas would be diminished by any change in water quality. It is not clear why Tier II antidegradation

protection would be insufficient to protect the functioning of the existing migration corridor. In short,

classification of Davidson Canyon as an OAW is not essentia l to one of the primary stated purported benefits of

the designation.

Similarly, the recreation benefits cited in the nomina ting petition are hiking, biking and birdwatching in the

vicinity of the surface water. These are benefits of the surrounding land, not the surface water itself – no mention

is made of boating, swimming, fishing or other water-b ased recreation. It is therefore unclear why these

recreational uses require imposition of Tier 3 antidegrada tion protection for the nearby surface water, or why Tier

2 protection would not be sufficient to allow those uses to continue.

The preamble also states that the stream provides hab itat for “threatened and endangered species or species

of concern identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice, including the lowland leopard frog and the long fin

dace.” These species are not listed as threatened or e ndangered, nor are they candidates for listing. The phrase

“species of concern” does not appear to have any lega l significance or definition. The two species identified are

priority vulnerable species under the Sonoran Desert Cons ervation Plan, but that Count y-specific plan should not

alone be sufficient to elevate a water to status as an outstanding Arizona resource water. (One of the stated goals

of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan is to “maintain or improve the status of unlisted species whose existence

in Pima County is vulnerable” (italics added). This highlights the County-specific nature of the Plan. )

For all the foregoing reasons, the AMA questions wh ether Davidson Canyon meets the criteria for listing

set forth in A.A.C. R18-11-112(D).

Response: The Department agrees that it is the attributes of a surface water that determine whether a

surface water should be classi fied as an OAW and has concluded that Davidson Canyon possesses those attributes

and meets the criteria for OAW classification in R18-11-112(D). The nominated segment of Davidson Canyon is a

spatially intermittent stream with perennially flowi ng reaches, is in a free-flowing condition, has good water

quality that meets applicable water quality standard s and it is of exceptional ecological significance.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the lead federal agency charged with implementation of the

# 179 Endangered Species Act, wrote a letter of support for the OAW classification of Davids on Canyon. In their letter,

the USFWS states that Davidson Canyon provides habita t for listed species. Davidson Canyon is an outstanding

example of a lowland desert stream with perennial water that provides habitat for a number of listed and

vulnerable species of concern and that its importance as a wildlife migration corridor qualifies it as an OAW as a

surface water of exceptional ecological significance under R18-11-112(D)(4)(a). The designation as an OAW is

not based on R18-11-112(D)(4)(b), which requires endangered or threatened species.

Comment #97

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

More generally, the AMA is concerned that the proposed OAW designation may be driven more by a desire

to limit land use in the vicinity (even if not directly adjacent to the reaches proposed for OAW designation) than

by anything else.

OAW designations unquestionably have a limiting effect on land use in the area of the designation (because

of Tier 3 antidegradation protections, limits on use of some general permits, etc.), and such designations should be

judiciously made and limited to situations where the tr uly unique characteristics of a surface water require it.

Land use decisions are best made at the local level, not indirectly via state rulemaking. In fact, in this case,

such decisions are being made at the local level. Pima County already controls much land around the reaches

proposed for designation, and is purchasing private lands and trust land grazing leases in the area in order to

augment the Cienega Valley Reserve system. Thus, the nom ination of the Creek as an OAW is unnecessary to

prevent the “fragmentation” of the area and its loss of function as a wildlife corridor.

Moreover, if the designation were to be used in an attempt to block a mining operation from ever opening,

as is clearly the intent of at least some of the pr oponents of the designation, then the costs imposed by the

designation are potentially enormous. In short, if ADEQ proceeds with the proposed designation, it must make a

good faith effort to assess the probable costs of the designation in light of potential limits on activity in the

watershed, as required by A.R.S. § 41-1052(C). See also 8 A.A.R. at 1303 (identifying as a factor that ADEQ can

use in exercising its discretion concerning whether to designate a qualifying water as unique the social and

economic impact of Tier 3 antidegradation protection, such as: limits on existing or new point sources, restrictions

on land use in the watershed (including possible limits on mining), stricter § 401 certification requirements, and

impact on private property rights, including the potential for regulatory takings).

Response: The nomination of Davidson Canyon was prepared by the Pima Association of Governments

Watershed Planning group (PAG), which prepared the water quality element of the Pima County’s Sonoran Desert

Conservation Plan. As early as 2002, PAG had recomme nded that Pima County pursue OAW classification for

priority streams in Pima County such as Davidson Ca nyon. The Department supports Pima County’s efforts to

conserve and protect Arizona’s disappearing desert str eams and riparian habitats at the watershed scale.

The nomination of Davidson Canyon comes at the request of Pima County, the local jurisdiction

responsible for land use decisions and water quality ma nagement planning. The Department notes that the

Davidson Canyon nomination is supported by the unanim ous vote of the Regional Council of the Pima

Association of Governments, including the City of Tucson. The vast majority of public comments that the

# 180 Department received are in support of the proposed Davidson Canyon nomination came from local residents, nonprofit organizations, and academia. In fact, the Davi dson Canyon nomination received an unprecedented level of

support from local government and others.

The Department agrees that an OAW classification may affect land uses in the Davidson Canyon

watershed, particularly any land uses that may degrade existing water quality in Davidson Canyon. As the

commenter correctly points out, Tier 3 antidegradation protection prohibits the long-term degradation of existing

water quality in an Outstanding Arizona Water. The propos ed antidegradation criteria rule would prohibit new or

expanded point source discharges directly to the nominated reaches of Davidson Canyon. Discharges to tributaries

or upstream of the reaches of Davidson Canyon that are classified as an OAW would be reviewed to ensure that

existing water quality in Davidson Canyon is not degraded. Re fer to the EIS for the cost/benefit analysis of this

rule change.

Comment #98

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

Under subsection G, Davidson Canyon should be numbe r 21 not number 22 as listed in the draft rule.

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

Within the Santa Cruz watershed, the rules list four reaches of Davidson Canyon. For clarity, please add the

qualifier (OAW) to the three reaches of Davidson Canyon th at will be designated as Outstanding Arizona Waters

as a result of this rule.

The description of the OAW section of Davidson Canyon sited in 22 does not match the nominated reach,

which extends from the unnamed spring at 31°59’00”/110°38’46” to the confluence of Davidson Canyon and

Cienega Creek. Removal of the word “headwaters” fro m the cited reach would fix this discrepancy.

Response : The Department thanks the commenters for thei r careful review. The qualifier (OAW) has been

added to the appropriate segments in Appendix B and R18-11-112(G)(21) has been revised as follows:

21. Davidson Canyon, from the unnamed spring at 31°59'00"/110°38'46" to its confluence

with Cienega Creek;

R18-11-112(G)(21 and (22))

Davidson Canyon and Fossil Creek

NOTE: The Department received many comments in support of the Davidson Canyon and Fossil Creek

designations, and wishes to thank them for their involveme nt in the rulemaking process. Here are a few of the

comments:

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

The Sierra Club strongly supports designation of both Davidson Canyon and Fossil Creek as

Outstanding Arizona Waters.

Davidson Canyon , in Pima County southeast of Tucson, is a main tributary of Cienega Creek, which

currently is designated as a Unique or Outstanding Ar izona Water. Davidson Canyon should also be designated

# 181 as an Arizona Outstanding Water in order to protect its unique values and surface water quality. The canyon

contains spring-fed perennial water and cottonwood-willow riparian habitat that provides homes and sustenance

to numerous species of wildlife, endange red species, and many migratory birds.

The fact that it connects to Cienega Creek, another ra re perennial stream, makes it even more important

that Davidson Canyon be protected with an Outsta nding Arizona Waters designation. Davidson Canyon has

excellent water quality, and existing data show that it would meet or exceed surface water quality standards

required to be classified as an “Outstanding Arizona Water.”

Under subsection G, 22, Fossil Creek is proposed for designation as an Outstanding Arizona Water. We

strongly support this designation. Fossil Creek clearly meets both of the conditions for Outstanding Arizona

Water designation, especially from an ecological perspectiv e. It provides habitat for a diversity of plants and

wildlife and, with full flows restored, presents a wonde rful opportunity for restoration of native fishes. Details

on how it is of exceptional ecological significance are outlined below. In addition to meeting this important

criterion, the creek is perennial, is in a free -flowing condition, and has excellent water quality.

It flows through two congressionally designated wild erness areas — Fossil Springs Wilderness and the

Mazatzal Wilderness — and it flows almost entirely within federal public lands with the exception of several

small parcels of private land that are just south of the current location of the Irving Power Plant.

Fossil Creek is one of very few warm-water perennial streams that are home to an assemblage of our

native fishes. The water quality in Fossil Creek provide s habitat and is critical to the maintenance and

propagation of these species. Additionally, according to Northern Arizona University, the Fossil Creek

watershed is home to more than 175 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. The

creek itself supports 147 macroinvertebrate species.

Based on the unique characteristics of this warm-water perennial creek, the opportunities for native fish

recovery it offers, the diverse macroinvertebrate comm unity that inhabits it, and the travertine-forming

character of the spring water in the creek, we strongly urge designation of Fossil Creek as a unique water and,

under the proposed rule, an Outstanding Arizona Water.

David Kennedy

I am writing to ask that ADEQ support “Outstanding Arizona Water” designation for both Fossil Creek and

Davidson Canyon and also to oppose the Site Specific Standard for Dissolved Copper in Pinto Creek.

Based on the unique characteristics of this warm wa ter perennial creek, the opportunities for native fish

recovery it offers, the diverse macroinvertebrate community that inhabit it, and the travertine-forming character of

the spring water in the creek, Fossil Creek should be designated as an Outstanding Arizona Water. The Creek

clearly meets the criteria required by the rule.

Fossil Creek is one of very few warmwater perennial st reams that are home to an assemblage of our native

fishes. These fish include the Sonora sucker, desert su cker, headwater chub, roundtail chub, speckled dace, and

the longfin dace. Loach minnow and spikedace, both threaten ed species in Arizona, were recently reintroduced to

Fossil Creek.

In regards to Davidson Canyon , it contains spring-fed perennial water and cottonwood-willow riparian

habitat that provides homes and sustenance to numerous species of wildlife, including Gila topminnow, Gila

# 182 chub, Mexican gartersnake, lowland leopard frog, lesse r long-nosed bat as well as many migratory birds. It

connects to Cienega Creek, another rare perennial stream, makes it even more important that Davidson Canyon

be protected with an Outstanding Arizona Waters designation. Davidson Canyon has excellent water quality

and existing data show that it would meet or exceed surf ace water quality standards required to be classified as

an “Outstanding Arizona Water.”

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

Davidson Canyon Designation as an Outstanding Arizona Water R18-11-112(22)

Pima County in partnership with the Pima Association of Governments nominated segments of Davidson

Canyon as an Outstanding Arizona Water (Attachment #13) . Davidson Canyon is a rare perennial low elevation

desert stream with native fish and frogs, unique ripari an habitat, and spectacular geology. It contributes a

significant portion of the flow in Cienega Creek already a Unique Water of the State. We continue to strongly

support ADEQ’s proposal to designate Davidson Canyon as an Outstanding Arizona Water in this rulemaking.

Timothy J. Flood, Friends of Arizona Rivers

The Friends support the inclusion of the waters of Davidson Canyon as an Outstanding Arizona Water

(OAW; termed a Unique Water under the rules being am ended.) We acknowledge the importance of the Canyon’s

sensitive animal species and their dependence upon high qua lity riparian habitat that, in turn, depends upon high

water quality. Designation as OAW will serve to promote the protection of these species.

Barbara Raley

Davidson Canyon is a rare perennial, low-elevation dese rt stream with native fish, frogs, unique riparian

habitat and spectacular geology. We have personally kept a log of the wildlife, birds and endangered species seen

on our own 5 acres, including bobcat, mountain lions, coyote, ja valina, skunks, several species of deer, as well as

dozens of identified birds, hundreds of bats, Red Tailed Hawk s, Road runners, and reptiles such as fat healthy Gila

Monsters who regularly burrow into outcroppings on our property, King, Gopher and Ring-tailed Diamondback

rattlers, with an occasional Blue Racer or Coral snake.

Carol Mangold

I strongly support the Outstanding Water designation for Davidson Canyon. Both the Sky Island Alliance

and the AZ Dept. of Transportation have documented that Davidson Canyon is an important wildlife corridor, one

of the few places where wildlife can safely cross the interstate. Floods coming down this canyon provide

sediment, nutrients and seed sources for riparian ar eas downstream. This canyon has outstanding scenic value.

John L. Leonard

Davidson Canyon is a valuable resource for both hum an and non-human creatures. It contributes a

significant amount of water to Cienega Wash. It provides both water and a passage under I-!0 to the benefit of

wildlife. There are significant archaeological remnants near the confluence of Davidson and Cienega Creek. And

it's a nice place for humans to go hiking, after they've come up Cienega Creek. Water in an arid land is a precious

resource, and I urge you to protect Davidson Canyon and its water in every way possible.

Roger Tanner

This area is also an important tourist area for birders, hiking, camping, and other desert recreational uses. I

think it is important to maintain this area in a good state fo r future generations to enjoy. I moved out here for the

# 183 dark skies for my astronomy hobby and the clean air and water. Giving Davidson Canyon an Outstanding Water

designation will help protect all this.

Response: The Department appreciates the comments. Other similar comments on Davidson Canyon and

Fossil Creek, which have not been printed in this fina l rulemaking document, may be viewed at the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality, 1110 West Washington, 5415A-1, Phoenix, Arizona 85007.

R18-11-112(H)

Comment #99

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

Regarding the delayed effective date for the Fossil Cr eek designation, it is our understanding that this is

being included to address concerns raised by APS regarding the designation’s implication affecting the

company’s decommissioning activities, including the removal of the dam. While we think the designation

allows for these activities because they will not result in any permanent or long-term degradation in water

quality, we do not object to the delayed enactment.

Response: The commenter correctly points out that the OAW classification for Fossil Creek has a delayed

effective date of June 10, 2010 to allow time for APS to complete decommissioning and restoration activities in

the Fossil Creek watershed that may have been hi ndered or delayed by the implementation of Tier 3

antidegradation protections upon the effective date of the rule.

R18-11-113. EFFLUENT-DEPENDENT WATERS

R-18-11-113

Comment #100

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

R18-11-113(A) states that the Director shall classify a surface water as an effluent-dependent water by rule.

If chronic discharge of wastewater is occurring along an ephemeral stream reach, requiring protection of our

state’s water quality, the Director could choose to designate the reach as EDW through the rule process instead of

relying on the permit writer to determine when to apply A&W edw standards.

Response: The commenter is correct, however, the curre nt rule allows both Director’s designation and

interim use of EDW standards in permits until a reach can be officially designated. If the only option were through

Director’s designation, the agency could not issue a permit until the surface water was appropriately classified by

rule. This could delay permit issuance for years. This was the original reason for directing that EDW standards be

used by the permit writer in the existing provision of R18-11-113(E) to allow permitting to proceed using

appropriately protective standards until formal de signation is made through the rulemaking process.

Riparian Restoration Projects

Comment #101

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

# 184 We recommend that ADEQ remain flexible about applying A&Wedw standards to ephemeral stream

reaches so that riparian enhancement projects can be encouraged. In addition, some human created ecosystem

projects are constructed for riparian habitat restoration and do not include an aquatic element even though they do

utilize discharges of treated wastewater. According to the rule, any discharge of effluent would trigger A&W edw

water quality standards to be applied ev en if no surface waters were created, su ch as for some restoration projects.

PAG supports the creation of riparian restoration proj ects in our region, and is concerned that automatic

application of A&Wedw standards to these projects will discourage these projects from being constructed, even

though they offer a net ecological benefit to our region.

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

The City of Tucson would like to use reclaimed water for riparian enhancement projects designed to

minimize discharge and maximize use of effluent to enc ourage riparian vegetation. Our past experience seeking

approval for this activity has shown that ADEQ is reluct ant to allow ephemeral standards to prevail in these

circumstances. We remain skeptical that the provisions added in R18-11-113(D) and (E) will significantly relax

restrictions on reclaimed water use in ephemeral channels . We would prefer more explicit provisions to create a

“safe harbor” in standards and permitting requirements for this type of project.

For all of these reasons, ADEQ should repeal or modify R18-11-113(E) to add flexibility for the above

issues.

Response: While the Department supports riparian restorati on projects in concept, it is the attainment of

standards and protection of aquatic life, wildlife, recr eation, and other uses that are the cornerstones and

requirements of the Clean Water Act. The current rule is clear about the applicability of the A&Wedw standards

to regulate point source discharges from wastewater tr eatment plants to ephemeral waters under R18-11-113(E).

The current R18-11-113(E) appropriately mandates the use of A&Wedw standards to regulate these discharges

(i.e., “...the NPDES permit issuing authority shall use th e water quality standards that apply to an effluentdependent water to derive discharge limitations for a point source discharge from a wastewater treatment plant to

an ephemeral water that changes that ephemeral water into an effluent-dependent water.”). The Department agrees

there is regulatory flexibility to apply “acute-only” A&Wedw standards under certain conditions (such as for

sporadic or infrequent point source discharges of treated wastewater to an ephemeral water) and has included the

new provisions in subsections (E) and (F).

Comment #102

Michele Van Quathem, Superstition Mountai ns Community Facilities District No. 1

In general, proposed rule R18-11-113 does not provide a sufficient definition of what features of an

“effluent-dependent water” justify stricter water quality standards than would otherwise apply to an ephemeral

water. Rule R18-11-113(C), (D), and (E) should clarify th at “effluent-dependent waters” are only those tributary

waters that, due to the addition of a sufficient volume and frequency of effluent, are no longer ephemeral waters at

a location where there is a significant nexus to wa ters of the United States pursuant to the Rapanos decision.

Response: The Department disagrees that it must determine that there is a significant nexus to another

water of the United States in order to regulate point source discharges of effluent to ephemeral waters under R18-

# 185 11-113. The Department considers tributary ephemeral waters to be a category of surface water as that term is

defined in A.A.C. R18-11-101(41) and a water of the United States. See Response #4 regarding Rapanos.

The proposed rule clearly states at R 18-11-113(D) that the Department shall use the water quality standards

that apply to effluent-dependent waters to derive AZPDES permit limits for a point source discharge of

wastewater to an ephemeral water. This language has re mained virtually unchanged since the inception of the rule.

The application of the water quality standards that appl y to effluent-dependent waters is not dependent upon a

minimum volume or frequency of effluent discharge. The ephemeral water quality standards are not developed to

protect aquatic life that live and propagate in effluent-d ependent water systems and are inappropriate to protect

effluent-dependent water systems. See Responses #19, #20, and #106.

Comment #103

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

ADEQ has stated on numerous occasions in stakeholder meetings that the provisions of proposed A.A.C.

R18-11-113(D)-(E) are not intended to apply to storm water di scharges (i.e., that storm water is not wastewater),

but that intent is not clearly expressed in the proposed rule language. Any final EDW rule should make clear in the

text of the rule itself (not merely the preamble) that its provisions do not apply to discharges of storm water or

discharges of non-storm water that are authorized by an applicable storm water permit, such as the construction or

multi-sector general industrial permits. The AMA also supports the Coalition comment that these provisions

should not apply to discharges authorized under ADEQ’s de minimus general permit.

Response: The Department agrees. See Response #16.

Comment #104

Robert S. Lynch, Irrigation & Electri cal Districts Association of Arizona

In R18-11-113, the reference to a point source discha rge has been changed from “a wastewater treatment

plant” to “a point source discharge of wastewater.” This change broadens the applicability of the rule and will

include any point discharges from industrial facilities, i. e. power plants. These point source discharges will now

be evaluated under the surface water quality standards. When asked whether the economic impact of this change

had been considered, ADEQ staff stated the Economic Impact Statement was in the preliminary stages.

Response: Discharges from industrial facilities have always been evaluated under th e surface wate r quality

standards program but due to the restriction in the curre nt R18-11-113(E) language, there was an inequity in how

they were treated versus municipal dischargers. The fi nal EIS includes consideration of this rule change. See

Response #17.

R18-11-113(D)

Comment #105

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

This section clarifies that an Effluent-Depende nt Water must have a point source discharge of

wastewater; otherwise it is an ephemeral water. This change allows for inclusion of the industrial process

# 186 waters including cooling water discharge from power plants.

Classification of an Effluent-Dependent Water should include an opportunity for public comment and

review. The conversion of ephemeral waters to effluent-dependent waters could have significant impact on certain

species of wildlife, including desert frogs that only surface and breed in the presence of water each year.

Furthermore, these waters feed into larger water bodies and ultimately affect perennial streams. We are concerned

about the “flexibility” proposed in the rule for applyi ng only acute standards for discharge for Aquatic and

Wildlife (edw) and for not applying the chronic standards. How will the need to apply this be determined? What

constitutes “sporadic, infrequent, or emergency?”

Response: The administrative rulemaking process provides an opportunity for public participation,

including an opportunity to review and comment on each surf ace water that the Department proposes to classify as

an effluent-dependent water. The Department proposed to classify 29 surface waters as EDWs in this rulemaking.

In addition, the AZPDES permit process provides the public opportunity to review and comment on the

Department’s permitting decision including when the permit includes effluent-dependent water designation.

The Department believes it is reasonable to provide regulatory flexibility to use acute A&W(edw) standards

only to derive water quality-based effluent limits in AZPDES permits for point source discharges that are

“sporadic, infrequent, or emergency” discharges. In general, the Department would use this regulatory flexibility

in AZPDES permits where there is not a reasonable like lihood that organisms in the receiving ephemeral water or

EDW would have chronic or long-term exposures to pollu tants in the discharge. The Department will evaluate

AZPDES-permitted point source discharges to epheme ral waters on a case-by-case basis to make this

determination. The Department will consider the amount, frequency, and duration of the point source discharge;

the length of time that water remains in the receiving ephemeral water or EDW; and the distance to the nearest

downstream surface water with chronic A&W standards. Th is determination will be reflected in draft AZPDES

permits and subject to public notice and comment.

The terms sporadic and infrequent describe the types of point source discharges that might be regulated

under acute-only A&Wedw standa rds and have the conventional meanings. Sporadic means occurring at irregular

intervals or isolated instances and infrequent means not occurring often or not occurring at close intervals. The

Department has not adopted criteria that specifically de fine the conditions under whic h discharge limits, based on

acute-only A&Wedw standards, adequately protect the an imals, plants, and other organisms that inhabit an

ephemeral water that receives an infrequent or sporadic discharge where the water may remain for a short period

of time before it dries up and returns to its status as a nor mally dry channel. This will need to be a site-specific

evaluation as it is dependent on many factors.

R18-11-113(D)

Comment #106

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

ADEQ has failed to properly assess the scientific ba sis for identifying and properly regulating effluentdependent waters.

# 187 Pima County concurs with other stakeholders that re solution of this issue can be achieved with a new

definition of effluent-dependent waters. Pima County proposes the following definition: “Effluent-dependent

water” means a surface water that consists of discharges of treated wastewater that the Director determines create

a significant aquatic ecosystem in terms of size and location that would otherwise not exist due to flows from

precipitation events alone. An effluent-dependent water is a surface water that, without the discharge of treated

wastewater creating a significant aquatic ecosystem that would otherwise not exist due to flows from precipitation

events alone, would be an ephemeral water.”

Pima County objects to the proposed changes to A.A.C R18-11-101(21) and A.A.C. R18-11-113(E). Due to

lack of scientific clarity as to the effluent discharge ci rcumstances necessary to change an ephemeral water into an

aquatic habitat called effluent-dependent water and under what circumstances acute or chronic standards should be

applied, we believe that ADEQ must, until appropriate rule language has been adopted, perform site specific

ecological and hydrological investigations on a site specifi c basis for each permitted discharge, to make a correct

determination if a water should be listed in rule as an EDW or not, and what standards should apply.

Response: The Department disagrees with any proposed definition of effluent-dependent water that

requires the creation of a significant aquatic ecosystem for the reasons outlined in Responses #19 and 20.

The Department disagrees that the Department should develop criteria for effluent-dependent waters that

identify “when a substantial aquatic ecosystem has been established” that requires the protection of A&Wedw

standards. The Department opposes this approach b ecause it requires a subjective determination of how

“substantial” an aquatic ecosystem that is created by the discharge of treated wastewater is before the Department

could designate a surface water as an EDW. The term “substantial” is undefined and there are no recommended

criteria for how the Department should determine whether an aquatic ecosystem is substantial or insubstantial. In

the absence of clearly defined and objective tests, that determination becomes little more than a subjective value

judgment. Development of the guidelines proposed in this rulemaking for situations where water quality may be

protected by aquatic and wildlife acute standards only, was based on principles mutually agreed to in the

stakeholder meetings. See R18-11-113(E).

Comment #107

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

Also, in its proposed R18-11-113(D), ADEQ provides th at it “shall use the water quality standards that

apply to an effluent-dependent water to derive water qua lity based effluent limits for a point source discharge of

wastewater to an ephemeral water.” ADEQ provides no justification for requiring the application of EDW criteria

to point source discharges of all wastewater. Such an approach allows ADEQ to apply EDW criteria in the

permitting context to stream segments that have not ye t been designated as EDW through the required rulemaking

process. ADEQ should delete the language in R18-11-113( D). At the very least, ADEQ should replace the term

“shall” in R18-11-113(D) to “may” to allow for some discre tion in determining the appropriate criteria to apply to

permitted wastewater discharges to waters that may or may not be classified as EDW. Additionally, ADEQ should

insert the phrase, “Notwithstanding the langua ge in R18-11-113(D)” to preface R18-11-113(E).

# 188 Additionally, the Coalition appreciates ADEQ’s understa nding that chronic criteria should not apply to

sporadic, infrequent, or emergency discharges, as estab lished in R18-11-113(E). However, in order to ensure

proper interpretation of that section, the Coalition r ecommends that ADEQ insert the following language before

the first sentence in the proposed Section (E): “The Di rector shall not use aquatic and wildlife (edw) chronic

standards to derive water quality based effluent limits for a sporadic, infrequence, or emergency point source

discharge to an ephemeral water or to an effluent -dependent water.” Additionally, ADEQ should remove the

language in R18-11-113(E)(3), which provides that ADEQ will consider distance to a downstream water with

aquatic and wildlife chronic standards in assessing whethe r to apply aquatic and wildlife acute standards to an

EDW.

Response: Regarding the suggestion to modify R18-11-113(D) to say EDW standards may be used to

develop permit limit, the Department disagrees. Very little change has been proposed to this Section. The

changes made have been for clarification purposes only. What is new to this Section is subsection (E), which

was developed after numerous stakeholder meetings to pr ovide some clarification on when acute only standards

might be appropriate for a discharge that is sporadic, infrequent, or of rare occurrence. The Department does

not consider the proposed language fo r R18-11-113(E), regarding the prohibition of using chronic standards, to

be protective of water quality. The Director needs to determine what is protective of water quality based on the

four factors listed in subsection (E) only if the discharg e is sporadic, infrequent, or a rare occurrence will acuteonly standards be justified; otherwise chronic is required.

The Department believes that the consideration of the impact of a discharge on downstream surface

waters with chronic water quality standards is both r easonable and necessary if and when a discharge might

reach a downstream water that carries a higher level of protection. Permittees have the ability to create

flexibility within their water quality management pr ograms by developing multiple outlets for disposal

including reuse, recharge or more than one surface water discharge location.

Comment #108

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

ADEQ is proposing in this rulemaking under Appendix B to change the designated use of the Black Wash

downstream of the Pima County Avra Valley WRF from an ephemeral to EDW use. The preamble to these rules

only provides a very brief statement that ADEQ used pe rmit application, fact sheet, and discharge monitoring

reports to help make their decision. There is no mention of any site specific field investigations performed by

ADEQ or any other investigations that would have allo wed ADEQ to determine that the Black Wash has been

“changed” into an EDW. Pima County records show that the Avra Valley facility has not discharged to the Black

Wash since November 2006. The Avra Valley facility ha s sufficient percolation basin capacity operated under a

valid aquifer protection permit, to recharge all discha rged effluent. Pima County has obtained a AZPDES permit

for this facility for use on an emergency discharge basis only.

Response: The Avra Valley WWTP is authorized to discharge by an individual AZPDES permit that

currently authorizes the discharge of 1.2 million gallons per day of treated effluent, with no limitation, to spray

fields established in Black Wash. While Pima County Re gional Wastewater Reclamation Department may direct

# 189 discharges to other methods of disposal, there is nothing in the AZPDES permit restricting the discharge of the full

1.2 mgd every day of the year to Black Wash thereby creating and maintaining an effluent-dependent ecosystem.

However, the Avra Valley WWTP as described by the comment er, may be the type of facility that could benefit

from the flexibility proposed under R18-11-113(E).

Comment #109

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

Section E. of R18-11-113 indicates that A&W edw sta ndards will be applied to ephemeral streams that

receive any point source discharge of wastewater. The ru le does not specify how much effluent, or for how long

effluent need be discharged before an EDW is created. Th erefore, intermittent or sporadic point source discharges

to ephemeral streams from a wastewater plant will trigger A&W edw water standards. Many of Arizona’s

wastewater plants are currently constructed to fully re-use or recharge their treated effluent, with discharge to

streams being held as a remote back up plan. However, this rule indicates that the rare discharge of effluent to the

ephemeral streams would change the water from ephemeral to edw, even though for the vast majority of the time

the waters remain ephemeral and no effluent-dependent eco system has developed. Jurisdictions would then have

to meet edw standards on that stream reach, but it is unc lear from the rule for how long these standards must be

met or for what extent along the stream the standards apply. Meeting these standards would place a significant

financial burden on our jurisdictions.

Robert A. Hollander, City of Phoenix

With the elimination of the phrase “...that changes that ephemeral water into an effluent-dependent water”

the standard codifies only one interpretation of an effluent-dependent water based on hydrology alone. Another

interpretation is based on a discharge to an ephemeral wa ter creating an aquatic community that is “dependent” on

the discharge. This issue is discussed in more deta il in an E mail from Byron McMillan to Steven Pawlowski

dated October 4, 2007, which is incorporated in these comments by reference. We request that ADEQ retain the

current phrase. I have attached the referenced E mail for your convenience.

Response: The commenters are correct that under the current permitting process any discharge from a

WWTP is permitted to meet EDW standards under the exis ting provisions of R18-11-113(E). Standards that apply

in this instance must be met at the point of discharge to the wash. Discharge of effluent under ephemeral standards

is not protective of aquatic life, so if a facility mainta ins an AZPDES permit as a contingency, it must meet the

EDW standards when discharge is necessary. The ch anges made in R18-11-113(E) provides flexibility for

discharges that are short term, intermittent, or sporadic.

The commenter is correct that the definition of e ffluent-dependent water is based on hydrology alone. All

the stream definitions — that is, ephemeral, intermittent , perennial, and effluent-dependent are based on stream

hydrology. The Department believes it is common knowledge and confirmed by research and experience that a

wastewater discharge of virtually any quantity and cons istency will be used by aquatic organisms, unless such

discharge is toxic. See: “An Exploration of Nutrient and Community Variables in Effluent Dependent Streams in

Arizona,” Arizona Department of Environmental Qua lity, OFR 05-09. The Department considers a hydrological

# 190 definition to be the most appropriate approach at this time. (Note: The October 4, 2007 email is reproduced in

comment #110).

Comment #110

Byron McMillan, Pima County Wastewater Management

On behalf of the jurisdictions listed in the comment s below, please find attached suggested changes to

ADEQ proposed rule language at R18-11-113(D). The cities of Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Surprise and

Tempe, Pima County, Arizona American Water, and the Superstition Mountain Community Facilities District

appreciate the time you and your staff took on September 21, 2007, to meet with us regarding A.A.C. R18-11-

113.E and the impact ADEQ’s implementation of this rule has had on AZPDES permittees.

During our meeting, ADEQ agreed to review a written proposal modifying part of R18-11-113 to

accommodate the various discharge scenarios we discussed. The attached file contains the suggested

modifications to the rule. Included is a matrix showing when to apply EDW standards on the basis of discharge

duration. We believe this proposed rule language provi des needed flexibility for applying conservative and yet

reasonable surface water quality standards on these Arizona waters. The proposed rule language also provides

bright line standards which will aid both ADEQ permitting staff in implementing the rule and assist the regulated

community to comply with these rules.

We continue to believe that applying EDW standards before an effluent-dependent ecosystem has been

established is inappropriate and scien tifically indefensible. While there is some challenge in determining what

constitutes a self sustaining ecosystem, it is not beyond the ability of ADEQ and the regulated community to

define that boundary as we go forward. We believe th at our suggested rule language including the discharge

durations and drying periods are reasonable based on seasonality and the minimum length of time one might

reasonably expect an effluent dependent ecosystem to begin developing within a normally dry wash. ADEQ

expressed concern that a discharge duration of 30 days would be unacceptably long to EPA for applying acute

only standards. If EPA has information to show that an aquatic ecosystem can develop in a time period shorter

than 30 days after the addition of effluent to an epheme ral stream, we believe they should share that information

with ADEQ and us. At this point, we are unaware that EPA has any such information. Prior to ADEQ primacy,

permits issued by EPA for discharges to ephemeral str eams were written using ephemeral water quality standards.

EPA cautioned permittees that in the future, EDW standards may apply if the stream becomes effluent-dependent.

This is a clear indication that EPA at that time, had no information on when to expect an EDW to develop. We

believe the scientific body of information in this regard has not changed substantially in recent years. Since EPA

did not intend for EDW standards to apply to discharg es to ephemeral waters until an effluent-dependent

ecosystem had developed, we believe ADEQ would find support from EPA on this issue.

We believe that ADEQ understands that adding water to a dry streambed does not instantly result in the

emergence of aquatic life, and most certainly does not create an ecosystem dependent on effluent. ADEQ is

reluctant to discuss an ecosystem approach as it app ears to be too complicated. One simple ecosystem-based

solution to the problem is to apply EDW standards when an indicator organism a ppears in the stream. The

indicator organism could be a fish species or another sp ecies whose entire life-cycle is aquatic and has a life-span

# 191 of at least one-year. The use of indicator organisms has precedence in permitting as they are used in wholeeffluent toxicity testing and pathogen testing.

This may be an approach that ADEQ and the regulated community can consider and pursue in the future.

Because ADEQ is reaching the end of the Triennial Review rulemaking process and needs to move forward we

suggest that our proposed rule language is an acceptable interim step that will provide needed flexibility for

addressing issues such as WETT, riparian habitat restor ation project permitting, and discharge seasonality issues

where the current rules do not provide flexibility. The proposed matrix serves as an attempt to use best

professional judgment to provide the bright lines needed for making permitting decisions. We believe it to be an

acceptable approach in lieu of a more scientific approach that apparently is beyond the scope of this current

triennial review. As additional data is collected and more research is conducted, the matrix can be modified to

make it more representative of the best available science. At some point in the future, the matrix may actually

become obsolete but for the moment, it is in our judgment a reasonable starting point.

We just became aware of new information that we believe ADEQ ought to consider. ADEQ has expressed

concern about how EPA will respond to Arizona’s SWQS . EPA approved the ephemeral stream standards in

Mississippi’s Water Quality Criteria for Intrastate, Inters tate and Coastal Waters. We are keenly aware that

Arizona’s ephemeral waters definiti on is the primary reason for applying EDW standards to discharges to

ephemeral waters. We strongly encourage ADEQ to consid er Mississippi’s description/definition of ephemeral

streams as it is an accurate description of waters in Ar izona and it has been approved by EPA. We also note that

the standards require domestic wastewater discharges to meet chronic toxicity limits only in downstream perennial

waters. Acute standards are applicable.

EPHEMERAL STREAM

Waters in this classification do not support a fish eries resource and are not usable for human consumption

or aquatic life. Ephemeral streams normally are natural waterc ourses, including natural watercourses that

have been modified by channelization or manmade drainage ditches, that without the influent of point source

discharges flow only in direct response to precipita tion or irrigation return-water discharge in the immediate

vicinity and whose channels are normally above the groundwater table . These streams may contain a transient

population of aquatic life during the portion of the year when there is suitable habitat for fish survival. Normally,

aquatic habitat in these streams is not adequate to support a reproductive cycle for fish and other aquatic life.

Wetlands are excluded from this classification.

Waters in this classification shall be protective of wildlife and humans that may come in contact with the

waters. Waters contained in ephemeral streams shall al so allow maintenance of the standards applicable to all

downstream waters.

A. Provisions 1,2,3 and 5 of Section II (Minimum Conditions Applicable to All Waters) are applicable

except as they relate to fish and other aquatic life. All as pects of provisions 4 and 10 of Section II concerning

toxicity will apply to ephemeral streams, except for dom estic or compatible domestic wastewater discharges

which will be required to meet toxicity requirement s in downstream waters not classified as ephemeral.

Alternative methods may be utilized to determine the poten tial toxic effect of ammonia. Acutely toxic conditions

are prohibited under any circumstances in waters in this classification.

# 192 B. Dissolved Oxygen : The dissolved oxygen shall be maintained at an appropriate level to avoid

nuisance conditions.

C. Bacteria : The Permit Board may assign bacterial criteria where the probability of a public health

hazard or other circumstances so warrant.

D. Definitions :

1. Fisheries resources is defined as any wa terbody which has a viable gamefish population as

documented by the Mississippi Department of Wildlife Conservation or has sufficient flow or physical

characteristics to support the fishing use during times ot her than periods of flow after precipitation events or

irrigation return water discharge.

2. "Not usable for human consumption or aquatic life" means that sufficient flow or physical

characteristics are not available to support these uses.

3. "Flow only in response to precipi tation or irrigation return water" means that without the influence

of point source discharges the stream will be dry unless th ere has been recent rainfall or a discharge of irrigation

return water.

4. "Protective of wildlife and humans that may come in contact with the waters" means that toxic

pollutants shall not be discharged in concen trations that will endanger wildlife or humans.

5. "Nuisance conditions" means objectionable odors or aesthetic conditions that may generate

complaints from the public.

Recommendations for assignment of the Ephemeral Stream classification shall be made to the Commission

on Environmental Quality by the Permit Board after appropriate demonstration of physical and hydrological

data. The Ephemeral Stream classification shall not be assigned where environmental circumstances are such

that a nuisance or hazardous condition would result or pub lic health is likely to be threatened. Alternate

discharge points shall be investigated before the Ephemeral Stream classification is considered.

Attachment to October 4, 2007 email from Byron McMillan, Pima County Wastewater Management

Proposed Changes to ADEQ Draft R18-11-113(D)

The Director or the NPDES permitting authority, upon determining that water quality based effluent

limitations are necessary in a permit, may use any ofthe water quality standards that apply to an effluentdependent water to derive appropriate water quality bas ed effluent limits for a point source discharge of

wastewater to an ephemeral water. The Director or the NPDES permitting authority may use any acute and

chronic aquatic and wildlife (effluent-dependent water) standards to derive appropriate water quality based

effluent limits in an AZPDES or NPDES permit authorizing any of the following:

1. A continuous discharge of wastewater to an ephemeral water.

2. An intermittent discharge of wastewater to an ephemeral water on 30 or more consecutive days

from April through September, or 90 or more consecutive days from October through March.

3. A discharge to an impoundment located within a surface water, other than an impoundment listed in

R18-11-102(B), or an impoundment allowed for storage of reclaimed water by rule adopted under A.R.S. 49-

203(A)(6).

4a. An intermittent discharge of wastewater to an ephemeral water for less than 30 consecutive days

# 193 from April through September, with a period of time be tween discharge events less than those specified in the

table below:



# i. #Days Consecutive

Discharge 

# ii. #Days Between

Discharge



# iii. 1-5 days 

# iv. 1 day



# v. 6-10 days 

# vi. 2 days



# vii. 11-15 days 

# viii. 3 days



# ix. 16-20 days 

# x. 4 days



# xi. 21-25 days 

# xii. 5 days



# xiii. 26-30 days 

# xiv. 7 days

4b. An intermittent discharge of wastewater to an ephemeral water for less than 90 consecutive days

from October through March, with a period of time betw een discharge events less than those specified in the table

below:



# xv. #Days Consecutive

Discharge 

# xvi. #Days Between

Discharge



# xvii. 1-5 days 

# xviii. 1 day



# xix. 6-10 days 

# xx. 2 days



# xxi. 11-20 days 

# xxii. 5 days



# xxiii. 21-30 days 

# xxiv. 8 days



# xxv. 31-40 days 

# xxvi. 9 days



# xxvii. 41-90 days 

# xxviii. 10 days

5. A discharge, during dry weather periods, that may reach a downstream surface water that is

designated as A&Wc or A&Ww in Appendix B or the downstream surface water meets any of the conditions

specified in (D)(1) through (4).

Robert A. Hollander, City of Phoenix

The Water Services Department appreciates ADEQ working with the regulated community on addressing

their concerns with how the Surface Water Quality Sta ndards (SWQS) will be applied to facilities that have

sporadic, infrequent or emergency discharges to epheme ral or effluent-dependent waters (EDWs). The proposed

language articulates an understanding and acknowledgement that such situations are unique and require a different

approach than do continuous discharges. However, the pr oposal does not discuss specifically how R18-11-113.E.1

through 4 will be implemented. ADEQ has articulated that their approach to addressing the intermittent discharges

to ephemeral waters and EDWs was to provide perm it flexibility. While the proposed language would provide

flexibility, it creates a great deal of uncertainty for permittees who must plan ahead and secure funding for

potential capital improvements to meet future permit limits. Increased funding for capital improvements and

operational changes would increase rates paid by customers and require City Council approval.

# 194 Response: The Department appreciates the commenters’ support. The issues of creating an aquatic

ecosystem (see Responses #19, #20 and #106) and regulator y flexibility (see Responses #105 and #111) have been

addressed in other responses. The Department agrees with stakeholders that there shoul d be regulatory flexibility

in R18-11-113(E) to authorize the Department to use acute A&Wedw standards as a basis for deriving water

quality-based effluent limits in AZPDES permits for sporadic and infrequent point source discharges.

This rule includes some general factors that the Dir ector will consider in making a decision as to whether

acute-only A&Wedw standards would be used to derive di scharge limits in AZPDES permits or whether acute and

chronic A&Wedw standards are necessary. These general factors include the amount, frequency, and duration of

discharges; the length of time water is present in th e receiving ephemeral water; the distance to nearest

downstream surface water with chronic A&W standards, and the likelihood that organisms in the receiving

ephemeral water will have long-term or chronic exposures to pollutants in the discharge. The proposal in the

October 4, 2007 attachment is a revision of an early work session product. The Department appreciates the

stakeholder’s efforts but does not consider the bright-line durations offered as scientif ically defensible. There are

various case-specific and location-specific factors that will need to be considered in determining the appropriate

standards to be used. The Department acknowledges th at these guidelines in R18-11-113(E) do not provide

absolute regulatory certainty but they do provide a ge neral framework for evaluating sporadic and infrequent

discharges to ephemeral waters on a case-by-case basis in the context of an AZPDES permit application. The

Department’s surface water permits unit will work with individual permit applicants on appropriate limits for

specific discharges.

As to the consideration of Mississippi’s water quality standards language for ephemeral systems, each state

has a different way of defining and implementing its water quality standards programs. The Department will

review the Mississippi proposal but note that the Mississippi approach to water resources may not be applicable in

the second most arid state in the United States. Without a total contextual understanding of its program, rules and

implementation, it is difficult to make an assessment of their utility and transferability to Arizona’s surface water

management program.

The Department notes that the last sentence in the Mi ssissippi standard: “Alternate discharge points shall be

investigated before the Ephemeral Stream classification is considered.” In Arizona, 102 of AZPDES dischargers

are permitted to discharge to ephemeral streams for a total flow in excess of 650 mgd. These numbers and

volumes of wastewater demand care and caution to ensure that Arizona’s limited water resources are protected for

aquatic life and beneficial uses. At this time, the Department considers the changes to R18-11-113 to be important

steps forward in dealing with effluent management and environmental protection. The Department will continue to

work with the commenters and others to refine the EDW standard in future rulemakings, as appropriate.

R18-11-113(E)

Comment #111

J. Adrianne Settimo

A&W(edw) standards should never be considered unn ecessary. Such stringent standards are in place to

protect public health. The proposed language providing “regul atory flexibility,” in granting AZPDES permits with

# 195 less stringent regulations, on a “case-by-case basis” nega tes the purpose of having rules. AZPDES permits are

stringent because they need to be, keeping standards the same for all creates a level playing field, and sets a

minimum standard. This standard should not be compro mised with the case-by-case approach in the proposed

rule.

Response: The Department created the A&Wedw subcategory in an attempt to meet a need for more

tailored and appropriate water quality standards to protect aquatic life in the ecosystems that are created by the

discharge of effluent to ephemeral waters. The A&Wedw standards are not designed to protect public health, as

the commenter suggests. Body contact standards protect human health. A&Wedw standards are established to

maintain and protect water quality for aquatic life and wildlif e that live or have contact with effluent waters. The

A&Wedw standards are expressed in two ways. There ar e acute A&Wedw standards to protect organisms from

short-term exposures to pollutants in the effluent and chronic A&Wedw standards that are intended to protect

organisms in EDWs from long-term exposures to pollutants.

The Department adopted R18-11-113(E) to provide regulatory flexibility to apply acute A&Wedw

standards only under certain conditions. The Department rec ognizes that there may be situations where a facility

discharges effluent to a dry watercourse so infrequently or so sporadically that there is little likelihood that

organisms in the receiving water would have long-term expos ures to pollutants in the discharge. These situations

are fact-sensitive and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but they would typically involve small amounts

of discharge of short duration that have relatively infrequent recurrence intervals. See Responses #105 & #110.

R18-11-114. MIXING ZONES

Comment #112

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

We support tightening up the provisions here including the addition of subsection (H), which prohibits

mixing zones that are so large that they can kill drifting organisms. As indicated in previous comments, we have

significant concerns about mixing zones overall as they rely on pollution dilution rather than pollution prevention.

Response: The Clean Water Act allows for the use of mixing zones as long as acute toxicity to drifting

organisms is prevented and the integrity of the surface water as a whole is not impaired. According to 40 CFR

§131.13, states may, at their discretion, adopt certain polic ies in their water quality standards rules that affect the

application and implementation of the standards, such as a mixing zone. Mixing zones have been applied in the

water quality standards program since its inception and EPA has approved state-adopted mixing zone policies

provided the mixing zone policy ensures that: 1) mixing z ones do not impair the integrity of the water body as a

whole, 2) there is no lethality to organisms passing thr ough the mixing zone, and 3) there are no significant health

risks considering likely pathways of exposure. The Department adopted a limited mixing zone rule whose

provisions are consistent with available EPA guidance on mixing zones provided in the Water Quality Standards

Handbook, Second Edition and EPA’s Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control

.

The commenter is correct that mixing zones rely on d ilution. A mixing zone is defined as a limited area or

volume of water where initial dilution of a discharge ta kes place and where numeric water quality standards can

# 196 be exceeded. The Department does not allow mixing zones where there is no water for dilution and appropriately

conditions mixing zones where they are allowed.

R18-11-115. SITE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS

Flexibility

Comment #113

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

ADEQ has proposed procedures to conduct studies for developing site-specific standards. Pima County

fully supports the recommended procedures as relevant and appropriate for use in Arizona. However, Pima

County believes that ADEQ has unnecessarily limited the amount and types of procedures that could be

legitimately used for conducting studies. For example, EP A has recently approved in a federal register notice

the use of the Biotic Ligand Model for calculating A quatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria for

Copper. This method was also specifically evaluated for its valid use in Arizona as part of the Arid West Water

Quality Research Project. This study found that because of Arid West water hardness issues, the BLM was

actually more accurate than the generally used Water Effects Ratio procedure.

Robert A. Hollander, City of Phoenix

The Water Services Department requests that this rule should include language that allows the use of other

scientifically valid procedures for performing site-specific studies including metals translator studies and

procedures developed under the Arid We st Water Quality Research Project.

The Arid West Water Quality Research Project c onducted a number of studies to address water quality

criteria and standards development in effluent-dependent and ephemeral waters characteristic of the arid west.

This included an evaluation of the reliability of the Bi otic Ligand Model predictions for copper toxicity in

waters characteristic of the arid west. EPA and ADEQ staff participated on the Regulatory Working Group of

the Research Project.

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

The Coalition appreciates ADEQ’s proposal to adopt regul ations allowing for the a doption of site-specific

SWQS under proposed R18-11-115. Such flexibility in esta blishing a nuanced approach to surface wate r quality is

essential in Arizona, where the natural background of many surface waters is impacted by the state’s highly

mineralized geology or affected by other natural conditions , such as conditions inherent to Arizona’s semi-arid

climate. However, the Coalition does not believe that ADEQ has provided adequate flexibility in its proposed sitespecific standard regulations. ADEQ unnecessarily limits th e procedures regulated parties may use in conducting a

study to support the development of site-specific sta ndards. ADEQ should revise its proposed R18-11-115 to

allow more flexibility in using additional methods and appr oaches to setting site-specific standards. The Coalition

also recommends that ADEQ include the use of EPA’s approved Biotic Ligand Model as a way to determine

certain site specific standards.

To increase flexibility in implementing site-specific standards for the reasons discussed above, the

Coalition requests that ADEQ add the following language:

# 197 1. As R18-11-115(B)(5) – “The results of a use atta inability analysis demonstrate that all designated

uses of the water body are being attained, but the numeri cal or narrative water quality standard for one or more

water quality parameters are not being attained; and

2. As R18-11-115(C)(5) – “And other scientifically s ound methods. A person seeking to develop a sitespecific standard based on other scientifically sound me thods shall provide a study outline to the Director and

obtain approval for the study before conducting the study.

Response : The Department appreciates the Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition’s support for the

adoption of R18-11-115, Site-Specific Standards. The Department has, for the first time in rule, prescribed

approved procedures for establishing s ite-specific water quality standards to protect aquatic life in Arizona surface

waters. As with all surface water quality standards, site-sp ecific standards are subject to EPA review and approval.

Federal and state laws and regulations do not prescr ibe methods for developing site-specific standards.

However, EPA has published detailed guidance describing several methods that EPA considers acceptable for the

development of site-specific water quality criteria. EPA stat es in guidance that it will approve site-specific criteria

that have been developed using appropriate procedures. Fo r the first state rule addressing site-specific standards

development, the Department decided to list only those pr ocedures for developing site-specific standards that EPA

has previously indicated are scientifically defensible . The Department included the Recalculation Procedure and

the Water-Effects Ratio procedures in R18-11-115 b ecause detailed EPA guidance on how to use the two

procedures to derive site-specific criteria is available. The Department did not specifically include the Resident

Species Procedure in the adopted rule because it is a co mbination of the two other procedures and EPA has not

published separate guidance that specifically describes how to use the method. The Department included the

“Streamlined Water Effects Ratio Procedure for Discharg es of Copper” on the strength of the availability of

detailed EPA guidance describing the method and because it is a variant of the WER Procedure which EPA has

previously indicated is scientifically defensible. The Department included a method for developing site-specific

standards based on natural background conditions in R18- 11-115. EPA has indicated that this is an acceptable

method for developing site-specific criteria (See EPA policy memorandum by Tudor T. Davies entitled

“Establishing Site-Specific Aquatic Life Criteria E qual to Natural Background (November 5, 1997) and EPA

Region 10, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10 Natural Conditions Workgroup Report on Principles

to Consider When Reviewing and Using Natural Conditions Provisions (January, 2005)).

The Department reviewed the recommended site-specific standards language provided by the Coalition in

Attachment B of their comment letter. Most of the c onditions that the Coalition recommends the Department use

as grounds for site-specific standards development ar e already in R18-11-115. These four grounds, proposed by

the Department, correspond to the Coalition’s recommended grounds for site-specific standards development at

R18-11-115 (C)(2), (C)(3), (C)(4) and (C)(7) in Attachment B.

However, the Department does not support the adopti on of the additional recommended rule language in

Attachment B for several reasons:

1. The Coalition proposed a new subsection at R18- 11-115(B)(5) that would allow for site-specific

standards to be developed where a UAA finds all uses ar e being met but the surface water cannot meet numeric or

narrative standards. This is counter to the foundation of the water quality standards program, which is that surface

# 198 waters are protected for all designated uses by means of standards that are protective. The Department considers

the other site-specific standards methods, including natu ral background, to be appropr iate and defensible in

dealing with the situation outlined. Often a total maximum daily load study will uncover unknown sources of

pollutants that are adding to a waterbody impairment. These types of water quality management programs must be

used to determine the necessity of a site-specific standard.

2. The Coalition recommends two grounds for the developm ent of site-specific standards for human health

standards at R18-11-115(C)(5) and (C)(6).

● The Department does not support the concept of s ite-specific standards when protection of human

health is the goal.

● The Department does not find there is a currently scientifically sound rationale for distinguishing

human populations and human health protections on a site-specific basis.

3. The Coalition recommends that ADEQ allow the deve lopment of site-specific standard based on the

concept of net ecological benefit at R18-11-115(C)(8).

● ADEQ disagrees that this ground should be include d in R18-11-115. The Department has adopted a

separate rule authorizing modifications to water quality standards based on the net ecological benefit

(NEB) concept. It is more appropriate to address revisions to standards based on the NEB concept in

R18-11-106.

4. The Coalition recommended that the Department be able to establish a site-specific standard if “[t]he

Director determines that the default standards are not appropriate due to unique, physical, hydrological, or

chemical conditions,” and on “[o]ther factors or combina tions of factors that upon review of the Director may

warrant modifications to the default standards.”

● These two recommended grounds for site-specific standards development are non-specific, vague,

and scientifically indefensible. They do not provide sufficient specificity or objective criteria that

the Director can use to determine that a s ite-specific standard should be established.

5. The Coalition recommended that the site-specific standards rule list two additional procedures for

developing site-specific standards, which are the Resident Species Procedure and an open-ended provision in R18-

11-115 that would state that acceptable procedures for site-specific standards development include: “Other

scientifically defensible methods such as establishi ng site-specific standards equal to natural background as

described in EPA guidance documents, relevant aquatic fi eld studies, laboratory tests, biological translators,

toxicity testing, bioassay, bioassessment, quantitative fa te and transport analyses, human health and ecological

risk analyses, or available scientific literature.”

● The Department did not include the Resident Species Procedure because it is included as a

combination of the Recalculation and Water Eff ects Ratio procedures. The Department does not

support the inclusion of an open-ended provisi on that would authorize the use of “other

scientifically defensible methods” for site-speci fic standards development. The Department has a

relatively small water quality standards program sta ff and is concerned about its capacity to peer

review and complete technical evaluations of alternative methods for site-specific standards

development that have not been considered by EPA scientists. There are no recommended

# 199 evaluation criteria for determining whether an alte rnative method is “scientifically or technically

defensible.”

● The Department will consider the inclusion of the Biotic Ligand Model as an acceptable procedure

for the development of site-specific standards as EPA has recently published detailed guidance on

its use. However, the Department will defer consideration of this procedure to the next rulemaking

of the surface water quality standards.

Comment #114

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

It is unclear in the proposed rule how the language in R18-11-115 relates to th e language in proposed R18-

11-113(B), which allows ADEQ to adopt by rule site-specific SWQS for EDWs. ADEQ should delete the

language in R18-11-113(B) to clarify that Section 115 applies equally to EDWs. Alternatively, ADEQ should

revise R18-11-113(B) to state that ADEQ will adopt s ite-specific EDW standards only in accordance with the

provisions of R18-11-115. ADEQ should clarify that the provisions in R18-11-115 apply to all categories of

surface waters.

Response: Similar to the changes made in R18-11-112, the Department will clarify R18-11-113(B) by

including a reference to the new site-specific standard sec tion of the rule. The rule has been revised as follows:

B. The Director may adopt, by rule, under R18-11-115, a site-specific water quality

standards standard for an effluent dependent water.

Natural Background

Comment #115

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

Under proposed R18-11-115(C)(4)(c), ADEQ provides that “natural background” for purposes of

establishing site-specific standards, means the concentr ation of a pollutant in a surface water due “only to nonanthropogenic sources.” This definition is unnecessar ily narrow. Anthropogenic sources may contribute only

nominally or indirectly to pollutant loading in water that would otherwise have a high natural background for a

constituent. As such, the Coalition recommends that ADEQ re vise this section so that “natural background,” for

purposes of establishing site-specific SWQS, means the concentration of a pollutant in a surface water due

principally to non-anthropogenic sources.”

Furthermore, with respect to the definition of “nat ural background,” the narrative nutrient standard draft

guidance document states that site-specific standards are likely to be necessary for EDW lakes. However, it is

unlikely that non-anthropogenic background could be defined for an EDW la ke in an ephemeral watercourse. The

Coalition therefore requests that ADEQ clarify how it intends to establish site-specific standards for EDW lakes

and urban lakes where a long hi story of anthropogenic source impacts, unrelat ed to the lake but related to its urban

setting, may predominate.

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

Fred H. Gray, City of Tucson – Parks and Recreation Department

# 200 ADEQ provides that “natural background” for purposes of establishing site-specific standards, means the

concentration of a pollutant in a surface water due “ only to non-anthropogenic sources.” This definition is

unnecessarily narrow. The narrative nutrient implementation gui dance states that site-specific standards are likely

to be necessary for EDW lakes. EDW lakes are usually urban lakes, and it is unlikely that non-anthropogenic

background could be defined for such a water body. ADEQ should clarify how to set site-specific standards for

EDW lakes and urban lakes where a long history of anth ropogenic source impacts, unrelated to the lake but

related to its urban setting, may predominate.

Response: The proposed natural background provision at R18-11-115(C)(4) is based upon EPA’s policy

“Establishing Site-Specific Aquatic Life Criteria Equa l to Natural Background,” November 5, 1997. The policy

authorizes the establishment of site-specific numeric aquatic life water quality criteria by setting the criteria value

equal to natural background. The policy specifically defines “natural background” as the background

concentration due only to non-anthropogenic sources; i.e., non-manmade sources. In establishing natural

background as a ground for the development of site-specific standards, the EPA policy states that the Department

should, at a minimum, include in its water quality standard s rules: 1) a definition of natural background consistent

with the one in the EPA policy stated above, 2) a provision that site-specific criteria may be set equal to natural

background, and 3) a procedure for determining natu ral background. The Department included these three

elements in its natural background provision in R18-11-115.

While the Department agrees that the natural bac kground provisions of R18-11-115 could not be used to

establish site-specific criteria for a man-made EDW lake, the other site-specific standards development methods,

such as the recalculation procedure or the water effects ratio procedure can be used to develop site-specific

standards for an EDW lake. The Department will continue to study available methodologies for site-specific

standards for EDW lakes.

R18-11-117. CANALS AND MUNICIPAL PARK LAKES

Comment #116

David E McNeil, City of Tempe

Tempe requests that the existing term “municipal park lake” in this section and in Appendix B be changed

to the term “urban lake.” The use of both of these te rms within the water quality standards is duplicative and

creates confusion regarding the applicability of A.A.C. R 18-11-117 to urban lakes, whic h is clearly necessary. In

addition, Tempe objects to the proposed elimination of the last sentence in this section. Removal of clarifying

language regarding the effect of this section is not a “m inor editorial change” as described in the preamble, and

could change the applicability of the rule.

Robert S. Lynch, Irrigation & Electri cal Districts Association of Arizona

R18-11-117, which addresses the maintenance of canals a nd municipal lakes, removes language that allows

an increase in turbidity during physical or mechanical main tenance of the canal or municipal lake. Maintenance of

these waters is necessary to maintain public health, sa fety and welfare. An owner should not be penalized under

the degradation rules for regular maintenance and startup, i.e. re-filling or cleaning a canal or municipal lake.

# 201 Response: The Department agrees “urban” is a more incl usive term and has modified the definition and

title of this Section accordingly. The Department agrees to retain the last sentence as it is in the existing rule and

in R18-11-118. The Department had originally proposed removing it because there is no longer a turbidity

standard but agrees, based on the comments received, that it does provide clarification that suspended sediment

that is directly attributable to maintenance activities would not be a violation of standards.

R18-11-117. Canals and Municipal Park Urban Lakes

A. Nothing in the Article shall be construed to prevent prevents the routine physical or

mechanical maintenance of canals, drains and the municipal pa rk urban lakes identified in

Appendix B. Physical or mechanical mainte nance includes dewatering, lining, dredging,

and the physical, biological, or chemical control of weeds and algae. Increase in turbidity

that result from physical or mechanical ma intenance activities are permitted in canals,

drains and the municipal park urban lakes identified in Appendix B.

R18-11-118. DAMS AND FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURES

Based on the Comment #116 above, the Department has retained the following information in subsection

(A) because it provides clarification that suspended sediment that is directly attributable to maintenance activities

would not be a violation of standards.

A. Increases in turbidity that result from the r outine physical or mechanical maintenance of a dam or

flood control structure are not violations of this Article.

R18-11-121. SCHEDULES OF COMPLIANCE

Comment #117

Robert A. Hollander, City of Phoenix

The Water Services Department recommends that ADEQ revise the three year minimum for compliance

schedules, and allow for schedules of ten years, with pr ovisions for longer periods when necessary. This approach

is consistent with the May 2007 EPA memo prepared for Region 9 in considering California’s proposed

compliance schedule policy. On April 15, 2008, the Calif ornia State Water Resources Control Board adopted a

new compliance schedule policy. In keeping with this approach, the standards should include the provisions:

● Any compliance schedule must require compliance as soon as possible, taking into account the

amount of time reasonably required for the discharger to implement actions, such as designing and

constructing facilities or implementing new or significantly expanded programs and securing

financing, if necessary, to comply with a more stringent, permit limitation specified to implement a

new, revised, or newly interpre ted water quality objective or criterion in a water quality standard.

● The duration of the compliance schedule may not exceed ten years from the date of adoption,

revision, or new interpretation of the applicab le water quality objective or criterion in a water

quality standard.

# 202 A compliance schedule that exceeds ten years in a permit can be adopted if it implements or is consistent

with the waste load allocations specified in a TMDL.

Response: The Department appreciates the comment. The Department cannot make a substantive rule

change at this point in the process but it appears that ther e is merit to exploring this issue further and addressing it

in a subsequent rulemaking.

R18-11-121(D)

Comment #118

David E McNeil, City of Tempe

Schedules of compliance for AZPDES stormwater perm its should be limited to the implementation of best

management practices to the maximum extent practicable MEP.

Response: R18-11-121(D) does determine whether or not standards apply. This rule is not a new provision

and simply allows the Director the discretion to in clude a compliance schedule in a stormwater permit.

R18-11-123. DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS

The Department has withdrawn two of the four propos ed discharge prohibitions to the Ak-Chin Indian

Reservation for the following reasons: (1) The Department received significant comments on the lack of

sufficient cost analysis on the impact of the prohibiti ons to upstream discharges; and (2) The Department did

not have the information about how the prohibitions w ould impact certain discharges and had no figures to

support the impacts. The Department will not issue permits for discharges onto Ak-Chin lands and will

require permittees to work with the Ak-Chin Community on their discharges until such time as the

Department can move forward with the prohibitions in a subsequent rulemaking.

A. The discharge of treated wastewater to S abino Creek is the following surface waters is prohibited. :

1. Sabino Canyon Creek;

2. Vekol Wash, upstream of the Ak-Chin Indian Reservation; and

3. Smith Wash, upstream of the Ak-Chin Indian Reservation.

4. Santa Rosa Wash, from its confluence with Green e Wash to the Ak

- Chin Indian Reservation; and

5. Santa Cruz W ash, from its confluence with the North Branch of the Santa Cruz Wash to the Ak Chin

Indian Reservation.

R18-11-123(A)(2)-(5)

Comment #119

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

ADEQ has improperly proposed a strict discharge prohi bition to the Santa Cruz Wash, Santa Rosa Wash,

Vekol Wash, and the Smith Wash.

ADEQ is proposing to add a strict discharge prohib ition to the above washes, but ADEQ has failed to

provide any prior notice of this action to affected stakeholders during the almost 4 year period since the proposed

rules were first noticed. ADEQ also provides no informativ e discussion in the rule or preamble as to why this

# 203 prohibition is necessary or beneficial to Arizona citizens.

Pima County has obtained all necessary discharge permits for discharging treated effluent into the Santa

Cruz River which is tributary to some or all of the de signated washes and this discharge has continuously occurred

for over 40 years. Discharged effluent consistently meets permit requirements for the designated use of the river.

The ADEQ proposed discharge limitation is intended to pr event a discharge of wastewater to the Ak-Chin

Indian Reservation even though discharged wastewater meets all required permit limitations. Pima County is

unaware of any legal right by the Ak-Chin to require that ADEQ incorporate this prohibition into these rules. Pima

County asks that ADEQ remove the requirements of A.A.C. R18-11-123(A) from this proposed rule.

ADEQ must also revise its EIS to incorporate a discussion of the potential impacts on Pima County citizens

and a discussion of what steps ADEQ could take to minimize any impact on Pima County small businesses.

Response: Modifications to this Section have been out for public review since early 2007. The intent of the

discharge prohibitions was to protect surface waters on the Ak Chin Reservation that carry additional, more

protective designated uses. The Ak Chin Indian Community has adopted tribal water quality standards that have

additional narrative and numeric criteria for its waterbodies. In addition, one of the surface waters, Vekol Wash, is

recognized as a unique water under the Ak Chin water quality standards. The Ak Chin Indian Community opposes

the flow of effluent onto its sovereign reservation land.

This rule is adopted to prevent discharge from reach ing the washes on the reservation, except those flows

carried incidentally during precipitation events. In the cas e of these specific provisions, the best and ‘existing’

uses of these washes is considered by the Ak Chin Comm unity to be ephemeral, and as such would be adversely

affected by discharges. Under the Clean Water Act, Arizona has the authority to designate uses. Accordingly, the

discharge prohibitions establish the use as ephemeral.

As a sovereign nation, the Department respects and acknowledges the Community’s efforts to protect its

surface waters for its established uses. The Departme nt has committed to honoring the cultural sensitivities and

water quality standards of tribes that may be affected by discharges when possible, whether or not those standards

are ‘officially’ recognized by EPA – just as the Department would expect another governing state would honor

Arizona’s position on discharges impacting Arizona lands.

While the Department does not believe these prohi bitions will have any near-term impacts on Pima

County’s discharges that are over 50 miles south of the re servation, the Department recognizes that there are a

small number of upstream permitted dischargers that may be impacted by a prohibition to discharge to the listed

reach of Santa Cruz Wash and the Santa Rosa Wash. Ther efore, the Department is withdrawing the prohibitions

on both the Santa Cruz and the Santa Rosa Washes at this time and will work with permittees and the Tribe to

resolve the issues. The Department is not aware of any discharges affecting Vekol and Smith washes. All

dischargers seeking discharges in or near these str eams that may flow onto the Ak Chin Reservation should

promptly engage the Ak Chin Community in discussions . The Department expects that existing dischargers will

maximize disposal options to manage effluent flows to prevent them from reaching Reservation lands.

Comment #120

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

# 204 This section of the rule indicates that there is a pr ohibition of discharge to the Santa Cruz Wash from its

confluence with the North Branch of the Santa Cruz Wa sh to the Ak Chin Indian Reservation. Although Pima

County does not discharge to this segment of the Santa Cruz Wash it is unclear whether this prohibition would

apply to any discharge that reaches the Ak Chin Reservation by flowing through the Santa Cruz Wash. While

Pima County’s discharge does not generally reach the Ak Chin Indian Reservation, it is possible for their effluent

to flow that far when infiltration along the river is decreased or when stormflows flood the river. We are

concerned that Pima County was not given prior notice or allowed input before the proposed rule was issued. If

Pima County is required to contain the effluent, they would be forced to build expensive facilities for no added

benefit to water quality of the state, but at great expense to the tax payers.

The change in this section from referring to “treated wastewater” as simply “wastewater” means that

virtually any discharge to the Santa Cruz River system could be held accountable whenever any flow reaches the

Ak Chin reservation. Since the term “w astewater” is left undefined, the rule does not make it clear whether or not

stormwater, which may contain industrial discha rges, would be included in this prohibition.

Response : See Response #16 regarding stormwater flows not being considered wastewater. These

discharge prohibitions were originally proposed in early 2007 to apply to any wastewater discharge that would

enter or extend to these reaches during dry weather becau se such discharges would be inconsistent with the

existing ephemeral and cultural uses of these washes. This prohibition was not intended to extend to flows

resulting from precipitation events, whether or not that flow contains other permitted discharges. See Response

#119.

Comment #121

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

ADEQ inappropriately proposes certain discharge prohibitions under R18-11-123 intended to prevent

discharges from reaching the Ak Chin Indian Reservation, as well as prohibiting certain discharges to Lake

Powell. Discharge prohibitions do not belong in SWQS re gulations, which are intended to provide the basis of

water quality assessments and permitting depending on designated uses. The Coalition requests that ADEQ

remove these discharge prohibitions from this rule proposal.

Response: The Department disagrees that discharge prohibitions do not belong in standards. Discharge

prohibitions directly relate to water quality within a waterbody, antidegradation provisions of the Clean Water

Act, and the ability to develop and issue protective perm its. Arizona surface water quality standards have included

discharge prohibitions since 1981. See Responses #119 and #120.

Comment #122

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

The proposed rule includes a complete prohibition on disc harges of wastewater to four washes upgradient

of the Ak-Chin Indian Reservation. The preamble provi des no explanation whatsoever of the basis for this

complete ban on discharges to these ephemeral washes, although it can be inferred that it is in response to the

wishes of the Tribe.

# 205 There are several issues with this proposal. First, as noted above, it is unclear what is meant by

“wastewater,” so the precise scope of the proposal is diffi cult to discern, especially given ADEQ’s complete lack

of explanation for the proposal.

Second, and of greater concern, the legal basis for these proposed prohibitions is unclear, and ADEQ

provides no explanation in the preamble. Third, ADEQ ha s made no attempt to quantify the economic costs of

these discharge prohibitions. Presumably, planned wastewater treatment plants in the vicinity would be prohibited

from any discharge whatsoever into the washes, and would have to find an alternate method of effluent handling.

It is unclear how existing discharges, if any, would be affected.

The proposed discharge prohibitions should be removed from the final rules.

Response: Under the Clean Water Act, the Department has authority to designate uses. Accordingly, the

discharge prohibitions establish the use as ephemeral in these segments. As a sovereign nation, the Department

respects and acknowledges the Community’s efforts to prot ect its surface waters for its established uses. See

Response #119.

Comment #123

Daniel Hartley, Tohono O’odham Nation

The proposed rule “R18-11-123. Discharge Prohib itions” involves the Tohono O’odham Nation (Nation)

by virtue of the fact that the Nation is upstream of the r each of Santa Rosa Wash where discharge of wastewater is

prohibited in this proposal. The stream channels involved are connected as follows. Almost all flow in the Santa

Cruz River is diverted into the former Greene Canal shortly after it crosses from Pima to Pinal County. The

Greene Canal joins Greene Wash, which flows through the northern part of the Tohono O’odham Nation and

continues on to its confluence with Santa Rosa Wash, which enters the Ak Chin Reservation about 12 miles

downstream of where it leaves the Tohono O’odham Nation. Wastewater discharged into the Santa Cruz River in

Tucson under an AZPDES permit occasionally reaches the Tohono O’odham Nation when evaporation and

channel infiltration are reduced. We have measured a flow ra te of 2 cfs on the Nation. In order for that wastewater

to reach Santa Rosa Wash and the Ak Chin Reservation befo re it dries up, there has to be a large increase in flow

volume from storm runoff. This large volume of storm runoff dilutes the wastewater so that its chemistry is not

noticeable in the combined streamflow, so there is no effect on far downstream reaches from the wastewater

component. If the intent of the rule is to prevent wastewater flows from affecting the Ak Chin Reservation, then

the rule should be re-written to prohibit wastewater from entering those washes without any added stormflow

volume.

Response: The Department appreciates the information on impacts of the Pima County flows to the

Tohono O’odham Nation. The commenter is correct that th e intent of the proposed language was to prevent

discharges from reaching the washes on the reservati on, except those flows carried incidentally during

precipitation events. See Response #119.

Comment #124

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

# 206 We support prohibition of discharges into Vekol Wa sh, Smith Wash, Santa Rosa Wash, and Santa Cruz

Wash in order to limit wastewater flowing on to the Ak Chin Indian Reservation.

Response: The Department appreciates the comment.

Comment #125

Louis J. Manuel Jr., Vice-Chairman, Ak-Chin Indian Community

The Ak-Chin Indian Community (Community) fully supports the proposed revision to the State of

Arizona’s Surface Water Quality Standard s. The supported revision is within R18-11-123 Discharge Prohibitions

whereby the addition of four new discharge prohibitions th at prevent point source discharges of wastewater to

ephemeral waters that may flow onto the Ak-Chin Indian Reservation. These ephemeral waters are Vekol Wash,

Smith Wash, Santa Rosa Wash and Santa Cruz Wash, which do transect the Reservation.

The Community had and will continue to protect and preserve its cultural, natural and environmental

resources such as the washes: Vekol, Smith, Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz. Our Elders and membership have the

deepest respect for these washes because they not only carry a life sustaining element (water) but other natural

abundances that maintain our O’odham Him-Dak (“Way of Life”).

The Community greatly appreciates the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s understanding of

the significance of these washes.

Response: The Department appreciates the comment.See Response #119 indicating that the Department is

not moving forward at this time with the discharge prohib ition on either the Santa Cruz or the Santa Rosa Washes.

The Department expects currently permitted dischargers to work with the Community to ensure its interests and

water quality standards are met.

APPENDIX A. NUMERIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Comment #126

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

We support the adoption of more protective standard s in several areas, including for arsenic, 2,3,7,8-

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and uranium. These sta ndards will better protect the public’s health and will

continue the improvement of surface water quality in Ar izona. There are a couple of areas in which there is

significant increase in the standard, however. For example, for Chlorine (total residual) the standard increased

from 700 μ g/L to 4,000 μ g/L for Domestic Water Use and for Full and Partial Body Contact. Additionally, total

residual chlorine standards for Aquatic and Wildlife designation increased from 11 μ g/L to 19 μ g/L acute and

from 5 μ g/L to 11 μ g/L chronic. It is our understanding these incr eased standards were adopted by EPA, but we

question if they are protective and whether or not they have been adequately reviewed.

Response: The proposed chlorine standards for the domes tic water source, partial and full body contact

uses have been increased to match the maximum residual disinfectant level (MRDL) for total residual chlorine.

Since 1992, it has been Department policy that where an maximum contaminant level (MCL) or MRDL for

drinking water exists and is greater than the calcula ted domestic water source or full and partial body contact

standards for that pollutant, the MCL or MRDL is subs tituted as the standard for that use. As the domestic

# 207 water source use pertains to natural wa ters that will be treated to produce potable water, this protects that use

and minimizes the cost of treatment. For the full and partial body contact uses, the assumed water consumption

rate of 15 mL/day is far below the assumed consumption rate of 2 liters per day used in the calculation of the

DWS use. As the assumed consumption rate is so much lower, it is implicit that a standard calculated for a

higher consumption rate would protect human health.

The change to the A&W standards for total residual ch lorine is to correct a long-standing inconsistency

between state and federal criteria. The current federal criteria are 11 μ g/L for acute and 19 μ g/L for chronic

exposures. The Department has researched the hist ory of the state’s lower numbers and cannot find a

scientifically defensible reason for keeping them artif icially low. While the proposal to increase the state

standards to match the federal criteria doubles or near ly doubles the standards (from 5 to 11 for acute and from

11 to 19 for chronic), these are negligible increases in terms of aquatic toxicity and laboratory analysis.

Comment #127

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

We support the changes in the fish consumption criteria which afford greater protection for public health,

including the change in consumption rate and the assump tion that those who are consuming fish are also being

exposed to these pollutants via other sources. We also support implementation of a Methylmercury Fish Tissue

Criterion as consumption of fish is a major pathway for human exposure to methylmercury. With it come serious

public health issues including developmental impairme nts for children. Methylmercury is a developmental

neurotoxicant. The developing fetuses of women who consume fish during pregnancy are most at risk and impacts

include lifelong injury to the developing brain.

We support the addition of numeric water quality standards for chloropyrifos, guthion, hydrogen sulfide,

iron, malathion, mirex, paraquat, pa rathion, permethrin, and tributyltin. It is clear from the many assessments

done on our nation’s waters that herbicides and pesticid es are increasingly showing up in both rural and urban

waters.

We strongly support inclusion of these new numeric water quality criteria for total ammonia in the

state’s effluent-dependent waters.

Because many of the criteria in this appendix are esta blished and based on the average weight of a human

male, they fail to address the impacts on children and, in some instances, women. For example, there is increasing

evidence connecting numerous pesticides and other chemi cals that affect estrogen production to breast cancer in

women. We think the department should use the precauti onary principle wherever possible and use the most

protective standards available.

Response: The Department appreciates the commenter’s support on the changes. To address much of the

uncertainty inherent in risk analysis, the Department relies on the safety factors already designed into the

standards derivation process. In the derivation of EPA risk values, such as the reference dose (RfD) and the oral

cancer slope factor (OCSF) used in the calculation of water quality standards, there are many safety factors built

into the equation to account for the uncertainty of toxic eff ects. These safety factors can affect a manifold decrease

in the allowable risk for a pollutant. If there is a signi ficant source pathway for a pollutant that involves excess

# 208 consumption by children, that issue can also be addresse d in the relative source contribution calculation. Also, for

pollutants with developmental toxicity endpoints (e.g. me thylmercury), these issues can be addressed through the

studies chosen for the derivation of the underlying RfD or OCSF. These safety factors combined offer adequate

protection for the greater population as a whole.

Ammonia

Comment #128

Michele Van Quathem, Superstition Mountai ns Community Facilities District No. 1

The new acute criteria for total ammonia and the chronic criteria for total ammonia proposed at tables 25

and 26 respectively, are unreasonably low. The commenter be lieves in order for a biological plant to consistently

meet nitrogen limits and these new ammonia limits will require significant capital improvements.

Standards used in the aquifer protection permit program provide flexibility to address the treatment process

limitations by setting limits only for total nitrogen (regardle ss of the composition), and application of a 5-month

rolling geometric mean. There are no such protections in the proposed rule, and the likely result will be numerous

violations by biological treatment plants.

Further, in SMCFD’s service area, nitrates in groundw ater are a significant human health concern because

of numerous septic tank systems and it is desirable in th is area especially to favor treatment of nitrates over

ammonia. The proposed standards do not provi de flexibility to address this concern.

SMCFD is concerned with the amount of time and significant capital resources needed to make plant

upgrades from funding through permitting to construction. B ecause this is the first time numeric criteria for

ammonia are being applied to effluent-dependent wa ters, ADEQ should propose a reasonable schedule for the

effective date of these limitations that recognizes that it may take up to three years for publicly-owned treatment

plants to fund, design, and build new infrastructure.

Response: The aquifer protection program serves to prot ect groundwater, where the AZPDES program is

to protect surface water in a manner consistent with the Clean Water Act. The two programs have very different

goals and standards to meet and a permittee with both pe rmits must meet both. The new ammonia standard is

being adopted because discharges of ammonia are toxic to aquatic life and not just to fish. Ammonia is the source

of toxicity in a number of domestic wastewater disc harges. In calculating the ammonia standards using the

established EPA method, the Cypriniform (or carp-like) gol den shiner, an abundant fish in Arizona’s waters and

one that can be logically found in EDWs, is the second most sensitive fish in the entire ammonia calculation.

Centrarchids (bass and sunfish), also prevalent in the St ate’s warm water streams and EDWs, are highly sensitive.

Nitrate in groundwater is a significant concern a lthough it is important that neither the groundwater

standard for total nitrogen nor the surface water standard for ammonia be violated. Nutrient removal technologies

presently exist that can address both issues. The Depart ment recognizes that changes in standards may require

changes in treatment or in disposal options. However, there are already tools in the water quality standards that

allow for phase in of standards. When any new water quality standard is implemented, there is an opportunity in a

permit for a compliance schedule under R18-11-121. There is also the possibility for a variance if a discharger can

qualify under R18-11-122, which must be approved by EPA. The surface water permits program will work with

# 209 individual permittees on case-by-case appropriate approaches for their facilities.

Comment #129

Robert A. Hollander, City of Phoenix

The City of Phoenix uses chloramines for disinfecti on. It provides stable, longer-lasting residual. The new

standard puts Phoenix at risk of exceed ing future water quality based permit limits for total ammonia. To disinfect

using free chlorines puts Phoenix at greater risk of r unning at a residual, because even in good quality effluent,

chlorine demand is high even in advanced secondary tr eatment, and could potentially exceed pathogen limits. The

City requests that ADEQ consider this in the total ammoni a standard and the cost impact of imposing the standard

on operations of wastewater treatment plants.

Response: The new ammonia standard is being adopted because discharges of ammonia are toxic to

aquatic life. The Department understands the delicate balance WWTPs have to maintain in dealing with

disinfection, however, this does not justify not meeti ng appropriate ammonia standards and the standard is

achievable. See the EIS for the cost-benef it analysis of the new ammonia standard.

Comment #130

Steven L. Spangle, Field Supervisor, US Fish And Wildlife Service

We support the proposed acute and chronic A&Wedw standard for ammonia and provide the following

information. Threatened and endangered species, or their former or potentially suitable habitat, exist downstream

of wastewater treatment plants in Arizona. For example, the Gila topminnow formerly inhabited the Santa Cruz

River downstream of the Nogales International Wast ewater Treatment Plant (NIWTP). Although the Gila

topminnow has a wide tolerance to temperature and di ssolved oxygen fluctuations, it is unable to withstand

elevated ammonia concentrations, which have exceed ed EPA’s recommended chronic criteria for ammonia

downstream of Nogales (Boyle and Fraleigh 2003). However, the lack of an A&Wedw standard for ammonia,

such as the Santa Cruz below the NIWTP, has negatively affected the ability of the Gila topminnow to maintain its

population and recolonize this area (King et al. 1999). The last recorded observation of Gila topminnow in the

Santa Cruz River downstream of the NIWTP was in 2003 at Tubac, which is approximately 10 miles downstream.

USFWS feels the proposed acute and chronic A&Wedw standard for ammonia is protective of the endangered

Gila topminnow.

Response: The Department appreciates the comment.

Arsenic

Comment #131

Jennifer Hetherington, City of Mesa

The City of Mesa respectfully submits that the existi ng standard of 50 ug/L should be retained in the rule.

In the past seven years, there have been only two vi olations due to exceedence of the arsenic drinking water

standard (other violations related to arsenic can be a ttributed to missed routine sampling events) in the SDWIS

database. These results indicate that arsenic in treated su rface water is not an issue in Arizona. Even when issues

# 210 do arise, well water in Arizona is the primary source of treated water that can exceed the drinking water standard

of 10 ug/L for arsenic, not surface water. There is no n eed to reduce the arsenic standard for domestic water

sources to protect the treated drinking water, because treat ments plants in Arizona are already meeting the current

standard of 10 ug/L.

To the extent that arsenic is an issue, proposed R18-11-107.01 regarding antidegradation implementation

procedures might be the more appropriate vehicle to regulate discharges to affected waters. Surface water

treatment plants are able to treat water down to less that 10 ug/L arsenic. Since high-level arsenic is not prevalent

in surface water, then domestic water source limits need not match the drinking water standard – treatment will

address any arsenic issues. However, th ere are drinking water plants that may have to discharge partially treated

water to a domestic water source, in the event of high turb idity. The City of Phoenix Val Vista Treatment plant coowned by the City of Mesa is one such plant. When turbidity is high, arsenic may also be present. Thus while such

discharges may meet the 50 ug/L standard, it will be very difficult to meet the proposed standard. This will result

in a “Catch 22” situation for the treatment plant. The reason for this type of discharge in the first place is the noncompliance with drinking water standards, yet the discharge will still be required to meet the same standard as if it

were treated drinking water. This will cause financia l hardship, as well as design difficulties that are not

necessary, because the domestic water would still ultimately be treated before it is ever used as drinking water,

and as stated previously, these treatment plan ts are highly successful in removing arsenic.

In conclusion, the Rules should retain the current arsenic domestic water source limit of 50 ug/L. The

violations documented in drinking water discharges fro m surface water treatment plants do not indicate that

arsenic levels in domestic water sources are an issue.

Response : The Department disagrees that the outdated MCL should be retained. EPA revised the MCL for

arsenic to 10 μg/L and the Department adopts the new MCL to protect surface water quality for the Domestic

Water Source (DWS) designated use. The adoption of MC Ls to protect surface water quality for the DWS is

consistent with the way that the Department has adopted standards since 1992. If the Department applied the

default methodology it uses to derive water quality criteri a for the DWS designated use for parameters where an

MCL is unavailable, the resulting criterion for arsenic w ould have been less than 10 μg/L. The fact that few

surface waters are currently listed for arsenic impairment does not equate to there being no issue with arsenic in

Arizona surface waters. There are over 95,000 stream mile s throughout the state and the Department cannot assess

every one of them for each assessment. There are surface wate rs in Arizona that have naturally occurring levels of

arsenic higher than the current and proposed standard. The canals to which the Val Vista water treatment plant

discharges carries the DWS designated use. Downstream users of the canal water are entitled to the same water

quality as the upstream users. The standards provide for mixing zones, which the Val Vista AZPDES permit

currently has for several pollutants, including arsenic. A mixing zone allows a permitted discharge to exceed an

acute water quality standard at the end of pipe provide d it is not exceeded at the edge of the mixing zone. A

mixing zone is a prescribed area or volume contiguous to a discharge where initial dilution of the discharge takes

place within the receiving water.

Comment #132

# 211 D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

MCLs are set by the EPA in order to regulate drinking water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act

(“SDWA”), whereas SWQS are designed to preserve and protect water quality for certain designated uses. MCLs

apply to public water systems, which provide water to th e public for “human consumption” and are applied after

treatment. In contrast, SWQS apply to natural, pret reated water. The SWQS cut across many programs not

considered by EPA when revising the drinking water MCLs, including the AZPDES and TMDL programs. The

assumptions used to set MCLs for drinking water system s do not always translate into reasonable standards for

pretreated surface water, because those standards take treatment into account. Additionally, MCLs are set on a

national basis using national data on contaminant bac kground levels and treatment costs, which may not be

representative of Arizona’s hydrogeologi cal conditions. Additionally, MCLs may be based on outdated or refuted

science. The Coalition therefore requests that ADEQ justif y its adoption of the federal MCLs as untreated SWQS.

Response : It has been long-standing Department policy to adopt MCLs, where available, to protect surface

water quality for the Domestic Water Source (DWS) designa ted use. The use of the MCL to protect water quality

for the DWS designated use in surface water is consistent with the protection of drinking water under the Safe

Drinking Water Act. The Department believes that the le vel of protection for surface waters that are used as

sources of drinking water should be equivalent to that required of public water systems that provide drinking

water. The numeric water quality criteria for the DWS designated use are intended to be quantitative

concentrations of levels of pollutants in water that, if not exceeded, will generally ensure adequate water quality

for the specified designated use. MCLs represent concentrations of pollutants in finished drinking water that EPA

considers safe for human consumption and other potab le uses. The Department has made the common sense

determination that where surface water quality does not ex ceed the MCL, then it generally ensures adequate water

quality for the DWS designated use. In consideration of the Department’s goal of pollution prevention, ambient

surface waters with the DWS designated use should not be contaminated to a level where the burden of achieving

the MCL in drinking water is shifted away from those res ponsible for pollutant discharges to public water systems

who must bear the costs of providing treatment for drinking water.

As for the scientific validity of the arsenic standard at 10 μg/L, the criteria was adopted by EPA in January,

2001 and was to be enforceable in January, 2006. In March of 2001, EPA requested that the National Academy of

Sciences convene a panel of experts to review EPA’s inte rpretation and application of arsenic research. In October

2001, EPA announced that the findings of the NAS were that “the 10 ppb (standard) protects the public health

based on the best available science and ensures th at the cost of the standard is achievable.”

Bromoform

Comment #133

Janet Hashimoto, Chief; EPA Monitoring & Assessment Office

In applying ADEQ’s methodology for calculating the numeric criteria for Full Body Contact for

carcinogens, we derived a value of 0.00059 μg/L for brom oform relative to ADEQ’s proposed criterion of 18,667

μg/L. Please clarify the calculation used to derive the bromoform criterions.

# 212 Response: An error was made in the calculation of the full body contact standard for bromoform. The noncarcinogenic endpoint was used (RfD) rather than the oral cancer slope factor. The Department is withdrawing

this proposed standard revision and will initiate a se parate rulemaking to adopt the correct standard.

Cadmium and Barium

Comment #134

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

The Coalition requests that ADEQ update its cadmium a nd barium standards to reflect current toxicity

factors recommended by EPA and that ADEQ review its propos ed standards to ensure that these are based on the

most current toxicological information. .

Michael Garry, Exponent, on behalf of the Pinal Creek Group

In our review of previous drafts of the numerical st andards, we identified the use of incorrect RfDs for

cadmium and barium. In both cases the errors have been carried through to the 2008 draft.

Response: The Department is withdrawing the proposed standard revisions for both cadmium and barium

and will initiate a separate rulemaking to adopt the corrected standards.

Chlorine

Comment #135

Michele Van Quathem, Superstition Mountai ns Community Facilities District No. 1

The proposed standard of 19 micrograms per liter fo r acute total residual chlorine (“TRC”) and 11

micrograms per liter (parts per billion) for chronic TRC, although they have been loosened somewhat, are still

unreasonable. There is no test method currently available that can reliably measure TRC at the proposed levels.

The TRC test is highly sensitive to interferences from many different types of chemicals in the water and the TRC

PQL for every plant will vary throughout the year and from plant to plant.

Response: The Department is aware of current analytical limitations and issues related to chlorine

monitoring. However, water quality standards are base d on studies concerning affects to life at certain

concentrations and the proposal to raise chlorine limits is in response to new scientific information, specifically

EPA’s revised chlorine criteria.

While interference and quantification issues can be problematic for the A&W chlorine standard, those

issues are more precisely addressed in the provisions of the discharger’s permit. Surface water quality standards

are designed to protect human health and aquatic and wildlif e. Chlorine is a disinfectant added to waste streams to

kill microorganisms and it can kill aquatic life in surface waters. AZPDES permits have specific language for how

a permittee is to report data when analytical methods cannot detect contaminants below the standard or discharge

limitation in the permit. Assuming the permittee is follo wing the permit language, there is no violation of the

permit if the samples are collected appropriately, analy zed using proper laboratory methods, and reported to the

Department on time.

Comment #136

# 213 David E McNeil, City of Tempe

Tempe is concerned with a proposed revision of th e Full Body Contact (FBC) and Partial Body Contact

(PBC) standards for chlorine to 4,000 ppb based on the Safe Drinking Water Act maximum residual disinfectant

level (MRDL) for two reasons:

1. The MRDL is based on ingestion resulting in irritation to the eyes and ears, not skin exposure

resulting in “eye and skin irritation” as explained in the rule proposal. Four thousand ppb of chlorine

should not result in skin irritation.

2. Safe Drinking Water Act compliance with the MR DL is calculated as a running annual average of

monthly averages of all samples. For a drinking water system the size of Tempe’s, compliance is

calculated by averaging 120 monthly samples each month and then averaging all of the last 12

monthly averages.

Response: . The commenter is correct, the full body contact (FBC) and partial body contact through

ingestion (PBC) standards were set at the maximum residua l disinfectant level (MRDL) due to irritation of eyes

and ears not skin exposure.

The Department’s long standing policy has been to use the MCL or MRDL if the calculated DWS or

recreational contact standard is more restrictive. The calculated standard for residual chlorine for the full body

contact (FBC) use would be 467μg/L using the RfD for the ingestion of water which is 10 times more restrictive

than the MRDL of 4000 μg/L.

Full body contact and partial body contact are “terms of art” and necessarily use consumption in calculating

the standards. Full body contact standards are used to pr otect the use where an activity such as swimming can

occur and water is ingested. Partial body contact standa rds protect the use where activities such as wading and

boating can occur. The latter standard may entail ingestion because a small child could either become completely

submerged or transfer water to their mouth on their hands. It is important that ingestion endpoints be addressed for

both of these uses. Additionally, any waterbody with a cont act standard will also have an aquatic and wildlife

(A&W) standard, which is considerably more stringent than the human health/recreational standards referenced

above.

Chloroform

Comment #137

Janet Hashimoto, Chief; EPA Monitoring & Assessment Office

ADEQ has proposed less stringent chloroform criteria for Fish Consumption and Full Body Contact

beneficial uses, considering chloroform to be non- carcinogenic. However, EPA has not determined that

chloroform is a non-carcinogen. We are currently in the process of updating the scientific assessment for

chloroform. We recommend that ADEQ retain its existing chloroform criteria until EPA makes a final

determination as to whether it is non-carcinogenic.

Response: Arizona has a standing policy of using the oral cancer slope factor (OCSF), if available, to

calculate the standards for the full body contact use. If the OCSF is not available, the reference dose (RfD) is used.

As of July 7, 2008, no OCSF was available in the EPA Inte grated Risk Information System (IRIS) database but it

# 214 did state: “A dose of 0.01 mg/kg/day (equal to the RfD) can be considered protective against cancer risk.” The

Department used the RFD in calculating the new criteria.

Iron

Comment #138

Benjamin R. Parkhurst, HAF, Inc., on behalf of the Pinal Creek Group

The proposed chronic A&W standard for iron for cold water, warm water, and effluent-dependent water

(1000μg/L) should be changed to 1000 μg/L dissolved iron. This proposed standard is based on the iron criterion

in US EPA’s (1976) “Red Book.” Like all inorganic metals, only the dissolved fraction of iron is considered to be

significantly toxic to aquatic life (US EPA 1992).

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

The Coalition requests that ADEQ revise its proposed num eric SWQS for iron for aquatic and wildlife uses

and EDWs to apply only to dissolved iron. Only dissolved iron is considered to have significant toxic effects to

aquatic life.

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

Pima county supports comments made by Dr. Ben Par khurst concerning the A&W chronic standards for

iron, in Appendix A Numeric Water Quality Standards.

Response: Due to a typographical error the ‘D’ designation to indicate dissolved iron was omitted in

Appendix B and has been corrected.

Mercury

Comment #139

Benjamin R. Parkhurst, HAF, Inc., on behalf of the Pinal Creek Group

It is requested that the chronic Aquatic and Wildlif e (A&W) standard for mercury for cold water, warm

water, and effluent-dependent water (0.01 μg/L dissolved mercury) be withdrawn and that it be replaced by the

US EPA’s (2004a) chronic, freshwater, National Reco mmended Water Quality Criterion (0.77 μg/L dissolved

mercury).

ADEQ’s chronic A&W standard for mercury (0 .01μg/L) was taken from US EPA’s (1985) Ambient Water

Quality Criteria for Mercury 1984 . ADEQ’s A&W standard for Hg is a human health-based standard. The FC

standard provides greater protection to aquatic life and human health than the chronic A&W standard.

ADEQ’s FC and chronic A&W standards are redundant , because they are both based on protection of

human health from mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The chronic A&W standard should be 0.77 μg/L dissolved

mercury (II), which is US EPA’s (2004a) recommended chr onic criterion. If ADEQ prefers to retain its current

A&W standard, 0.01μg/L dissolved aqueous mercury, the standard should be based on measurement of dissolved

methylmercury in water, not total or inorganic mercury. ADEQ’s proposed FC standard, 0.3 mg/kg

methylmercury, should be protective of most piscivorous wildlife; therefore, a separate standard to protect

piscivorous wildlife is unnecessary.

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

# 215 Pima county supports comments made by Dr. Ben Par khurst concerning the A&W chronic standards for

mercury in Appendix A Numeric Water Quality Standards.

Robert A. Hollander, City of Phoenix

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

We recommend that ADEQ replace its proposed chronic aquatic and wildlife and EDW standard for

mercury with EPA’s chronic, freshwater, recommended wa ter quality criterion of 0.77 μg/L dissolved mercury.

ADEQ’s proposed mercury standard for these designated uses is based on data of human consumption. However,

concerns related to human consumption are already a ddressed through the fish consumption designated use.

Basing the aquatic and wildlife and EDW standards on those same assumptions is unnecessarily redundant and is

not directed specifically at the purpose of t hose designated uses – to protect wildlife.

Response : The Department disagrees. In an arid climate where water is relatively scarce, it is important to

have aquatic and wildlife (A&W) standards that are protectiv e of the wildlife that feed in and on all of the State’s

surface waters. While the community that inhabits the wa ter column of an effluent-dependent water (EDW) may

differ slightly from that found in A&Ww and A&Wc streams, the terrestrial and avian wildlife that use these

streams are very similar. EDW ecosystems can be an integr al part of the home range of bald eagles, black crown

night herons, great blue herons, cattle egrets, osprey, and other wildlife that prey on fish and other aquatic

organisms. Because these streams are often extremely predictable; having consistent flows and temperatures even

during droughts and winter freezes, these ecosystems may be even more attractive for wildlife than the

surrounding landscape.

The current A&Wedw chronic criterion for dissolved mercury is 0.2 μg/L and was originally adopted in

1992. Documentation on the derivation of the A&Wedw chronic criterion for mercury indicates that the chronic

criterion was originally proposed at 1.1 μg/L, not 0.2 μg/L using EPA’s Guidelines Methodology and

recalculation procedures. (See Rationale for the Development of Toxic Pollutant Criteria to Protect Aquatic and

Wildlife Designated Uses, January 10, 1992.) This derivation method only considered endpoints that were directly

toxic to aquatic life and did not adequately protect agai nst bioaccumulation in wildlife. However, in an addendum

to the Concise Explanatory Statement for the 1992 rule making, the Department addressed the propensity for

mercury to bioaccumulate by employing an available fi nal residue equation based on the FDA action level for

mercury in edible fish. Using this method, a recalculated A&Wedw standard of 0.2 μg/L was derived.

The Department has reevaluated the technical basis for the re-calculation of the A&Wedw standard. The

Department questions the use of FDA action level as a surrogate to protect wildlife in the equation used to

calculate the criterion. The FDA action level is designed only to protect consumers of commercially caught and

sold fish from symptoms of mercury poisoning such as paresthesia (a sensation of tingling, pricking, or numbness

of a person’s skin) and not the more sensitive developmen tal endpoint in children. The Department questions the

bioconcentration factor of 4994 L/kg that was used in the equation to calculate the 0.2 μg/L criterion.

Methylmercury is an extremely bioaccumulable fraction of the total mercury addressed in the surface water

quality standard. Methylmercury bioaccumulation potentials as high as 20,000,000 L/kg have been measured in

the field in piscivorous fish.

# 216 In April 1994, the EPA disapproved all of Arizona’s wa ter quality criteria for dissolved mercury to protect

aquatic life, including the A&W(edw) chronic criterion of 0.2 μg/L (See discussion in Federal Register, Volume

61, No. 19, p. 2769). EPA’s disapproval of the mercury cr iteria was based on the results of the U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service (USFWS) consultation under § 7 of th e Endangered Species Act on the adoption of the 1992

standards. The USFWS determined that Arizona’s mercury criteria for the protection of aquatic and wildlife uses

were developed without adequate consideration of the bioaccumulative effects of mercury on predatory wildlife.

The USFWS identified the adoption of mercury criteria pr otective of threatened and endangered wildlife as a

“reasonable and prudent alternative” to avoid jeopardizing endangered and threatened wildlife species in Arizona.

However, there was inadequate information regarding merc ury’s impact on predatory fish and birds in Arizona for

EPA or the state to develop scientifically defensible water quality criteria to protect wildlife.

Like the current Arizona WQS, the present EPA mercur y criterion (0.77 μg/L found at 62 FR 42160) is also

based on a human health endpoint. This endpoint, the oral reference dose for methylmercury, is employed to

calculate EPA’s recommended 304(a) criterion, which is published with an important caveat:

“This recommended water quality criterion was derived fro m data for inorganic mercury (II), but is applied

here to total mercury. If a substantial portion of the merc ury in the water column is methylmercury, this criterion

will probably be under protective. In addition, even though inorganic mercury is converted to methylmercury and

methylmercury bioaccumulates to a great extent, this criterion does not account for uptake via the food chain

because sufficient data were not available when the criterion was derived.”

Methylmercury is an extremely bioaccumulable fraction of the total mercury addressed in the surface water

quality standard. The bioconcentration factor used to cal culate the proposed A&Wedw standard is 81,700 and the

BCF used to calculate the present federal criterion is only 5500. Bioconcentration factors are the laboratorymeasured difference between the concentration of a substance in water and the concentration on fish tissue and do

not consider food chain effects. The Department believe s that the 81,700 BCF better addresses the probability of

food chain bioaccumulation in wildlife. No change has been made to the rule.

Comment #140

Janet Hashimoto, Chief; EPA Monitoring & Assessment Office

ADEQ proposes to eliminate the existing 0.6 μg/L FC standard in lieu of the newly proposed 0.3 mg/kg

methylmercury fish tissue standard. While we strongly s upport ADEQ’s adoption of the 0.3 mg/kg standards, fish

tissue samples may: a) not be collected in all Arizona water bodies that contain fish and which are otherwise

monitored for total mercury in the water column, and/or b) not always be collected to an extent sufficient for

assessment purposes under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.

We cannot assume that the chronic criterion for aqua tic life can fully substitute for the 0.6 μg/L FC

standard to ensure the current level of protection is mainta ined in cases where future data collection is insufficient

to apply the proposed 0.3 mg/kg fish tissue standard.

Response: The Department disagrees with the suggestion th at it retain the FC standard for mercury in

addition to the new fish tissue standard for methylmercury. While implementation of the 0.3 mg/kg tissue standard

for methylmercury does not entail collecting samples fro m all waterbodies previously covered by the fish

# 217 consumption water column standard for mercury, Ar izona has a robust REMAP sampling program that will

sample fish tissue from representative waterbodies th roughout the State. Also, the State Fish Consumption

Advisory Program samples targeted waterbodies where a ngling and the consumption of fish are most likely to

occur.

Because all water bodies carrying the FC designated use also have A&W standards, the Department doesn’t

believe that the removal of the water column number fo r the FC designated use is problematic. The A&W chronic

standard of 0.01 μg/L is more protective than the 0.6 μg/L fish consumption water column standard that is being

repealed in this rulemaking. Employed together, the tissu e standard for methylmercury and the chronic aquatic and

wildlife water column standard for mercury will afford in creased protection for human health over the standards in

place.

Methylmercury 0.3 mg/kg

Comment #141

Robert A. Hollander, City of Phoenix

The standards are not clear on how this criterion will be implemented. We believe that the lack of specific

provisions for applying the fish tissue criterion for permits , listings, and TMDLs will prove to be problematic for

wastewater management utilities and for ADEQ because there are number of options that can be utilized to apply

the fish tissue criterion to permits, listings and TMDLs, and the specific approach utilized could pose significant

compliance issues for wastewater agencies. We recomme nd that ADEQ use the approach adopted by the State of

Idaho which directly uses fish tissue rather than c onverting the methylmercury criterion into water column

standards. Information on the Idaho program has been prev iously provided to ADEQ and is consistent with EPA’s

Draft Methylmercury Guidance.

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

The Coalition appreciates ADEQ’s clarification in the pr eamble of the proposed rule that the proposed fish

tissue criteria for bioaccumulative pollutants in waters with fish consumption designated uses apply in lieu of, and

not in addition to, the previous water column criteria for bioaccumulative pollutants. The Coalition agrees in

principal with the fish tissue criteria approach. However, the Coalition requests that ADEQ clarify, either in the

rule or in the preamble, how the new fish tissue criteria will be translated to apply to water column testing in

AZPDES permits. Additionally, the Coalition requests th at ADEQ describe the method it proposes to use to

calculate fish tissue criteria. The Coalition recommends that ADEQ develop an implementation plan on applying

the fish tissue criteria in coordination with appropriate stakeholders.

Response: The Department adopts surface water quality standards in 18 A.A.C 11, Article 1 but

discussions of how those new or revised water quality standards will be implemented through other Department

water quality management programs are better held duri ng rulemakings on Impaired Waters Identification or

AZPDES permitting. The Department is developing an im plementation guidance document that will be adopted as

policy and will be made available for public comment, for implementing the new methylmercury fish tissue

standard in the AZPDES permit program, water quality asse ssment and impaired waters identification, and the fish

consumption advisory program. However, the adoption of th e methylmercury fish tissue standard is the first step

# 218 in the policy development process. There is currently no in tention to translate the fish tissue criterion into water

quality-based effluent limits in permits. Once the guidance is finished, it may result in additional rulemaking to

incorporate necessary provisions in standards and other rules.

Comment #142

Steven L. Spangle, Field Supervisor, US Fish And Wildlife Service

A&Wedw – acute and chronic mercury

Arizona Department of Water Quality has proposed to change the mercury standard for A&Wedw acute

from 2.6 μg/L to 2.4 μg/L and the mercury standard fo r A&Wedw chronic from 0.2 μg/L to 0.01 μg/L. Compared

to the EPA’s National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (2006) for acute mercury (1.4 μg/L), Arizona’s

number is higher. Please clarify the rationale behind this difference.

For the A&Wedw chronic mercury standard, the FWS supports ADEQ’s decision to lower the standard, but

thinks an even lower chronic standard (for all A&W de signated uses) would better protect piscivorous wildlife.

For the proposed change to the A&Wedw chronic mercury standard, ADEQ recognized the potential for mercury

to bioaccumulate from water to aquatic life was greater than originally thought.

Using a BCF of 100,000 L/kg and the proposed A&Wedw st andard of 0.01 μg/L, which is also the current

standard for A&Wc and A&Ww, we calculated a fish tissu e concentration of 1 mg/kg wet weight. Methylmercury

concentrations from 0.2-0.3 mg/kg wet weight in fish appear to be protective of bald eagles in most cases (Lusk et

al. 2005, USFWS 2003). Since 1 mg/kg is greater than 0.3 mg/kg, the proposed chronic A&W standard is not

protective of piscivorous wildlife.

Mercury bioconcentration factors as high as 1,958,000 L/kg have been documented in piscivorous wildlife

(Evers et al. 2004). Given that bioconcentration factors from water to piscivorous wildlife have been documented

as high as 1 or 2 million, we recommend that EPA and ADEQ re-evaluate the adequacy of the chronic mercury

A&W standard in the water column.

A&W – tissue-based methylmercury

The FWS supports ADEQ’s proposal to revise the Fish Consumption (FC) standard for methylmercury.

The former FC standard was based on total mercury in the water column, but ADEQ proposes to adopt a tissuebased standard for methylmercury. While this standard is designed to protect human health, Lusk et al. (2005) and

USFWS (2003) evaluated its effectiveness to protect pisc ivorous wildlife. They found that 0.3 mg/kg wet weight

in fish tissue is generally protective of piscivor ous wildlife. We recommend ADEQ expand the tissue-based

standard for methylmercury from human health to include aquatic and wildlife designated uses. This is especially

important considering the inadequacy of the chronic mercury A&W standard to protect wildlife.

Response: In the history of its surface water sampling pr ogram, the Department has rarely found mercury

in water column sampling. The concern is for bioaccumula tion in aquatic organisms that are then consumed by the

public or by wildlife. The 0.01 μg/L aquatic and wildlife standard is a compromise standard developed by the

State, EPA, and the USFWS to address the acknowledged in adequacies of the federal criterion without adopting a

standard requiring extremely expensive sample collecti on and analysis. A standard calculated using the Great

Lakes Water Quality Initiative methodology (0.0008 μg /L) would only be 0.0003 μg/L above our method

# 219 reporting limit and very possibly reasonably within the margin of error for that method.

The adopted tissue standard of 0.3 mg/Kg methylmercur y is, as the commenter pointed out, considered to

be “generally protective of piscivorous wildlife.” The co mbination of the expanded scope of the current chronic

water column standard for mercury coupled with the proposed tissue standard protects piscivorous wildlife.

Selenium

Comment #143

Benjamin R. Parkhurst, HAF, Inc., on behalf of the Pinal Creek Group

The chronic A&W standard for selenium should be changed from 2 μg/L to 5 μg/L. In its March 2005

proposed revisions to its water quality standards, ADEQ proposed to increase the chronic A&W standard for

selenium from 2 μg/L to 5 μg/L so that the standard would be consistent with US EPA’s (2004a) criterion which

is 5 μg/L. In not including this proposed revision to its water quality standards, ADEQ cited an August 18, 2005

letter from Thomas Gatz, USFWS, to Linda Taunt, ADEQ, which opposed the revision. The key points from this

letter are as follows:

1. A 2 μg/L chronic selenium standard will lead to many waters being listed as impaired when, in

reality; many will not be experiencing significant toxic effects to biota from selenium. TMDLs will

be required for these waters.

2. Further studies and analyses will be needed, including measurements of selenium in water,

sediment, macroinvertebrates, fish eggs, and aquatic bird eggs, to determine if the waters are truly

impaired.

3. The real risk from selenium is bioaccumulation, which is best determined by measurements of the

concentration of selenomethionine, not total seleni um, in water, and/or direct measurements of

selenium in biota.

To preclude the listing of many unimpaired waters with total selenium concentrations between 2 μg/L and 5

μg/L as impaired leading to unnecessary and wasteful TMDLs, it is requested that ADEQ increase the chronic

A&W standard for selenium from 2 μg/L to 5 μg/L. In addition, it is recommended that ADEQ undertake

monitoring of selenium concentrations in biota to determin e if any waters in the state are impaired from selenium

bioaccumulation.

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

Pima county supports comments made by Dr. Ben Par khurst concerning the A&W chronic standards for

selenium in Appendix A Numeric Water Quality Standards.

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

The AMA supports the removal of acute water quality criteria for selenium for aquatic and wildlife uses

for the reasons outlined in the proposal.

The AMA supports the comments of HAF Inc., on behalf of the Pinal Creek Group, requesting that ADEQ

conform the chronic selenium standard of 2 μg/L to EPA’s § 304(a) criteria recomme ndation of 5 μg/L, possibly

in conjunction with monitoring of fish tissue to determine if sediment is actually bioaccumulating in biota in those

waters where the 5 μg/L criterion is being exceeded in the water column.

# 220 D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

The Coalition requests that ADEQ revise its aquatic and wildlife selenium standard from 2 μg/L to 5 μg/L,

to be consistent with EPA’s selenium criterion continuous concentration established in 2004. This standard would

thus be more consistent with EPA’s recommendations, and would account for high selenium concentrations in

many Arizona waters due to natural background or to out-of-state irrigation-related effects from the upper

Colorado River Basin.

Robert A. Hollander, City of Phoenix

The Water Services Department understands that ADE Q is retaining the 2 μg/L selenium water quality

standard because of a request in the August, 2005 FWS le tter and is concerned that the recommendations found in

the letter are inconsistent with the comments submitte d by Everett Wilson, Chief of the FWS Division of

Environmental Quality located in Washington, D.C. FWS Headquarters office to EPA on May 19, 2005 (May

letter) in regard to EPA’s Draft Selenium Water Quality Criteria Document . While the August letter adamantly

calls for a 2 μg/L water quality standard, the May letter recommends a “safety-net water criterion of 2 μg/L and

recommends that “only when the water column criterion a nd the fish tissue criterion are both exceeded, or the fish

tissue criterion alone, would a full site-specific analysis in cluding development of intermedia translation factors be

necessary.”

Naturally occurring selenium in Arizona streams fre quently is passed through drinking water treatment

plants and on to wastewater treatment plants. Additionally, selenium is a common dietary supplement and is found

in products such as dandruff shampoos. Wastewater treatme nt facilities are not designed to remove low levels of

selenium, thus, increasing the likelihood of selenium exceedances due to pass-through. The Water Services

Department believes that it should not be held liable for sele nium that is attributable to natural sources. According

to the FWS August letter, most of Arizona’s high seleni um concentrations are produced outside of Arizona and

outside of ADEQ’s jurisdiction. This provides additional impetus to develop a better alternative to regulating

discharges of selenium from wastewater treatment plants.

The Water Services Department asks ADEQ to consid er either altering the Natural Background rule to

apply in this situation, placing the selenium standard in “reserve,” or using an alternative method for determining

compliance. The Water Services Department believes that using fish tissue and a subsequent investigation of

sources when an exceedance is found (the method recommended in the FWS May letter) would provide an

acceptable interim means of regulating selenium, especia lly since the environmental concern is for selenium

concentrations in fish tissue.

Response: The Department appreciates the issues of seleni um in Arizona’s source waters and the impact of

dischargers; however, the Department is not electing to revise the current criteria. Although the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published a nationwide § 304(a) criteria recommendation of 5 μg/L

to protect aquatic and wildlife from chronic effects of selenium, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)

recommended using a standard of 2 μg/L. After review ing nearly every major experimental and field study

conducted over the past 15 years, the USFWS did not support the use of a 5 μg/L chronic standard for selenium

because it is not scientifically valid or fully protective of fish and wildlife resources. In aggregate, the weight of

scientific evidence supporting a chronic criterion of ≤ 2 μg/L is now overwhelming. As early as 1991, the

# 221 evidence available in the scientific literature was suffici ent for Canada to issue a national water quality guideline

stipulating that the concentration of total selenium should not exceed 1 μg/L (Environment Canada 1991). Based

on data collected by the U.S. Department of Interio r’s National Irrigation Water Qu ality Program (NIWQP) from

26 study areas in 14 western states, a 5 μg/L chronic criterion for selenium is only 50-70 percent protective

(Adams et.al 1998), as opposed to the 95 percent level of protection that EPA’s national water quality criteria are

intended to achieve (Stephan et. al. 1984). The NIWQP data suggest that on a dissolved basis a criterion of 1 μg/L

would be required to be 95 percent protective, which is equivalent to a 2 μg/L criterion on a total recoverable

basis (Peterson and Nebeker 1992).

The USFWS provided a variety of conceptual bases for deriving a generally applicable chronic water

quality criterion for selenium that is protective of fi sh and wildlife with results ranging from 1-4 μg/L. The

available body of scientific evidence (the majority of which has been produced subsequent to EPA’s 1987

criterion derivation for selenium) consis tently supports an aquatic life criterion of 2 μg/L for the protection of

sensitive taxa of fish and wildlife. Even a criterion of 2 μg/L, however, can fail to be protective in specific cases

where water column contamination with selenium fails to accurately reflect food chain contamination. There is a

strong need for developing a method to link criteria directlyto food chain contamination. In the absence of sitespecific and species-specific data regarding the sensitivity of particular species and or populations, a general

criterion of 2 μg/L is required to assure adequate prot ection of threatened and endangered species of fish and

wildlife. This is especially warranted considering the steep response curves for selenium and well demonstrated

potential for selenium facilitated pathogen susceptibility th at can rapidly destroy entire populations of fish and

wildlife via epizootic events.

Sulfide

Comment #144

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

ADEQ proposes to create a new numeric water quality standard for hydrogen sulfide that was developed

based on toxicity data for species that do not reside in the Santa Cruz River.

Response: The Department disagrees. Hydrogen sulfide is a soluble, highly poisonous compound that is

appropriately regulated in effluent-dependent wate rs. The proposed hydrogen sulfide numeric water quality

standard to protect aquatic life in effluent-depende nt waters is based on EPA national § 304(a) criteria

recommendations for hydrogen sulfide to protect aquatic lif e in fresh water. The proposed criterion is based on

“Red Book” criteria values originally recommende d by EPA in 1976. EPA has not withdrawn the hydrogen

sulfide criteria from its current National Recommended Wa ter Quality Criteria, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Water (2006).

Standards are not developed based on specific species that reside in a particular waterbody, but rather are

measured on representative species that would prove protec tive of most aquatic species. In the case of the Santa

Cruz, the argument is particularly inappropriate as the rive r does not have a healthy aquatic diversity. Some of this

may be due to substrate and physical issues, but also is lik ely due to the fact that the current discharges are toxic

due to high ammonia.

# 222 Full/Partial Body Contact

Comment # 145

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

EPA adopts a federal methodology for deriving criteri a for full body contact designated use based on an

incidental ingestion rate of 10 ml/day. ADEQ however adopts a different and more stringent assumption of 15

ml/day and justifies this more stringent standard by arguing that people swim more in Arizona, but provides no

evidence for that statement. The Coalition recommends that ADEQ adopt the same methodology for deriving

criteria for full body contact designated use as used by EPA.

Additionally, ADEQ adopts the exact same incidental i ngestion rate assumptions for deriving criteria for

partial body contact designated uses as for full body contact. Clearly, the incidental inge stion rate for partial body

contact is lower than that of full body, seei ng as how one is partial and the other full.

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

EPA has adopted full body contact designated use standards based on an incidental water ingestion rate of

10 ml/day as specified in the preamble to this rulemaking. Contrary to the EPA methodology, ADEQ has used

more stringent criteria assuming a water ingestion of 15 ml/day. ADEQ has not provided a substantial scientific

rationale for taking this more conservative approach. Ther efore, Pima County asks that ADEQ revise its standards

for this rulemaking to comport with the EPA methodology and standards.

Similarly, ADEQ has used full body contact ingestion ra tes to derive the proposed standards for partial

body contact in these proposed rules. ADEQ provides no mean ingful scientific discussion to justify this overly

protective action. Partial body contact standards were developed to account for activities such as wading that

result in a significant decrease in the potential amount of wa ter ingested during the activity as compared with full

body contact activities such as swimming. ADEQ should a dopt the same assumptions for partial body contact

incidental ingestion rate as those relied upon by EPA.

Michael Garry, on behalf of the Pinal Creek Group

We note that the numerical standards for full-body contact (FBC) with surface water were modified in the

2007 draft to incorporate a water ingestion rate of 15 mL /day, consistent with our 2005 comments, and that this

modification has been retained in the 2008 draft. Howeve r, the numerical standards for partial-body contact (PBC)

continue to assume a level of exposure equal to FBC. The PBC water quality standards should reflect the lower

potential for exposure relative to FBC standards. Thus , we again request that ADEQ consider reducing the

ingestion rate under PBC to reflect lower e xposure potential relative to a FBC water body.

Response: The Department believes the adopted revisions to the water ingestion exposure assumptions

used to calculate the numeric criteria represent more r ealistic and reasonable water ingestion assumptions than

those used to calculate the existing criteria. The exis ting numeric criteria for the FBC and PBC designated uses

were calculated using 50 ml/day as the exposure assumption. In this rulemaking, a more realistic exposure of 15

ml/day is used to represent the incidental water i ngestion associated with full body contact or partial body

recreation. See “Methodologies for Deriving Criteria for the Full Body Contact Designated Use” in the Preamble

Section by Section Discussion in Appendix A, Numeric Water Quality Criteria. While EPA has used an incidental

# 223 ingestion rate of 10 ml/day, states are at liberty to us e and justify alternative rates, however, EPA does not make

any national § 304(a) recommendations for water quality cr iteria based on incidental ingestion of water from

recreation . The Department stands by its reasons stated in the Preamble for using an incidental ingestion rate of

15 ml/day for recreational activities in Arizona. As ther e is not a separate methodology for calculating the PBC

criteria, the Department used the FBC methodology for non-carcinogens recognizing that the limited exposure

envisioned under partial body contact would not give rise to excess cancer risk. The Department disagrees that a

lower ingestion rate is called for. While adults may have limited expos ure to water in partial body contact

scenarios, infants and small children, the most sensitiv e populations, have an equally high potential for exposure

in both full and partial body contact contexts (e.g., hand to mouth).

Comment #146

Michael Garry, Exponent, on behalf of the Pinal Creek Group

ADEQ applies a fish consumption rate of 17.5 g/day in deriving fish consumption criteria. However, as

noted on page 4-24 of EPA’s Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of

Human Health (2000), a consumption rate of 17.5 g/day “...repr esents the 90th percentile of the 1994-96 CSFII

data.” We recommend ADEQ modify the text on page 970 of the proposed standards to clarify that 17.5 g/day

represents a high-end national fish consumption rate. This will underscore the protectiveness of the fish

consumption criteria, even for individuals who are high-end fish consumers.

We note that in the 2008 draft standards, ADEQ provi ded all input values (including bioconcentration

factors, RSCs, and RfDs) used to calculate the numeri cal standards for those chemicals for which the criteria

changed relative to previous standards. This is an excelle nt way to provide transparen cy in the calculations, avoid

confusion in how specific criteria were derived, and a llow for meaningful input from reviewers. We recommend

ADEQ include an additional table providing the bioconcentr ation factors, RSCs, and RfDs used to derive the

numerical criteria, along with references for the source of those assumptions. Along this same line, we recommend

that the equations used to derive the standards e xplicitly include the necessary unit conversion factors.

Response: The Department appreciates the comment on “high end” national fish assumption and will

clarify that in the Preamble. The Department agrees that a tabular presentation of all the input values, equations

and units would be useful for the public to follow in setting standards and will consider preparing such a

document for use in the future.

Relative Source Contribution (RSC)

Comment #147

Janet Hashimoto, Chief; EPA Monitoring & Assessment Office

In calculating several of the proposed numeric crite ria, ADEQ assumed a less stringent Relative Source

Contribution (RSC) than EPA’s recommended default RSC of 20%. RSC relates to the percentage of total

exposure to a pollutant from water versus other sources, such as diet (e.g., a 20% RSC conservatively assumes

that 80% of total exposure comes from other sources). In the proposed rule, ADEQ assumes a RSC of 40% or

50% for barium, boron, 1,1 dichloroethylene, nitrate, nitr ite, and toluene with respect to one or more of the

# 224 following beneficial uses: Full Body Contact, Partial Body Contact, Fish Consumption, and/or Domestic Water

Source.

RSC strongly influences the resulting proposed standa rd. A less conservative RSC assumption is acceptable

if it can be demonstrated that other sources and routes of exposure are not anticipated for the pollutant in question,

based on information about its known/anticipated uses and chemical/physical properties. However, ADEQ’s

proposed rule does not contain justification for assumi ng a 40% to 50% RSC for the six numeric criteria noted.

We recommend that ADEQ either provide justification for these values or use the default RSC of 20%.

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

The Coalition requested that ADEQ adopt language allowi ng for chemical-specific evaluations of relative

source contribution (“RSC”) rather than rely solely on the default RSC of 20%. ADEQ has adopted alternative

RSCs for certain contaminants (such as for barium), dem onstrating that chemical-specific evaluations are clearly

called for in certain circumstances. The Coalition recommends that ADEQ provide for greater flexibility in relying

on chemical-specific evaluations of RSC, and in par ticular allow for reliance on the subtraction approach

described in EPA’s Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human

Health (2000).

Michael Garry, Exponent, on behalf of the Pinal Creek Group

Our 2005 comments commented on the use of a default relative source contribution (RSC) term of 0.2

rather than the use of chemical-specific information when available. We note that ADEQ has incorporated

alternative RSC terms for a few chemicals in their 2008 draft standards (e.g., RSC of 0.5 for barium). The

regulations should have flexibility to allow for a chemical -specific evaluation of the science if the standard is

exceeded or if new information becomes available. For example, as we noted in our comments, EPA’s draft

reference dose (RfD) for cadmium is intended to be protec tive of exposures in excess of diet, a major source of

cadmium exposure. Therefore, in the future, a RSC term for cadmium is unnecessary when calculating health risks

associated with water exposures. We recommend that sp ecific language be incorporated into the standards

allowing for a chemical-specific evaluation of RSCs and the mechanism for doing so, including the ability to use

the subtraction approach described in EPA’s Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the

Protection of Human Health (2000) and discussed in our December 15, 2005, technical memorandum.

Response: The Department currently provides for chemical-specific evaluations of relative source

contribution within the water quality standard derivati on process. However, it is important that any such

recalculation of the relative source contribution be done on the strength of adequate reviewed and published

scientific data. At present there are nine proposed sta ndards where an RSC other than the default 20 percent is

used. In each case these were adjusted on the strength of EPA’s published RSC values.

The recalculation of an RSC value is a resource and da ta intensive project with an uncertain outcome. As

an example, the recalculation of the RSC for cadmium illustrates the complexity of developing reliable chemicalspecific RSC values. Cadmium is a heavy-metal used in a number of industrial processes, and has been associated

with both occupational and non-occupational exposures. Envi ronmental levels of cadmium have been increasing

from smelting, cement production, and combustion of fossil fuels. The major route of exposure for the nonsmoking general population is via food and tobacco is an important source of cadmium uptake in smokers.

# 225 Drinking water does not appear to be a significant source of cadmium exposure. Cadmium is classified as a B1 or

probable human carcinogen and the lone reason an RfD (and for that matter the RSC) is used to calculate the

human health water quality standard is that an oral can cer slope factor has yet to be published by the EPA. The

bioconcentration factor for cadmium ranges as high as 44,000 in laboratory studies. These factors would make it

very complex to calculate a reliable RSC for cadmium using the subtraction method. Since water is considered an

insignificant source of cadmium, the RSC from that source would necessarily be small.

Boron and 1,1 Dichloroethylene both are calculated usi ng the 20 percent default RSC, as preferred by EPA.

Use of the RSC was deemed not applicable for both nitr ate and nitrite due to the assumptions used in the

calculation of the RfD. Infants are the sensitive subpopulati on being protected when analyzing risk from nitrates

and nitrites. The main exposure pathways for infants are through drinking water. Long-term full-body contact is

not an assumed use for this population group. A relative source contribution of 40 percent was determined for

toluene because volatile chemicals are much less likel y to be found in food and soil. Also, ambient air

concentrations for toluene are decreasing steadily with the half-life of toluene in the atmosphere ranging from

three hours to slightly greater than one day.

The following is a table of relative source contribution factors greater than 20 percent used in the

calculation of Arizona’s water quality standards.

PARAMETER RfD OCSF RSC DWS FBC PBC FC Citations

Antimony 4.00E-04 NA 0.4 6 747 747 640 3,4,5,6

Barium 7.00E-02 NA 0.5 2,000 98,000 98,000 2,3,5,6

Carbon tetrachloride 7.00E-04 1.30E-01 0.4 5 11 1307 2 6

Fluoride 6.00E-02 D 0.5 4,000 140,000 140,000 2,3,6

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 6.00E-03 NA 0.4 50 11,200 1,200 74 6

Nickel 2.00E-02 NA 0.3 210 28,000 28,000 511 1,6

Nitrate 1.60E+00 NA 1.0 10,00

0 3,733,333 3,733,333 2,6

Nitrite 1.00E-01 NA 1.0 1,000 233,333 233,333 1,2,6

Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2 NA 2.00E-01 0.5 0.2 7 93,333 4 6

Toluene 2.00E-01 D 0.4 1,000 373,333 373,333 29,90

7 6,7

Citations

1 Drinking Water Criteria Document on Nitrate/Nitrite, U.S.EPA (1990)

2 Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality, Health Canada (2003).

3 Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, WHO (2003)

4 Human Health Criteria Calculation Matrix, EPA-822-R-02-012

5 Minnesota Health Risk Limits for Groundwater Rule (1994)

# 226 6 Risk Assessment for Chemicals in Drinking Water: Estimation of Relative Source

Contribution, R.A. Howd, J.P. Brown, OEHHA, California Environmental Protection

Agency

7 Public Health Goal for Toluene In Drinking Water, OEHHA, 1999

APPENDIX B. SURFACE WATER AND DESIGNATED USES

Full/Partial Body Contact

Comment #148

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Associ ation of Governments (PAG)

ADEQ plans to apply Partial Body Contact (PBC) standard s to urban lakes to protect recreational uses of

boating and wading. For several compounds, the proposed PBC standards are more stringent than A&W w

standards and A&W eph standards. PBC standards need to be set using technically sound rationale because they

will become significant benchmarks for urban lakes and for urban stormwater. According to our PAG

jurisdictional members, ADEQ has established the standards for PBC recreational use by assuming the same

exposure pathway as for Full Body Contact, which are used for swimming use and are based on an assumed

amount of ingestion. However, ingestion criteria are inappropriate for Partial B ody Contact exposure, which

involves dermal exposure only. This approach is incons istent and should not be implemented in rule until the

standards for dermal exposure are estab lished, technically sound and defensible.

It is unclear from the rule whether ADEQ feels it is a ppropriate to apply PBC standards to stormwater, and

if so, how and where the standards should be assessed. ADEQ has stated in MS4 stakeholder groups that they

must apply the standards, in whatever manner they are st ated in the Surface Water Quality Standards rule. In the

rule, PBC defined as appropriate for surface waters bei ng used for recreational purposes, but recreational use of

stormwater is discouraged by MS4s and is not common at, or near, MS4 outfalls. ADEQ should clarify whether

PBC standards are appropriate for wet weather flows in Arizona.

Fred H. Gray, City of Tucson, Parks and Recreation Department

ADEQ expects PBC levels to be used at urban lakes to protect recreational uses of boating and wading.

PBC standards are more stringent than A&W standards for about 46 compounds, some of which have no standard

for A&W protection. Because the PBC standards become significant benchmarks for urban lakes, we need to

assure that PBC standards have been set using technically sound rationale. ADEQ has established the standards

for PBC recreational use by assuming the same exposur e pathway as for Full Body Contact. Full Body Contact

standards are for swimming use and are based on an assumed amount of ingestion.

This approach is inconsistent with the rule definiti on of the term “Partial Body Contact,” which states that

in this type of exposure “ingestion of the water is not likely.”

Jim F. DuBois, City of Tucson – Department of Transportation

ADEQ expects PBC levels to be used in the context of municipal stormwater permits. The City of Tucson

and our Phase I stakeholder group questioned the appropr iateness of PBC standards for stormwater during our

# 227 permit discussions this past year with ADEQ. We believe that stormwater should not be held to PBC because the

PBC criterion assumes recreational uses as the exposure pa thway, and stormwater flows are not typically subject

to recreational use. MS4s discourage boa ting and wading in stormwater flows.

Municipalities are concerned about the PBC standards because they become significant benchmarks for

MS4s permits and because ADEQ expects PBC levels to a pply at urban lakes to protect recreational uses of

boating and wading. ADEQ should ensure that PBC standa rds have been set using technically sound rationale.

ADEQ has established the standards for PBC recreational use by assuming the same exposure pathway as for Full

Body Contact. FBC standards are for swimming use a nd are based on an assumed amount of ingestion.

ADEQ should delete PBC standards from the rule until appropriate data can be developed for dermal

exposure. Alternatively, ADEQ should identify a lower ingestion level and lesser frequency of exposure for

boating and wading activities.

Response: While ingestion is not likely for the partial body contact (PBC) use, it is an important pathway

when considering that young children, having a much lower body weight, higher metabolism, and who may be

undergoing sensitive developmental stages, may come in contact with these waters. Smaller children could

become completely submerged or transfer water to their mouths on their hands. Infants and toddlers often may not

have yet developed the defensive reactions that would prevent the ingestion of large amounts of water in the event

of an accident. The Department addresses the episodic a nd hopefully rare nature of these events by not applying

the cancer endpoint to the PDB use where long-term frequent exposure is minimized. Currently, all waters of the

United States in Arizona, except listed canals, have a body contact standard. This is keeping with the

fishable/swimmable goals of the Clean Water Act and the Department’s mission to protect human health.

The standards that apply to stormwater are those applicable to the water receiving the stormwater

discharge. PBC standards apply to stormwater discharging to a waterbody where PBC standards apply; the FBC

standards apply to stormwater discharging to a waterbody where FBC standards apply. It is understood that MS4s

and others do not intend for, or encourage, recreation within stormwater. However, it is equally clear that children

and others playing in stormwater is a common occurrence and documented routinely by news pictures and videos.

The Department is aware of the challenges in meeting this standard during storm events particularly as it applies

to E. coli from MS4 discharges. MS4 permits do not have discha rge limitations based on the standards because of

the applicable “maximum extent practicable” standard in the Clean Water Act, but achieving the standards

continues to be the ultimate goal.

Fish Consumption

Comment #149

Claire L. Zucker, Pima Association of Governments (PAG

Fred H. Gray, City of Tucson, Parks and Recreation Department

Fish consumption standards are applied to urban lake s such as Kennedy and Lakeside in the Tucson region.

However, these lakes are not managed for propagation of fish as envisioned by the Clean Water Act Section

303(c). Fish taken by fishers from Lakeside Lake were st ocked by Arizona Fish and Game Department and were

raised to catchable size elsewhere. The Bioconcentrati on Factor used by ADEQ to develop the Fish Consumption

# 228 Standards is inappropriate for this type of managed fish ery because bioconcentration from Lakeside Lake’s waters

is insignificant. The impact on human health from concentration of pollutants in fish tissue in the lakes would be

due primarily to the waters in which the fi sh have been raised to catchable size.

Response: While the lakes cited are “put and take” fisheries where larger fish are stocked, it is nevertheless

important that water quality be maintained according to Arizona water quality standards and Clean Water Act

goals. Because channel catfish that are the main fish st ocked in the cited lakes and could survive and reproduce,

there is a chance that some fish, if not caught, could live long enough to bioaccumulate pollutants. The best way to

prevent the bioaccumulation of toxic pollutants and to prot ect this recreational fishery is the preservation of the

fish consumptions standards presently in place.

Since anglers catch fish for consumption at Kennedy Lake and Lakeside Lake, fish consumption is an

existing use. As such, it must be listed as a designated use in Appendix B of the surface water quality standards.

The Department does not have a subcategory of the fish consumption designated use nor is there scientifically

defensible data to defend a subcat egory for lakes that are stocked.

Boulder Creek

Comment #150

Teague J. Raica, Freeport-McMoRan Bagdad

The two Boulder Creek segments listed in Appendi x B for the Bill Williams watershed both include

agricultural irrigation (“Agl”) as an applicable designated use. FCX is not aware of any crop irrigation on Boulder

Creek especially given the location and topography associat ed with Boulder Creek. FCX respectfully requests that

Agl be removed as a designated use from both segments of Boulder Creek.

Response: While the commenter may be correct that there is no crop irrigation in the watershed, in

accordance with the CWA, the Departme nt cannot remove a designated use without completing a use attainability

analysis (UAA). The Department is willing to work with FCX-Bagdad prior to the next rulemaking to develop the

evidence required in a UAA.

EDW Listing of Unnamed Wash Tributary to Cave Creek

Comment #151

Robert A. Hollander, City of Phoenix

The Water Services Department previously comment ed on this proposed listing in our letter to Steve

Pawlowski dated December 5, 2007, which is attached and incorporated by reference. Appendix B lists the

Unnamed Wash in the Middle Gila River below the City of Phoenix Cave Creek Water Reclamation Facility as an

EDW. The Water Services Department does not agree that this water should be listed simply because there is a

permitted discharge (i.e., City of Phoenix Cave Creek Water Reclamation Plant (CCWRP)). The last discharge

from the facility occurred on March 30, 2005. As evidence that the receiving water is not an EDW, the Water

Services Department attached photographs, to the refere nced letter, showing the unnamed tributary both upstream

and downstream from the outfall. These photographs clearly s how that there is no established aquatic life despite

the fact that the CCWRP has been a permitted facility si nce January 24, 2000. In addition, there are no riparian

# 229 plant species in this segment. The bank vegetation in cludes cactus, creosote, saltbush and other non-riparian

species. The stream bottom is dry and consists almost en tirely of sand. Clearly, this wash is not dependent upon

the effluent to support an aquatic ecosystem or a riparian habitat.

The Water Services Department requests ADEQ provide the data and information used to determine that

this water body “consists of treated wastew ater” as required by the EDW definition.

Response: The City of Phoenix states in its comment that the water body that receives sporadic discharges

from the Cave Creek Water Reclamation Plant (CCWRP) is an ephemeral tributary to Cave Creek Wash. As

previously outlined in Responses #108 and 109, by definition discharging of effluent to an ephemeral systems,

creates an EDW which must be listed in rule by the Director. We note that the CCWRP may be the type of facility

that the flexibility in permitting in R18-11-113E was developed for.

EDW Listing of Mule Gulch

Comment #152

Michael Jaworski, Freeport- McMoRan - Copper Queen Branch

The segment of Mule Gulch no longer qualifies as effluent-depedent as the Bisbee WWTP was

decommissioned in early 2006 and has not discharged into Mule Gulch since the first quarter of 2006. The

designated uses for this segment of Mule Gulch should be changed from aquatic and wildlife (effluent-depedent

water) (“A&Wedw”) and partial body contact (“PBC”) to aquatic and wildlife (ephemeral) (“A&We”) and PBC.

Response: While the commenter may be correct that there is no longer discharges to Mule Gulch from the

WWTP, in accordance with the CWA, the Department cannot remove a designated use without completing a use

attainability analysis (UAA). The Department is willi ng to work with Freeport-McMoRan-Copper Queen Branch

prior to the next rulemaking to develop the evidence required in a UAA.

EDW Listing of Siphon Draw

Comment #153

Michele Van Quathem, Superstition Mountai ns Community Facilities District No. 1

ADEQ proposes to include a stretch of Siphon Draw in Appendix B to the surface water quality rules.

SMCFD opposes inclusion of Siphon Draw in Appendix B as an EDW on several grounds:

1. SMCFD’s Effluent is Not “Wastewater.” Use of th e term “wastewater” in the proposed definition of

“effluent-dependent water” indicates untreated sewage is being discharged to the effluent-dependent

water. SMCFD does not discharge untreated “wastewater.”

2. In listing Siphon Draw as an “effluent-dependent wa ter,” ADEQ fails to consider the nature of flow

in Siphon Draw and its nexus with any water of the United States.

3. SMCFD’s discharge location is not in Siphon Dr aw. SMCFD’s “outfall” is not in Siphon Draw, and

the coordinates provided for the point wh ere flows reach Siphon Draw are incorrect.

For all the reasons stated above, the Department should remove Siphon Draw from Appendix B. Siphon

Draw is not a jurisdictional water, nor is there suffici ent evidence to establish a significant nexus between the

SMCFD discharge and any water of the United States.

# 230 Response: The Department disagrees that: 1) wastewater means ‘untreated sewage’ and that SMCFD’s

discharge is not wastewater, see Response #14; and 2) that Siphon Draw has been determined as a nonjurisdictional water, see Response #4. See Responses #19, #20 and #106 regarding the need for a sufficient

volume of discharge.

As for the discharge location, the following information is quoted from the Fact Sheet for the SMFCD’s

AZPDES permit:

“It should be noted that permit #AZ0023931, which wa s issued on April 9, 1996 and expired on May 11,

2001, was drafted to authorize discharge to Weekes Wash, eventual tributary to Queen Creek in the Middle Gila

River Basin. While the discharge location has not changed, the name of the receiving water in this draft permit

was changed to Siphon Draw. Weekes Wash and Siphon Draw meet just upstream of Superstition Mountain CFD

No. 1’s outfall where they are both impounded by the Powerline Flood Retarding Structure. The ephemeral wash

that continues on past this point, and that the Supe rstition Mountain WWTP discharges to, is not named on the

U.S.G.S. 1981 topographic map of the area (Desert Well). However, the wash is better known locally as Siphon

Draw and a search for these two names on the USGS National Mapping Information website showed that Weekes

Wash ends where the two waterways meet while Siphon Draw continues on past their juncture. For this reason,

the name of the receiving water was changed from Weekes Wash to Siphon Draw. Siphon Draw is an eventual

tributary to Queen Creek. According to the Tributary Ru le in A.A.C. outlined above, A&We and PBC standards

apply to all tributaries to listed waters. Siphon Draw connects with Roosevelt Canal which joins Queen Creek

about 15 miles downstream of Superstition Mountain’s discharge point.”

In high flow events, it is possible and even likely that flows from the SMCFD facility will reach Queen

Creek; therefore the Department considers th e designation of Siphon Draw to be accurate.

EDW listing of Mineral Creek

Comment #154

Scott Thomas, (Fennemore Craig, PC),

ASARCO formally submitted information in support of the removal or modification of certain designated

uses currently applicable to the tunnel and lined channe l at the Asarco Ray Mine. These manmade features were

constructed to convey flow in Mineral Creek around mining operations. Work on the lined channel and an

extension to the pre-existing tunnel segment was complete d subsequent to the last triennial review which was

finalized in March 2002.

Response: The information submitted appears to meet the requirements for a use attainability analysis

(UAA). The Department will begin a comprehensive review of the information and, if warranted, propose the

changes in a separate rulemaking.

Wagner Wash

Comment #155

Robert D Anderson (Fennemore Craig), El Dorado Holdings (EDH)

EDH noted that the Department has proposed designating Wagner Wash from the outfall of the Festival

# 231 Ranch WRF (33°39'14"/112°40'18") to its confluence with the Hassayampa River as EDW, a distance of

approximately 6 miles.

Festival Ranch WRF will discharge to Wagner Wash only when recharge and reuse options are not

available. With this sort of sporadic discharge, and with the evapo-transpiration and percolation losses along the

way, it is exceedingly unlikely that any effluent from the Festival Ranch WRF would ever reach the lower

stretches of Wagner Wash.

For the foregoing reasons, EDH requests that if Wagner Wash is to be classified as an EDW, only that

portion in reasonable proximity to the Festival Ranch WR F (i.e., that portion in which treated wastewater may

actually flow) be so classified. The balance of Wagner Wa sh should remain unlisted (as it is now) or be listed as

an ephemeral water.

Response : The Department has reviewed the listing and the capacity of the WWTP and agrees that the

description of the EDW segment of Wagner Wash should initially be limited to 2 kilometers below the Festival

Ranch WRF outfall. The entry in Appendix B has been revised to reflect this change.

Verde River

Comment #156

Wang Yu, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

EPNR has concerns pertaining to the proposed total phosphorus and total nitrogen standards established for

the Verde River and its tributaries indicated on page 1346 of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Volume 14,

Issue 17).

In addition to other designated uses, the approximate 2-mile portion of the Verde River located within

SRPMIC has always been regarded by its members for its sacred, cultural, and ceremonial significance. It is

understood that these proposed standards apply only on the non-tribal portion of the Verde River and its tributaries

upstream of SRPMIC, nevertheless the proposed standard s established by ADEQ for total phosphorus (0.10 mg/L)

for annual mean and 1.00 mg/L for single maximum) and total nitrogen (1.00 for annual mean and 3.00 for single

maximum) still appear to be a bit too high with respect to the sacred, cultural, and ceremonial significance by

SRPMIC on the portion of its Verde River downstream.

Response: The Department has not made any changes to this Section. However, the Department

acknowledges that it does not ha ve jurisdiction to adopt surface water quality standards for the Verde River and its

tributaries located within the tribal lands of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. The Department is

committed to working proactively with tribal governments to ensure off-site discharges, when and where

proposed, are compatible with on-reservation designated uses.

APPENDIX C. SITE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS

Site-Specific Standard for Pinto Creek

The Department received a number of comments concerning its development of the site-specific

# 232 standard for copper on Pinto Creek. These comments are on file with the Department. The commenters were

generally opposed to the proposed standard of 42 μg/L for a variety of reasons including: consideration of past

mining activities in the area, aerial deposition of copper fro m current and historic mines, impacts of wildfire,

and the proximity of mining roads as well as other di sturbances to areas thought to the “natural” background

sites. The Department has reviewed these comments in detail, including photos of disturbed areas upstream of

one or more of the Department’s sampling locations , which is new information to the Department. The

Department had the modeling calculations revised based on the new information, and the resulting change in

the proposed standard was significant. Based on the De partment’s review of the new information and the

modeling results, the Department is withdrawing the site-specific standard for Pinto Creek and will re-propose

the standard under a separate rulema king. The Department will notify each person who provided a comment on

the Pinto Creek site-specific standard and othe r affected parties of the future rulemaking.

Yuma East Wetlands

Comment #157

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club

 Grand Canyon Chapter

The Sierra Club understands that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service support the site-specific standards

for the Yuma East Wetlands but have several questions.

Will these site-specific standards adequately protect wildlife since selenium is highly toxic to wildlife

and invertebrate species. The proposed rule stat es that the site-specific standard of 2.2 μ g/L of selenium is

based on the natural background levels in that section of the Colorado River. ADEQ should focus on affording

the highest protection for sensitive wildlife species. Exce ss levels of chlorine can also be toxic and can

contribute to a decrease in reproductive performance and increases in embryonic mortality. We would

appreciate some further explanation of how this standard was developed.

The proposed rule states that the Director has dete rmined that a net ecological benefit will be achieved

through these site-specific standards. However, due to the toxicity of both selenium and chlorine, it is possible that

the Yuma Wetlands may become a wildlife sink rather than suitable habitat and could adversely impact resident

species as well as migratory birds.

Response: The site-specific standards for chlorine and se lenium that apply to the Yuma East Wetlands

project will protect aquatic life and wildlife, including th reatened and endangered species. The 2.2 μg/L Se site

specific standard is based on the greatest concentration of selenium that the City of Yuma has measured in the

Yuma East Wetlands receiving water. It represents th e background concentration of Se in the lower Colorado

River. The less stringent TRC criteria were derived usi ng EPA recalculation procedures. The City of Yuma used

the recalculation procedures following ADEQ recommendati ons for the recalculation. The rulemaking modifies

the water quality standard applicable to this discharge fo r total residual chlorine to protect aquatic life from acute

and chronic toxicity. The acute criterion is 33 μg/L and the chronic criterion is 20 μg/L. These criteria are based

on EPA recalculation procedures and the species list for chlorine toxicity, which is located on the EPA website at

www.epa.gov/region7/water/chlorine. The only adjustment ma de in the recalculation procedure was to remove

the organism Daphnia magna from the toxicity dataset. The resulting chlorine criteria, calculated from the

# 233 modified dataset, are the criteria of 33 μg/L and 20 μg/L. See Appendix C, Site Specific Standards explanation in

section #5 of the Preamble.

As the commenter notes, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv ice provided a letter of support for the proposed sitespecific standards for chlorine and for selenium. The USFWS specifically supported the adoption of the acute and

chronic total residual chlorine standards of 33 μg/L a nd 20 μg/L, respectively, and the proposed standard for

selenium of 2.2 μg/L for the Yuma East Wetlands. The USFWS stated that the proposed modification of the

selenium from 2.0 μg/L to 2.2 μg/L represented a minima l hazard to the aquatic and wildlife resources using the

wetlands. It should be noted that the proposed site-specific standard for selenium is still more stringent than EPA’s

nationally recommended criterion of 5 μg/L to protect freshwater aquatic life.

ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT

Comment #158

Fred H. Gray, City of Tucson – Parks and Recreation Department

In its economic impact statement in the preamble to its proposed rule, ADEQ specifically identifies only

private wastewater utilities, mining operations and electric u tilities as persons directly affected by this rulemaking,

with vague references to the real estate and agricultural industries.

ADEQ does not identify municipalities and the tax-payi ng public. This rulemaking proposes changes that

will inevitably increase costs to many Arizona citizens a nd municipalities. ADEQ makes no efforts to discuss any

less intrusive or less costly alternative methods of ach ieving the purpose of the proposed rule. ADEQ’s analysis

should address the increased monitoring and maintenance costs imposed by enactment of this rule on management

of urban lakes by municipalities. For example, the City of Tucson spent $ 250,000.00 to build and operate an

aeration system to treat water at Lakeside Lake to manage for nutrient impacts. In the past year and a half, the City

of Tucson has been forced to spend and additional $ 277,000.00 pertaining to required permits, and monitoring

imposed by ADEQ. The City has also been required to ab andon past efforts to use reclaimed water at the lake.

Response: The example of Lakeside Lake underscores the inherent incompatibility of using reclaimed

water as the sole source of water for lakes and still m eet surface water standards. The City of Tucson was not

required to stop using reclaimed water at Lakeside, the choice was made based on the degree of phosphorus

reduction needed (and cost of doing so) that was laid out in the TMDL report. Even before a proposed

chlorophyll-a criterion, Lakeside Lake wa s listed as impaired due to low DO, high pH, and a history of fish kills.

General EIS Comments

The following comments refer primarily to costs associated with the rulemaking. The comments are

produced here but the reader is directed to the Economi c Impact Statement (EIS) for the comprehensive review

of costs associated with the rulemaking. Topic-specific responses to comments not dir ectly related to costs are

provided in this portion of the Department’s response to comments.

The Department appreciates that the following comments acknowledge the difficulty of quantifying

costs and benefits of environmental rulemaking, whic h is particularly difficult at the proposed rulemaking

# 234 stage. A proposed rule is required to have only a prel iminary summary, as stated in A.R.S. § 41-1001(14)(a)(v):

“The economic, small business and consumer impact summa ry, or in the case of a pr oposed rule, a preliminary

summary and a solicitation of input on the accuracy of the summary.” The Department has considered all

comments received for the economic, small business, and consumer impact statement that is submitted to the

Governor’s Regulatory Review Council as required under A.R.S. § 41-1024(C).

Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association

It is admittedly difficult to quantify costs and bene fits of environmental rulemakings. However, ADEQ

must make at least a good faith effort to demonstrate th at the proposed benefits of the rule exceed its costs.

The AMA can readily identify at least four manners in which private businesses could face increased costs

based on these proposed rules: (1) the proposal to apply EDW criteria to discharges to ephemeral washes will

require many discharge to meet stringent chronic aquatic life criteria for the first time; (2) as noted above, the

proposed OAW designation of Davidson Canyon has already imposed costs on at least one entity, and the

designation could impose potentially far greater costs in th e future based on Tier 3 antidegradation requirements;

(3) also as noted above, the ban on wastewater discharges to four ephemeral washes upgradient of the Ak-Chin

Indian Reservation (this presumably was adopted in light of specific concerns with one or more existing or

proposed discharges, so some cost information on the e ffects of the ban should be obtainable by ADEQ); and (4)

the general tightening of numeric water quality criteri a contained in the rule and the adoption of new

implementation procedures for narrative criteria, including the new biological criterion.

The foregoing is not intended to be an exclusive summary of the potential increased costs, just an

identification of some of the more obvious cases of incr eased costs that could be imposed by the proposed rule.

David E McNeil, City of Tempe

The summary of economic, small business and consumer impact does not accurately account for costs and

benefits of the proposed rule.

1. The summary does not address the monetary costs associated with nutrient removal to meet the

criteria established under the narrative nutrient st andard. With drought and climate change making

the increased use of reclaimed water for lakes a n ecessity in Arizona, the rule fails to address the

costs associated with the extreme nut rient removal that ADEQ is proposing.

2. The summary confuses the economic benefits associ ated with the general concept of “clean water”

with the economic benefits that will result directly or indirectly from the changes that are being

made to water quality standards through the proposed rulemaking. Economic benefits resulting from

the rule should be limited to benefits that will in cur from the changes in standards and that would

not otherwise be realized in the absence of the rule changes, not the benefits that incur from “clean

water” in general.

Robert Hollander, City of Phoenix

The Water Services Department believes that the preamble inadequately addresses the costs of the rules to

political subdivisions, specifically, rega rding wastewater treatment and othe r facilities operated by municipalities

and counties. The Preamble devotes a substantial amount of time discussing the costs of complying with the

# 235 numeric water quality criteria for ammonia. But other i ssues were not adequately addressed including: the

potential cost of compliance with the proposed methylme rcury standard of 0.3 mg/kg and the impact of the

Narrative Nutrient Standard Implementation Procedures.

ADEQ has not clarified how they will implement the (methylmuercury) standard and if it will be

implemented in permits. Considering the very low Aquatic and Wildlife chronic standard of 0.01 μg/L proposed

for dissolved mercury, the Water Services Department re mains concerned that ADEQ will derive a water columnbased permit limit for methylmercury based on the fish tissu e criterion. This could result in extremely low permit

limits with a huge cost issue for dischargers. ADEQ need s to clarify how they intend to implement the proposed

methylmercury standard and/or provide an analysis of the potential costs of removing this contaminant to comply

with the standard and anticipated permit limits.

D. Lee Decker (Gallagher & Kennedy), Surface Water Quality Standards Coalition

In its economic impact statement in the preamble to its proposed rule, ADEQ specifically identifies only

private wastewater utilities, mining operations and electric u tilities as persons directly affected by this rulemaking,

with vague references to the real estate and agricu ltural industries. ADEQ does not identify other persons and

industries impacted by this proposed rule, including those in the construction industry, municipalities, and tourist

industries. ADEQ provides no cost-benefit analysis of th e proposed rule and only briefly mentions that “some

business, industry, and consumers may have to pay higher utility bills for sewer services” but provides no analysis

comparing these costs to the benefits of the proposed rule.

The Coalition requests that ADEQ reformulate its preamble to the proposed rule to (1) address the broad

spectrum of citizens, industries, municipalities and small bu sinesses impacted by this rule; (2) provide a true costbenefit analysis and not simply a catalog of the general be nefits of clean water and a brief mention of potentially

higher utility bills; (3) recognize all costs imposed on c itizens, small businesses, employers and municipalities

beyond simply higher utility bills; and (4) consider poten tial alternative methods to minimize the costs and

administrative burdens of this proposed rule.

Michael Gritzuk, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

ADEQ, in its EIS fails to address all the required an alysis required by statute. ADEQ specifically mentions

only wastewater utilities, mining operations, and electric utilities as potentially impacted by this rulemaking.

Others that will certainly be impacted that ADEQ fails to mention are the construction and tourism industries as

well as municipalities throughout Arizona. ADEQ also fails to provide a substantial discussion of the potential

impacts of this rule upon small businesses including identif ication of those businesses that might be negatively

impacted, a discussion of anticipated administrative costs to small businesses, and analysis of any methods ADEQ

might undertake to reduce the regulatory burden on small business. ADEQ also provides no meaningful analysis

of the potential costs of this rulemaking to the anticipated benefits.

Pima County has commissioned an analysis of the anticipat ed costs to county ratepayers that will result as a

consequence of this rulemaking. The cost for Pima Count y government to comply with just three of the numerous

proposed new rule provisions is conservatively estimat ed at between 90 million to 100 billion dollars. ADEQ has

failed to properly address the impact of these costs upon the businesses and ratepayers within Pima County and

has failed to discuss what steps ADEQ could take to minimize these impacts.

# 236 Pima County requests that ADEQ carefully consider all the impacts of these rules upon Arizona citizens

and to fully comply with state statutory requirements by revising and republishing its EIS for stakeholder review

and comment.

12. Any other matters prescribed by stat ute that are applicable to the specifi c agency or to any specific rule or

class of rules:

None

13. Incorporations by reference a nd their location in the rules:

R18-11-110(B) “2005 Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System,”

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (October, 2005)

R18-11-112(D)(4)(b) “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,” 50 CFR 17.11 (Revised 2005)

“Endangered and Threatened Plants,” 50 CFR 17.12 (Revised 2005)

R18-11-115(C)(1) “The Recalculation Procedure,” Appe ndix L, pages 90 - 98, Water Quality Standards

Handbook, Second Edition, EPA 823-B-94-005b (August 1994)

R18-11-115(C)(2) “Water-Effects Ratio for Metals,” A ppendix L, pages 1 - 89, Water Quality Standards

Handbook, Second Edition, EPA 823-B-94-005b (August 1994)

R18-11-115(C)(3) “Streamlined Water Effects Ratio Procedure for Discharges of Copper,” EPA-822-R01-005 (March 2001)

14. Was this rule previously made as an emergency rule?

No

15. The full text of the rules follows:

# 237 TITLE 18. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

CHAPTER 11. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

ARTICLE 1. WATER QUALITY ST ANDARDS FOR SURFACE WATERS

R18-11-101. Definitions

R18-11-102. Applicability

R18-11-107. Antidegradation

R18-11-107.01. Antidegradation Criteria

R18-11-108. Narrative Water Quality Standards

R18-11-108.01. Narrative Biological Criteria fo r Wadeable, Perennial Streams

R18-11-108.02. Narrative Bottom Deposit Criteria for Wadeable, Perennial Streams

R18-11-108.03. Narrative Nutrient Criteria for Lakes and Reservoirs

R18-11-109. Numeric Water Quality Standards

R18-11-110. Salinity Standards for the Colorado River

R18-11-111. Analytical Methods

R18-11-112. Unique Outstanding Arizona Waters

R18-11-113. Effluent

- d ependent Effluent-Dependent Waters

R18-11-114. Mixing Zones

R18-11-115. Repealed Site-Specific Standards

R18-11-116. Resource ma nagement agencies Management Agencies

R18-11-117. Canals and Municipal Urban Park Lakes

R18-11-118. Dams and Flood Control Structures

R18-11-121. Schedules of Compliance

R18-11-122. Variances

R18-11-123. Prohibition Against Discharge Prohibitions

Appendix A. APPENDIX A. Numeric Water Quality Criteria NUMERIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Table 1. Human Health and Agricultural Designated Uses Water Quality Criteria By Designated Use

Table 2. Aquatic & Wildlife Designated Uses Acute Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Cadmium

Aquatic and Wildlife coldwater

Table 3. Acu te Water Quality Standards for d issolved Cadmium Aquatic and Wildlife ephemeral

Chronic Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Cadmium Aquatic and Wildlife coldwater

Table 4. Acute Water Quality Standards for d issolved Dissolved Cadmium Aquatic and Wildlife

coldwater, warmwater, and edw

Table 5. Chronic Water Quality Standards for d issolved Dissolved Cadmium Aquatic and Wildlife

coldwater, warmwater, and edw

# 238 Table 6. Acute Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Cadmium Aquatic and Wildlife ephemeral

Table 7. Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolved Dissolved Chromium III Aquatic and Wildlife

coldwater, warmwater, and edw

Table 8. Chronic Water Quality Standards for dissolved Dissolved Chromium III Aquatic and Wildlife

coldwater, warmwater, and edw

Table 6

. 9. Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolved Dissolved Chromium III Aquatic and

Wildlife ephemeral

Table 11. 10. Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolved Dissolved Copper Aquatic and Wildlife

coldwater, warmwater, and edw

Table 9

. 11. Chronic Water Quality Standards for dissolved Dissolved Copper Aquatic and Wildlife

coldwater, warmwater, and edw

Table 10

. 12. Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolved Dissolved Copper Aquatic and Wildlife

ephemeral

Table 14. 13. Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolved Dissolved Lead Aquatic and Wildlife coldwater,

warmwater, and edw

Table 15. 14. Chronic Water Quality Standards for dissolved Dissolved Lead Aquatic and Wildlife

coldwater, warmwater, and edw

Table 13

. 15. Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolved Dissolved Lead Aquatic and Wildlife ephemeral

Table 16. Acute Water Quality Standards for d issolved Dissolved Nickel Aquatic and Wildlife

coldwater, warmwater, and edw

Table 17. Chronic Water Quality Standards for dissolved Dissolved Nickel Aquatic and Wildlife

coldwater, warmwater, and edw

Table 1 8. Water Quality Standards for d issolved Silver Aquatic and Wildlife coldwater, warmwater,

edw, and ephemeral

Table 12

. 18. Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolved Dissolved Nickel Aquatic and Wildlife

ephemeral

Table 19. Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Silver Aquatic and Wildlife coldwater, warmwater,

edw, and ephemeral

Table 20. Acute and Chronic Water Quality Standards for dissolved Dissolved Zinc Aquatic and

Wildlife coldwater, warmwater, and edw

Table 19

. 21. Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolved Dissolved Zinc Aquatic and Wildlife ephemeral

Table 21

. 22. Acute Water Quality Standards for Pentachlorophenol Acute Aquatic and Wildlife coldwater,

warmwater, and edw

Table 22

. 23. Chronic Water Quality Standards for Pentachlorophenol Chronic Aquatic and Wildlife

coldwater, warmwater, and edw

Table 23

. 24. Acute Water Quality Standards for Pentachlorophenol Acute Aquatic and Wildlife ephemeral

# 239 Table 24

. 25. Acute Criteria for Total Ammonia (in mg/L as N) Aquatic and Wildlife coldwater,

warmwater, and edw

Table 25

. 26. Chronic Criteria for Total Amm onia (in mg/L as N) A&Wc, A&Ww Aquatic and Wildlife

coldwater, warmwater, and edw

Appendix B. APPENDIX B. List of Surface Waters and Designated Uses SURFACE WATERS AND

DESIGNATED USES

Appendix C. APPENDIX C. 

# Repealed SITE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS

# 240 TITLE 18. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

CHAPTER 11. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

ARTICLE 1. WATER QUALITY ST ANDARDS FOR SURFACE WATERS

R18-11-101. Definitions

The following terms of apply to this Article have the following meanings :

1. “Acute toxicity” means toxicity involving a stimulus severe enough to induce a rapid response

rapidly . In aquatic toxicity tests, an effect observe d in 96 hours or less is considered acute.

2. “AgI” means agricultural irrigation.

3. “AgL” means agricultur al livestock watering.

4. 2. “Agricultural irrigation (AgI) ” means the use of a surface wa ter for the irrigation of crops crop

irrigation

.

5. 3. “Agricultural livestock watering (AgL) ” means the use of a surface water as a supply of water supply

for consumption by livestock.

6. 4. “Annual mean” means is the arithmetic mean of monthly valu es determined over a consecutive 12-

month period, provided that monthly values are determined for at least three months. The A monthly

value is the arithmetic mean of all va lues determined in a calendar month.

7. 5. “Aquatic and wildlife (cold water) (A&Wc) ” means the use of a surface wa ter by animals, plants, or

other cold-water organisms, generally occurring at elevations an elevation greater than 5000 feet, for

habitation, growth, or propagation.

8. 6. “Aquatic and wildlife (efflu ent-dependent water) (A&Wedw) ” means the use of an effluentdependent water by animals, plants, or other organisms for habitation, growth, or propagation.

9. 7. “Aquatic and wildlife (ephemeral) (A&We) ” means the use of an ephemeral water by animals, plants,

or other organisms, excluding fish, for habitation, growth, or propagation.

10. 8. “Aquatic and wildlif e (warm water) (A&Ww) ” means the use of a surface water by animals, plants,

or other warm-water organisms, generally occurring at elevations an elevation less than 5000 feet, for

habitation, growth, or propagation.

11. “A&Wc” means aquatic and wildlife (cold water).

12. “A&We” means aquatic and wildlife (ephemeral).

13. “A&Wedw” means aquatic and wild life (effluent

- dependent water).

14. “A&Ww” means aquatic an d wildlife (warm water).

9. “Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES)” means the point source discharge

permitting program established under 18 A.A.C. 9, Article 9.

10. “Assimilative capacity” means the difference betwee n the baseline water quality concentration for a

pollutant and the most stringent applicable water quality criterion for that pollutant.

# 241 15. 11. “Clean Water Act” means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 U.S.C. 1251 to 1387].

16. 12. “Criteria” means elements of water quality standard s that are expressed as pollutant concentrations,

levels, or narrative statements representing a wa ter quality that supports a designated use.

13. “Critical flow condition” means the lowest flow ov er seven consecutive days that has a probability of

occurring once in 10 years (7 Q 10).

14. “Deep lake” means a lake or reservoir with an average depth of more than 6 meters.

17. 15. “Designated use” means a use specified in Appe ndix B of this Article for a surface water.

18. 16. “Domestic water source (DWS) ” means the use of a surface water as a source of potable water

supply . Coagulation, sedimentation, filtratio n, disinfection, or other treatments Treatment of a surface

water may be necessary to yield a finished water suitable for human consumption.

19. “DWS” means domestic water source.

20

. “EDW” means effluent

- dependent water.

21. 17. “Effluent-dependent water (EDW) ” means a surface water, classified under R18-11-113, that consists

of a point source discharges discharge of treated wastewater that is classified as an effluent

dependent water by the Director under R18

- 11

- 113. An effluent-dependent water is a surface water

that, without the point source discharge of treated wastewater, would be an ephemeral water.

22. 18. “Ephemeral water” means a surface water that has a channel that is at all times above the water table,

and that flows only in direct response to precipitation.

23. 19. “Existing use” means those uses actually a use attained in the waterbody on or after November 28,

1975, whether or not they are it is included in the water quality standards.

24. “FBC” means full

- body contact

. ”

25. “FC” means fish consumption.

26. 20. “Fish consumption (FC) ” means the use of a surface water by humans for harvesting aquatic

organisms for consumption. Harvestable aquatic organisms include, but are not limited to, fish,

clams, turtles, crayfish, and frogs.

27. 21. “Full-body contact (FBC) ” means the use of a surface water for swimming or other recreational

activity that causes the human body to come into direct contact with the water to the point of

complete submergence. The use is such that in gestion of the water is likely and sensitive body

organs, such as the eyes, ears, or nose, may be exposed to direct contact with the water.

28. 22. “Geometric mean” means the nth ro ot of the product of n items or values. The geometric mean is

calculated using the following formula:

n

n y 

# YYYYGM ))...()()((

321 

# =

29. 23. “Hardness” means the sum of the calcium and magnesium concentrations, expressed as calcium

carbonate (CaCO 3 

# ) in milligrams per liter.

24. “Igneous lake” means a lake located in volcanic, basaltic, or granite geology and soils.

# 242 30. 25. “Intermittent surface water” means a stream or reach of a stream that flows continuously only at

certain times of the year, as when it receives water from a spring or from another surface source, such

as melting snow.

31. 26. “Mixing zone” means a prescribed an area or volume of a surface wate r that is contiguous to a point

source discharge where initial dilution of the discharge takes place.

32. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System means the point source discharge permit program

established by § 402 of the Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. 1342].

33. “Ninetieth percentile” mean s the value that may not be exceeded by more than 10% of the

observations in a consecutive 12 month period. A minimum of 10 samples, each taken at least 10

days apart, are required to determine a ninetieth percentile.

34. “NNS” means no numeric standard.

3 5. 27. “Oil” means petroleum in any form, including but not limited to crude oil, gasoline, fuel oil, diesel

oil, lubricating oil, or sludge.

28. “Outstanding Arizona water (OAW)” means a surface wa ter that is classified as an outstanding state

resource water by the Director under R18-11-112.

36. 29. “Partial-body contact (PBC) ” means the recreational use of a surf ace water that may cause the human

body to come into direct contact with the water, but normally not to the point of complete

submergence (for example, wading or boating). The use is such that ingestion of the water is not

likely and sensitive body organs, such as the eyes, ears, or nose, will not normally be exposed to

direct contact with the water.

37. “PBC” means partial

- body contact

. ”

38. 30. “Perennial surface water” means a surface water that fl ows continuously throughout the year.

39. 31. “Pollutant” means fluids, contaminants, toxic wastes, toxic pollutants, dredged spoil, solid waste,

substances and chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer s and other agricultural chemicals,

incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, petroleum products, chemical

wastes, biological materials, radi oactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand,

cellar dirt, and mining, industrial, municipal, and agricultural wastes or any other liquid, solid,

gaseous, or hazardous substance.

“Pollutant” means fluids, contaminants, toxic wastes , toxic pollutants, dredged spoil, solid waste,

substances and chemicals, pesticides, herbicid es, fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals,

incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, petroleum products, chemical

wastes, biological materials, r adioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock,

sand, cellar dirt, and mining, industrial, municipal, and agricultural wastes or any other liquid,

solid, gaseous, or hazardous substance. A.R.S § 49-201(29)

40. 32. “Practical quantitation limit” means the lowest level of quantitative measurement that can be reliably

achieved during a routine laboratory operations operation

.

41. “Recreational uses” means the full

- body contact and partial

- body contact designated uses.

# 243 33. “Reference condition” means a set of ecological measurements from a population of relatively

undisturbed waterbodies within a region that establish a basis for making comparisons of biological

condition among samples.

42. 34. “Regional Administrator” means the Regional Administrator of Region IX of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

35. “Regulated discharge” means a point-source discharge regulated under an AZPDES permit, a

discharge regulated by a § 404 permit, and any discharge authorized by a federal permit or license

that is subject to state water quality certification under § 401 of the Clean Water Act.

36. “Riffle habitat” means a stream segment where moderate water velocity and substrate roughness

produce moderately turbulent cond itions that break the surface tens ion of the water and may produce

breaking wavelets that turn th e surface water into white water.

37. “Run habitat” means a stream segment where there is moderate water velocity that does not break the

surface tension of the water and does not produce br eaking wavelets that turn the surface water into

white water.

38. “Sedimentary lake” means a lake or reservoir in sedimentary or karst geology and soils.

39. “Shallow lake” means a lake or reservoir, excluding an urban lake, with a smaller, flatter morphology

and an average depth of less than 3 meters and a maximum depth of less than 4 meters.

40. “Significant degradation” means:

a. The consumption of 20 percent or more of the available assimilative capacity for a pollutant

of concern at critical flow conditions, or

b. Any consumption of assimilative capacity beyond the cumulative cap of 50 percent of

assimilative capacity.

43. 41. “Surface water” means a water of the Un ited States and includes the following:

a. A water that is currently used, was used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate

or foreign commerce;

b. An interstate water, including an interstate wetland;

c. All other waters, such as an intrastate lake, reservoir, natural pond, river, stream (including an

intermittent or ephemeral stream), creek, wash, draw, mudflat, sandflat, wetland, slough,

backwater, prairie pothole, wet meadow, or playa lake, the use, degradation, or destruction of

which would affect or could aff ect interstate or foreign commer ce, including any such water:

i. That is or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other

purposes;

ii. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign

commerce; or

iii. That is used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate or

foreign commerce;

d. An impoundment of a surface water as defined by this definition;

# 244 e. A tributary of a surface wate r identified in subsections (41) (a) through (d) of this definition ;

and

f. A wetland adjacent to a surface water identified in subsections (41) (a) through (e) of this

definition

.

44. 42. “Total nitrogen” means the sum of the concentrations of ammonia (NH 3 

# ), ammonium ion (NH 4 

# +),

nitrite (NO 2 

# ), and nitrate (NO 3 

# ), and dissolved and particulate organic nitrogen expressed as

elemental nitrogen.

45. 43. “Total phosphorus” means all of the phosphorus pres ent in a sample, regardless of form, as measured

by a persulfate digestion procedure.

46. 44. “Toxic” means a pollutant or combination of pollutants, that after discharge and upon exposure,

ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into an organism, either directly from the environment or

indirectly by ingestion through food chains, may cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities,

cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions in reproduction), or

physical deformations in the organism or its offspring.

47. “Unique water” means a surface water that is classi fied as an outstanding stat e resource water by the

Director under R18

- 11

- 112.

45. “Urban lake” means a manmade lake within an urban landscape.

48. 46. “Use attainability analysis” means a structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the

attainment of a designated use including physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors.

47. “Wadeable” means a surface water can be safely crossed on foot and sampled without a boat.

48. “Wastewater” does not mean:

1. Stormwater;

2. Discharges authorized under the De Minimus General Permit;

3. Other allowable non-stormwater discharges permitted under the Construction General Permit

or the Multi-sector General Permit; or

4. Stormwater discharges from a municipal storm sewer system (MS4) containing incidental

amounts of non-stormwater that the MS4 is not required to prohibit.

49. “Wetland” means an area that is inundated or sa turated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and

duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. A wetland includes a swamp, marsh,

bog, cienega, tinaja, and similar areas.

50. “Zone of passage” means a continuous water route of volume, cross-sectional area, and quality

necessary to allow passage of free-swimming or drifting organisms with no acutely toxic effect

produced on the organisms.

R18-11-102. Applicability

A. The water quality standards prescribed in this Article apply to surface waters.

# 245 B. The water quality standards prescribed in this Article do not apply to the following:

1. A waste treatment syst em, including an impoundment, pond, lag oon, or constructed wetland that is a

part of the waste treatment system. ;

2. A man-made surface impoundment and any associated ditches ditch and conveyances conveyance

used in the extraction, beneficiation, or processing of metallic ores that is not a surface water or is

located in an area that once was a surface water but is no longer a surface water because it has been

and remains legally converted , including:

a. a A pit,

b. pregnant Pregnant leach solution pond,

c. raffinate Raffinate pond,

d. tailing Tailing impoundment,

e. decant Decant pond,

f. pond Pond or a sump in a mine pit associated with dewatering activity,

g. pond Pond holding water that has come into contact with a process or product and that is

being held for recycling,

h. spill Spill or upset catchment pond, or

i. A pond used for onsite remediation, that is not a surface water or is loca ted in an area that

once was a surface water but no longer remains a surface water because it has been and

remains legally converted

. ;

3. A man-made cooling pond that is neither created in a surface water nor results from the impoundment

of a surface water; or

4. A surface water located on tribal lands.

R18-11-107. Antidegradation

A. The Director shall, using R18-11-107.01 and this Section, determine whether there is degradation of water

quality in a surface water on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.

B. Tier 1: The level of wate r quality necessary to protect support an existing uses use shall be maintained and

protected. No degradation of existi ng water quality is permitted in a surface water where the existing water

quality does not meet the applicable water quality standards.

C. Tier 2: Where existing water quality in a surface water is better than the applicable water quality standard,

the existing water quality shall be maintained and protected. The Director may allow limited degradation of

existing water quality in the surface water, provided that the Department holds a public hearing on whether

degradation should be allowed under the general public hearing procedures prescribed at R18

- 1

- 401 and

R18

- 1

- 402 and if

the Director makes all of the following findings:

1. The level of water quality necessary to protect for existing uses is fully protected. Water and water

quality shall is not be lowered to a level that does not comply with applicable water quality

standards.

,

# 246 2. The highest statutory and regulatory requirements for new and existing point sources are achieved.

,

3. All cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source pollution control are

implemented. , and

4. Allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social

development in the area wher e the surface water is located.

D. Tier 3: Existing water quality shall be maintained and protected in a surface water that is classified as a

unique w ater an OAW under R18-11-112. The Director sh all not allow limited degradation Degradation of a

unique water an OAW under subsection (C) is prohibited

.

E. The Department Director shall implement this Section in a manner consistent with § 316 of the Clean Water

Act [33 U.S.C. § 1326] if a potential water quality impairment associated with a thermal discharge is

involved.

R18-11-107.01. Antidegradation Criteria

A. Tier 1 antidegradation protection.

1. Tier 1 antidegradation protection ap plies to the following surface waters:

a. A surface water listed on the 303(d) list fo r the pollutant that resulted in the listing,

b, An effluent dependent water,

c. An ephemeral water,

d. An intermittent water, and

e. A canal listed in Appendix B.

2. A regulated discharge shall not cause a violation of a surface water quality standard or a wasteload

allocation in a total maximum daily load approved by EPA.

3. Except as provided in subsections (E) and (F), Tier 1 antidegradation review requirements are

satisfied for a point-source discharge regulated under an individual AZPDES permit to an ephemeral

water, effluent dependent water, intermittent water, or a canal listed in Appendix B, if water qualitybased effluent limitations designed to achieve co mpliance with applicable surface water quality

standards are established in the permit and technology-based requirements of the Clean Water Act for

the point source discharge are met.

B. Tier 2 antidegradation protection.

1. Tier 2 antidegradation protection applies to a perenni al water with existing water quality that is better

than applicable water quality standards. A perennia l water that is not listed in subsection (A)(1) nor

classified as an OAW under R18-9-112(G) has Tier 2 antidegradation protection for all pollutants of

concern.

2. A regulated discharge that meets the following cr iteria, at critical flow conditions, does not cause

significant degradation:

a. The regulated discharge consumes less than 20 percent of the availabl e assimilative capacity

for each pollutant of concern, and

# 247 b. At least 50 percent of the assimilative capacity for each pollutant of concern remains available

in the surface water for each pollutant of concern.

3. Antidegradation review. Any person proposing a new or expanded regulated discharge under an

individual AZPDES permit that may cause significant degradation shall provide the Department with

the following information:

a. Alternative analysis.

i. The person seeking authorization for the discharge shall prepare and submit a written

analysis of alternatives to the discharge. The analysis shall provide information on all

reasonable, cost-effective, less-degrading or non-degrading discharge alternatives.

Alternatives may include wast ewater treatment process changes or upgrades, pollution

prevention measures, source reduction, wa ter reclamation, alternative discharge

locations, groundwater recharge, land app lication or treatment, local pretreatment

programs, improved operation and maintenance of existing systems, seasonal or

controlled discharge to avoid critical flow conditions, and zero discharge;

ii. The alternatives analysis shall include cost information on base pollution control

measures associated with the regulated discharge and cost information for each

alternative;

iii. The person shall implement the alternative th at is cost-effective and reasonable, results

in the least degradation, and is approved by the Director. An alternative is costeffective and reasonable if treatment costs a ssociated with the alternative are less than

a 10 percent increase above the cost of base pollution control measures;

iv. For purposes of this subsection, “base pollution control measures” are water pollution

control measures required to meet technology-based requirements of the Clean Water

Act and water quality-based effluent limits designed to achieve compliance with

applicable water quality standards;

b. Social and economic justification. The pers on shall demonstrate to the Director that

significant degradation is necessary to accommodate important economic or social

development in the local area. The person se eking authorization for the discharge shall

prepare a written social and economic justif ication that includes a description of the

following:

i. The geographic area where significant degradation of existing water quality will

occur;

ii. The current baseline social and economic conditions in the local area;

iii. The net positive social and economic eff ects of development associated with the

regulated discharge and allowing significant degradation;

iv. The negative social, environmental, and economic effects of a llowing significant

degradation of existing water quality; and

# 248 v. Alternatives to the regulated discharge th at do not significantly degrade water quality

yet may yield comparable social and economic benefits;

c. Baseline characterization. A person seeking authorization to discharge under an individual

AZPDES permit to a perennial water shall provide baseline water quality data on pollutants of

concern where no data exist or there are insu fficient data to characterize baseline water

quality and to determine available assimilative capacity. A discharger shall characterize

baseline water quality at a location upstream of the proposed discharge location; and

4. For purposes of this Section, the term “pollutant of concern” means a pollutant with either a numeric

or narrative water quality standard.

5. Public participation. The Director shall provide public notice and an opportunity to comment on an

antidegradation review under subsection (B)(3) and shall provide an opportunity for a public hearing

under A.A.C. R18-9-A908(B).

C. Tier 3 antidegradation protection.

1. Tier 3 antidegradation protection applies only to an OAW listed in R18-11-112(G).

2. A new or expanded point-source discharge directly to an OAW is prohibited.

3. A person seeking authorization for a regulated discharge to a tributary to, or upstream of, an OAW

shall demonstrate in a permit application or in other documentation submitted to the Department that

the regulated discharge will not degrade ex isting water quality in the downstream OAW.

4. A discharge regulated under a § 404 permit that may affect existing water quality of an OAW

requires an individual § 401 water quality certification to ensure that existing water quality is

maintained and protected and any water quality impacts are temporary. Temporary water quality

impacts are those impacts that occur for a period of six months or less.

D. Antidegradation review of a § 404 permit. The Director shall conduct the antidegradation review of any

discharge authorized under a nationwide or regional § 404 permit as part of the § 401 water quality

certification prior to issuance of the nationwide or regional permit. The Director shall conduct the

antidegradation review of an individual § 404 permit if the discharge may degrade existing water quality in

an OAW or a water listed on the 303(d) List of impair ed waters. For regulated discharges that may degrade

water quality in an OAW or a water that is on the 303( d) List of impaired waters, the Director shall conduct

the antidegradation review as part of the § 401 water quality certification process.

E. Antidegradation review of an AZPDES stormwater permit. An individual stormwater permit for a municipal

separate storm sewer system (MS4 ) meets antidegradation requirements if the permittee complies with the

permit, including developing a stormwater management plan containing controls that reduce the level of

pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable.

F. Antidegradation review of a general permit. The Dir ector shall conduct the antidegradation review of a

regulated discharge authorized by a general permit at the time the general permit is issued or renewed. A

person seeking authorization to discharge under a general permit is not required to undergo an individual

antidegradation review at the time the Notice of In tent is submitted unless the discharge may degrade

# 249 existing water quality in an OAW or a water liste d on the 303(d) List of impaired waters.

R18-11-108. Narrative Water Quality Standards

A. A surface water shall be free from not contain pollutants in amounts or combinations that:

1. Settle to form bottom deposits that inhibit or prohibit the habitation, growth, or propagation of

aquatic life;

2. Cause objectionable odor in the ar ea in which the surface water is located;

3. Cause off-taste or odor in drinking water;

4. Cause off-flavor in aquatic organisms;

5. Are toxic to humans, animals, plants, or other organisms;

6. Cause the growth of algae or aquatic plants that inhibit or prohibit the habitation, growth, or

propagation of other aquatic life or that impair recreational uses;

7. Cause or contribute to a violation of an aquife r water quality standard pres cribed in R18-11-405 or

R18-11-406; or

8. Change the color of the surface water fr om natural background levels of color.

B. A surface water shall be free from not contain oil, grease, and or any other pollutants pollutant that float

floats as debris, foam, or scum; or that cause causes a film or iridescent appearance on the surface of the

water; or that cause causes a deposit on a shoreline, bank, or aquatic vegetation. The discharge of lubricating

oil or gasoline associated with the normal operation of a recreational watercraft is not a violation of this

narrative standard.

C. A discha rge of suspended solids to a surface water shall not be A surface water shall not contain a discharge

of suspended solids in quantities or concentrations that either interfere with the treatment processes at the

nearest downstream potable water treatment plant or substantially increase the cost of handling solids

produced at the nearest downstream potable water treatment plant.

D. A surface water shall not contain solid waste such as re fuse, rubbish, demolition or construction debris, trash,

garbage, motor vehicles, appliances, or tires.

E

. A wadeable, perennial stream shall support and maintain a community of organisms having a taxa richness,

species composition, tolerance, and functional organization comparable to that of a stream with reference

conditions in Arizona.

R18-11-108.01. Narrative Biological Criteria for Wadeable, Perennial Streams

A. The narrative biological criteria in this Section apply to a wadeable, perennial stream with either an aquatic

and wildlife (cold water) or an aquatic and wildlife (warm wate r) designated use.

B. The biological standard in R18-11-108(E) is met when a bioassessment result, as measured by the Arizona

Index of Biological Integrity (IBI), for cold or warm water is:

1. Greater than or equal to the 25th percentile of reference condition, or

# 250 2. Greater than the 10th percentile of reference co ndition and less than the 25th percentile of reference

condition and a verification bioassessment result is greater than or equal to the 25th percentile of

reference condition.

C. Arizona Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) scores.

Index of Biological Integrity Scores

Bioassessment Result

A&Wc A&Ww

Greater than or equal to the 25th

percentile of reference condition ≥ 52 ≥ 50

Greater than the 10th and less than the

25th percentile of reference condition 46 - 51 40 - 49

R18-11-108.02. Narrative Bottom Deposit Criteri a for Wadeable, Perennial Streams

A. The narrative bottom deposit criteria in this Section apply to wadeable, perennial streams with an aquatic and

wildlife (cold water) or an aquatic an d wildlife (warm water) designated use.

B. The narrative water quality standard for bottom deposits at R18-11-108(A)(1) is met when:

1. The percentage of fine sediments in the riffle habitats of a wadeable, perennial stream with an A&Wc

designated use, as determined by a riffle pebble count, is less than or equal to 30 percent.

2. The percentage of fine sediments in all stream habitats of a wadeable, perennial stream with an

A&Ww designated use, as determin ed by a reach level pebble count, is equal to or less than 50

percent.

R18-11-108.03. Narrative Nutrient Criteri a for Lakes and Reservoirs

A. The narrative nutrient criteria in this Section apply to those lakes and reservoirs categorized in Appendix B.

B. The narrative water quality standard for nutrients at R18-11-108(A)(6) is met when, based on a minimum of

two lake sample events conducted during the peak season based on lake productivity, the results show an

average chlorophyll-a value below the applicable threshold for designated use and lake and reservoir

category in subsection (D).

1. The mean chlorophyll- a concentration is less than the lower value in the target range chlorophyll- a

for the lake and reservoir category; or

2. The mean chlorophyll- a concentration is within the target range for the lake and reservoir category

and:

a. The mean blue green algae count is at or below 20,000 per milliliter, and

b. The blue green algae count is less than 50 percent of the to tal algae count, and

c. There is no evidence of nutrient-related impairments such as:

i. An exceedance of dissolved oxygen or pH standards;

ii. A fish kill coincident with a dissolved oxygen or pH exceedance;

iii. A fish kill or other aquatic organism mortality coincident with algal toxicity;

# 251 iv. Secchi depth is less than the lower value pr escribed for the lake and reservoir category;

v. A nuisance algal bloom is present in the limnetic portion of the lake or reservoir; or

vi. The concentration of total phosphorous, total nitrogen, or total Kjehdal nitrogen (TKN) is

greater than the upper value in the range pres cribed for the lake and reservoir category; or

3. For a shallow lake. In addition to meeting the m ean chlorophyll-a concentrations in subsections

(B)(1) or (2), submerged aquatic vegetation covers 50 percent or less of the lake bottom and there is

less than a 5 mg/L swing in diel-dissolved oxygen concentration measured within the photic zone.

C. The following threshold ranges apply during the peak season for lake productivity:

1. Warm water lakes peak season, April – October;

2. Cold water lakes peak season, May – September.

D. The following table lists the numeric targets for lakes and reservoirs.

NUMERIC TARGETS FOR LAKES AND RESERVOIRS

Designated

Use Lake

Category Chl- a

(μg/L) Secchi

Depth

(m) Total

Phosphorus

(μg/L) Total

Nitrogen

(mg/L) Total

Kjehldal

Nitrogen

(TKN)

(mg/L) BlueGreen

Algae

(per ml) BlueGreen

Algae

(% of total

count) Dissolved

Oxygen

(mg/L) pH

(SU)

Deep 10-15 1.5-2.5 70-90 1.2-1.4 1.0-1.1

Shallow 10-15 1.5-2.0 70-90 1.2-1.4 1.0-1.1

Igneous 20-30 0.5-1.0 100-125 1.5-1.7 1.2-1.4

Sedimentary 20-30 1.5-2.0 100-125 1.5-1.7 1.2-1.4 FBC and

PBC

Urban 20-30 0.5-1.0 100-125 1.5-1.7 1.2-1.4 20,000 6.5-9.0

A&Wc All 5-15 1.5-2.0 50-90 1.0-1.4 0.7-1.1 7

(top m)

All (except

urban lakes) 25-40 0.8-1.0 115-140 1.6-1.8 1.3-1.6

A&Ww

Urban 30-50 0.7-1.0 125-160 1.7-1.9 1.4-1.7 6.5-9.0

A&Wedw All 30-50 0.7-1.0 125-160 1.7-1.9 1.4-1.7 <50

6

(top m)

6.5-9.0

DWS All 10-20 0.5-1.5 70-100 1.2-1.5 1.0-1.2 20,000 5.0-9.0



# R18-11-109. Numeric Wat er Quality Standards

A. E. coli bacteria. The following water quality standards for Escherichia coli (E. coli)

, Escherichia coli (E.

coli) are expressed in colony forming units per 100 milliliters of water (cfu / 100 ml), or as a Most Probable

Number (MPN) shall not be exceeded

E. coli FBC PBC

Geometric mean (four

- sample minimum of four samples in 30 days ) 126 126

Single sample maximum 235 576 575

B. pH. The following water quality standards for pH, are expressed in standard units, shall not be violated :

# 252 pH DWS FBC, PBC, A&W 1 

# AgI AgL

Maximum 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0

Minimum 5.0 6.5 4.5 6.5

Maximum change

due to discharge NNS 0.5 NNS NNS

C. The following maximum allowable increase in ambient water temperature, expressed in degrees Celsius,

shall not b e exceeded due to a thermal discharge is as follows :

Temperature A&Ww, A&Wedw A&Wc

Maximum increase

due to a thermal discharge 2,3 

# 3.0 1.0

A&Ww A&Wedw A&Wc

3.0° C 3.0° C 1.0° C

D. C. Suspended sediment concentration.

1. The following water quality stand ard standards for suspended sediment concentration, expressed in

milligrams per liter (mg/L), are expressed as a geometric mean median value (four

- sample minimum )

determined from a minimum of four samp les collected at least seven days apart shall not be

ex ceeded . The standard applies to a surface water that is at or near base flow and does not apply to a

surface water during or soon after a precipitation event:

A&Wc, A&Ww

80 mg / L

A&Wc A&Ww

25 80

2. The Director shall not use the results of a suspe nded sediment concentration sample collected during

or within 48 hours after a local storm event to determine the median value.

E. D. Dissolved oxygen. The following are the water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, are expressed in

milligrams per liter (mg/L). The dissolved oxygen concentration in a surface water shall not fall below the

following minimum concentrations:

1. Dissolved oxygen A&Ww A&Wc

Single sample minimum 4 2 

# 6.0 7.0

2. Dissolved oxygen in effl uent-dependent waters

(single sample minimum): A&W edw

Three hours after sunrise to sunset 3.0

Sunset to three hours after sunrise 1.0

3. A surface water is in complianc e with meets the water quality standard for dissolved oxygen if the

percent saturation of dissolved oxygen is equal to or greater than 90% percent

.

F. E. Nutrient criteria. The following water quality standards fo r total phosphorus and total nitrogen, are expressed

in milligrams per liter (mg/L), shall not be exceeded :

. A minimum of 10 samples, each taken at least 10 days

# 253 apart in a consecutive 12-month period, are required to determine a 90th percentile. Not more than 10

percent of the samples may exceed th e 90th percentile value listed below:

Annual

Mean 90th

percentile Single

Sample

Maximum

1. Verde River and its tributaries from headwaters to Bartlett

Lake: Total phosphorus

Total nitrogen 0.10

1.00 0.30

1.50 1.00

3.00

2. Black River, Tonto Creek, and their tributaries that are not

located on tribal lands: Total phosphorus

Total nitrogen 0.10

0.50 0.20

1.00 0.80

2.00

3. Salt Riv er and its tributaries that are not located on tribal

lands but not Pinal Creek above Theodore Roosevelt Lake: Total phosphorus

Total nitrogen 0.12

0.60 0.30

1.20 1.00

2.00

4. Theodore Roosevelt, Apache, Canyon, and Saguaro Lakes: Total phosphorus

Total n itrogen 0.03 5



# 0.30 5 

# NNS

NNS 0.60 6



# 1.00 6



# 5. Salt River below Stewart Mountain Dam to confluence with

the Verde River: Total phosphorus

Total nitrogen 0.05

0.60 NNS

NNS 0.20

3.00

6. Little Colorado River and its tributaries above River

Reservoir in Gre er, South Fork of Little Colorado River

above South Fork Campground, Water Canyon Creek above

Apache

- Sitgreaves National Forest boundary: Total phosphorus

Total nitrogen 0.08

0.60 0.10

0.75 0.75

1.10

7. Little Colorado River at the crossing of Apache Coun ty Road

No. 124: Total phosphorus

Total nitrogen NNS

NNS NNS

NNS 0.75

1.80

8. Little Colorado River above Lyman Lake to above the Amity

Ditch diversion near crossing of Arizona Highway 273

(applies only when in

- stream turbidity is less than 50 NTU): Total phosphorus

Total nitrogen 0.20

0.70 0.30

1.20 0.75

1.50

9. Colorado River, at Northern International Boundary near

Morelos Dam: Total phosphorus

Total nitrogen NNS

NNS 0.33

2.50 NNS

NNS

10. San Pedro River, from Curtis to Benson: Total phosphorus

Total nitrate as N NNS

NNS NNS

NNS NNS

10.00

11. The discharge of wastewater to Sh ow Low Creek and tributaries upstream of and including Fools Hollow

Lake shall not exceed 0.16 mg /L total phosphates as P.

12. The discharge of wastewater to the San Francisco Ri ver and tributaries upstream of Luna Lake Dam shall

not exceed 1.0 mg/L total phosphates as P.

Surface Water Annual

Mean 90th

Percentile Single Sample

Maximum

1. Verde River and its tributaries from the Verde headwaters to Bartlett Lake

# 254 Total phosphorus

Total nitrogen 0.10

1.00 0.30

1.50 1.00

3.00

2. Black River, Tonto Creek, and their tribut aries that are not located on tribal lands:

Total phosphorus

Total nitrogen 0.10

0.50 0.20

1.00 0.80

2.00

3. Salt River and its tributaries above Roos evelt Reservoir, excluding Pinal Creek,

that are not located on tribal lands:

Total phosphorus

Total nitrogen 0.12

0.60 0.30

1.20 1.00

2.00

4. Salt River below Stewart Mountain Dam to its confluence with the Verde River:

Total phosphorus

Total nitrogen 0.05

0.60 0.20

3.00

5. Little Colorado River and its tributarie s above River Reservoir in Greer; South

Fork of Little Colorado River above South Fork Campground; and Water Canyon

Creek above Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest boundary:

Total phosphorus

Total nitrogen 0.08

0.60 0.10

0.75 0.75

1.10

6. Little Colorado River at the crossing of Apache County Road No. 124:

Total phosphorus

Total nitrogen 0.75

1.80

7. Little Colorado River above Lyman Lake to above the Amity Ditch diversion

near crossing of Arizona Highway 273 (a pplies only when in-stream turbidity is

less than 50 NTU):

Total phosphorus

Total nitrogen 0.20

0.70 0.30

1.20 0.75

1.50

8. Colorado River at the Northern International Boundary near Morelos Dam:

Total phosphorus

Total nitrogen 0.33

2.50

9. Oak Creek from its headwaters at 35°01'30"/111°44'12" to its confluence with

the Verde River at 34°40'41"/111°56'30" and the West Fork of Oak Creek from

its headwaters at 35°02'44"/111°54'48" to its confluence with Oak Creek at

34°59'14"/111°44'46".

Total phosphorus

Total nitrogen 1.00

0.10 1.50

0.25 2.50

0.30

10. No discharge of wastewater to Show Lo w Creek or its tributaries upstream of and

including Fools Hollow Lake shall exceed 0.16 mg/L total phosphates as P.

11. No discharge of wastewater to the San Fr ancisco River or its tributaries upstream

# 255 of Luna Lake Dam shall exceed 1.0 mg/L total phosphates as P.

G. The following water quality standards for radiochemical s shall not be exceeded in surface waters with the

domestic water source designated use:

1. The concentration of gross alpha particle activity, including radium

- 226, but excluding radon and

uranium, shall not exceed 15 picocuries per liter of water.

2. The concentration of combined radium

- 226 and radium

- 228 shall not exceed fiv e picocurie s per liter

of water

.

3. The concentration of strontium

- 90 shall not exceed 8 eigh t picocuries per liter of water

.

4. The concentration of tr itium shall not exceed 20,00 0 picocuries per liter of water

.

5. The average annual concentration of beta particle a ctivity and photon emitters from manmade

radionuclides shall not produce an annual dose equivalent to the total body or any internal organ

greater than four millirems per year.

Footnotes:

1 

# Includes A&Wc, A&Ww, A&Wedw, and A&We.

2 

# Does not apply to Cholla Lake.

3 

# Does not apply to a wastewater tr eatment plant discharge to a dry wa tercourse that creates an effluent

dependent water or to a stormwater discharge.

4 2 

# The dissolved oxygen water quality standard for a lake shall apply applies below the water surface but not

at a depth greater than one meter.

5 

# Means the annual mean of representative composite samples taken from the su rface and at two and five

meter depths.

6 

# Means the maximum for any set of representativ e composite samples taken from the surface a nd at two

and five meter depths.

R18-11-110. Salinity Standards for the Colorado River

A. The flow-weighted average annual salinity in the lower main stem of the Colorado River shall be maintained

at or below not exceed the following concentrations criteria :

Location Total Dissolved Solids

Below Hoover Dam 723 mg/L

Below Parker Dam 747 mg/L

At Imperial Dam 879 mg/L

B. To preserve the basin

- wide approach to salinity control developed by the Colorado River Basin states and to

ensure compliance with the numer ic criteria for salinity in subsection (A), the Department adopts the The

plan of implementation contained in the “1999 2005 Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado

River System,” approved October 2005, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, 106 West 500 South,

Suite 101, Bountiful, Utah 84010

- 6232 (June, 1999 ) , which is incorporated by reference and on file with the

Office of the Secretary of State and the Department is incorporated by reference to preserve the basin-wide

# 256 approach to salinity control developed by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum and to ensure

compliance with the numeric criteria for salinity in subsection (A) . This incorporation by reference contains

no future editions or amendments

. This material does not include any later amendments or editions of the

incorporated material. Copies of the incorporated material are avai lable for inspection at the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality, 1110 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85007 or may be

obtained from the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, 106 West 500 South, Suite 101, Bountiful,

Utah 84010-6232.

R18-11-111. Analytical Methods

A. A person conducting an analysis of a sample taken to determine compliance with a water quality standard

shall use an approved analytical method prescribed in 9 A.A.C. 14, Article 6 A.A.C. R9-14-610 , 40 CFR

136.3, or an alternative analytical method that is approved by the Director of the Arizona Department of

Health Services under R9

- 16

- 610(B) A.A.C. R9-14-610(C)

.

B. A test result from a sample taken to determine compliance with a water quality standard is valid only if the

sample is analyzed by a laboratory that is licensed by the Arizona Department of Health Services, an out-ofstate laboratory licensed under A.R.S. § 36-495.14, or a laboratory exempted under A.R.S. § 36-495.02, for

the analysis performed.

R18-11-112. Unique Outstanding Arizona Waters

A. The Director shall classify a surface water as a unique water an outstanding Arizona water (OAW) by rule.

The Director shall consider nominati ons to classify a surface water as a unique water during the triennial

review of water quality sta ndards for surface waters.

B. The Director may adopt, by rule under R18-11-115 , a site-specific water quality standards standard to

maintain and protect existing water quality in a unique water an OAW

.

C. Any person may nominate a surface water for classification as a unique water an OAW by filing a

nomination with the Department Director . The nomination to classify a surfac e water as a unique water shall

include:

1. A map and a description of the surface water;

2. A written statement in support of the nomination, including specific refere nce to the applicable

criteria for unique water an OAW classification prescribed in subsection (D);

3. Supporting evidence demonstrating that the applicable unique water criteria prescribed in subsection

(D) are met; and

4. Available water quality data relevant to establishing the baseline water quality of the proposed unique

water OAW

.

D. The Director may classify a surface water as a uni que water upon finding that the surface water is an

outstanding state resource water an OAW based upon the following criteria:

1. The surface water is a perennial or intermittent water;

# 257 2. The surface water is in a free-flowing condition. For purposes of this subsection, “in a free-flowing

condition” means that a surface water does not have an impoundment, diversion, channelization, riprapping or other bank armor, or another hydrological modification within the reach nominated for a

unique water an OAW classification;

3. The surface water has good water quality. For pu rposes of this subsection, “good water quality”

means that the surface water has wa ter quality that meets or exceeds is better than applicable surface

water quality standards. A surface water that is lis ted as impaired under § 303(d) of the Clean Water

Act (33 U.S.C. § 1313) A.A.C. R18-11-604(E) is ineligible for unique waters OAW classification;

and

4. The surface water meets one or both of the following conditions:

a. The surface water is of exceptional recreati onal or ecological significance because of its

unique attributes, including but not limited to, attributes related to such as the geology, flora,

and fauna, water quality, aesthetic values value , or the wilderness characteristics characteristic

of the surface water. ;

b. Threatened or endangered species are known to be An endangered or threatened species is

associated with the surface water and the existin g water quality is esse ntial to the species’

maintenance and propagation of a threatened or endangered species or the surface water

provides critical habitat for a the threatened or endangered species. Endangered or An

endangered or threatened species are is identified in “ Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants ,” 50 CFR § 17.11 (revised 2005), and § “Endangered and Threatened Plants,” 50

CFR 17.12 (revised as of October 1, 2000 2005 ). which This material is incorporated by

reference and on file with the Department and the Office of the Secretary of State. This

incorporation by reference contains no future editions or amendments

. and does not include

any later amendments or editions of the incorp orated material. Copies of the incorporated

material are available for inspection at the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality,

1110 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85007 or may be obtained from the National

Archives and Records Administration at h ttp://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-tablesearch.html#page1.

E. The Director shall hold at least one public meeting in the local area of a surface water that is nominated for

classification as an OAW to solicit public comment on the nomination.

F. The Director shall consider the follo wing factors when deciding whether to classify a surface water as an

OAW:

1. Whether there is the ability to manage the surface water and its wa tershed to maintain and protect

existing water quality;

2. The social and economic impact of Tier 3 antidegradation protection;

3. The public comments in support of, or in opposition to, an OAW classification;

4. The timing of the nomination relative to the tr iennial review of surface water quality standards;

# 258 5. The consistency of an OAW classification with applicable water quality management plans; and

6. Whether the nominated surface water is located within a national or state park, national monument,

national recreation area, wilderness area, riparian conservation area, area of critical environmental

concern, or it has another special use designation (for example, Wild and Scenic River).

E. G. The following surface waters ar e classified as unique water OAWs :

1. The West Fork of the Little Colorado River, above from its headwaters at 33°55'02"/109°33'30" to

Government Springs at 33°59'33"/109°27'54" (approximately 9.1 river miles) ;

2. Oak Creek, including the West Fork of Oak Creek from its headwaters at 35°01'30"/111°44'12" to its

confluence with the Verde River at 34°40'41"/111°56'30 (approximately 50.3 river miles) ;

3. West Fork of Oak Creek, from its headwaters at 35°02'44"/111°54'48" to its confluence with Oak

Creek at 34°59'14"/111°44'46" (approximately 15.8 river miles);

3. 4. Peoples Peeples Canyon Creek, tributary to the Santa Maria River from its headwaters at

34°23'57"/113°19'45" to its confluence with the Santa Maria River at 34°20'36"/113°15'12"

(approximately 8.1 river miles) ;

4. 5. Burro Creek, above its conf luence with Boulder Creek from its headwaters at

34°52'46.5"/113°05'13.5" to its confluence with Boulder Creek at 34°374.5"/113°18'36"

(approximately 29.5 miles) ;

5. 6. Francis Creek, in Mohave and Yavapai counties from its headwaters at 34°54'38"/113°20'30" to its

confluence with Burro Creek at 34°44'29"/113°14'37" (approximately 22.9 river miles) ;

6. 7. Bonita Creek, tributary to the upper Gila River from its boundary of the San Carlos Indian

Reservation at 33°03'08"/109°33'41" to its conflu ence with the Gila River at 32°53'36"/109°28'43"

(approximately 14.7 river miles) ;

7. 8. Cienega Creek, from its confluence with Gardner Canyon and Spring Water Canyon at R18 E T17S

31°47'38.5"/110°35'21.5" to the USGS gaging station at 32°02'09"/110°40'34", in Pima County

(approximately 28.3 river miles) ;

8. 9. Aravaipa Creek, from its confluence with Stowe Gulch at 32°52'10"/110°22'03" to the downstream

boundary of the Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Area at 32°54'23"/110°33'42" (approximately 15.5

river miles) ;

9. 10. Cave Creek and the South Fork of Cave Creek (Chircahua Mountains) , from the its headwaters at

31°50'30"/109°17'04.5" to the Coronado National Forest boundary at 31°54'38"/109°08'40"

(approximately 10.4 river miles) ;

11. South Fork of Cave Creek, from its headwaters at 31°50'20"/109°16'33" to its confluence with Cave

Creek at 31°53'04"/109°10'30" (approximately 8.6 river miles);

10. 12. Buehman Canyon Creek, from its headwaters (Lat. 32°24'55.5 " N, Long. 110°39'43.5”W) at

32°52'0.5"/110°39'54.5" to approximately 9.8 miles downstream (Lat. 32°24'31.5 " N, Long.

10°32'08 " W) its confluence with unnamed tributary at 32°24'31.5"/110°32'08" (approximately 9.8

river miles) ;

# 259 11. 13. Lee Valley Creek, from its headwaters at 33°55'49"/109°31'34" to its confluence with Lee Valley

Reservoir at 33°56'28"/109°30'15.5" (approximately 1.6 river miles) ;

12. 14. Bear Wallow Creek, from its headwaters at 33°35'54"/109°26'54.5" to the boundary of the San Carlos

Indian Reservation at 33°37'52"/109°29'44" (approximately 4.25 river miles) ;

13. 15. North Fork of Bear Wallow Creek, from its headwaters at 33°34'47.5"/109°21'59.5" to its confluence

with Bear Wallow Creek at 33°35'54"/109°26'54.5" (approximately 3.8 river miles) ;

14. 16. South Fork of Bear Wallow Creek, from its headwaters at 33°34'38.5"/109°23'58" to its confluence

with Bear Wallow Creek at 33°35'54"/109°26'54.5" (approximately 3.8 river miles) ;

15. 17. Snake Creek, from its headwaters at 33°37'21.5"/109°26'11" to its confluence with the Black River at

33°40'31.5"/109°28'58.5" (approximately 6.2 river miles) ;

17

. 18. Hay Creek, from its headwaters at 33°51'00"/109°28'48" to its confluence with the West Fork of the

Black River at 33°48'30"/109°25'19" (approximately 5.5 river miles) ;

18. 19. Stinky Creek, from the Fort White Mountain Apache Indian Reservation boundary at

33°52'36.5"/109°29'45" to its confluence with the West Fork of the Black River at

33°51'21.5"/109°27'09.5" (approximately 3.0 river miles) ; and

19. 20. KP Creek, from its headwaters at 33°34'03"/109°21'19" to its confluence with the Blue River at

33°31'44"/109°12'04.5" (approximately 12.7 river miles)

. ;

21. Davidson Canyon, from the unnamed spring at 31°59'00"/110°38'46" to its confluence with Cienega

Creek; and

22. Fossil Creek, from its headwaters at the confluence of Sandrock and Calf Pen Canyons above Fossil

Springs at 34°26'48.7"/111°32'25" to its confluence with the Verde River at 34°18'21.8"/111°40'31.6"

(approximately 17.2 river miles).

F. The Department shall hold at least on e public meeting in the local area of a nominated unique water to solicit

public comment on the nomination.

G. The Director may consider the following factors when making a decision whether to classify a nominated

surface water as a unique water :

1. Whether there is the ability to manage the unique water and its watershed to maintain and protect

existing water quality;

2. The social and economic impact of Tier 3 antidegradation protection;

3. The public c omments in support or opposition to a unique waters classification;

4. T he support or opposition of federal and state land management and natural resources agencies to a

nomination;

5. Agency resource constraints;

6. The timing of the unique water nominati on relative to the triennial re view of surface water quality

standards;

7. The consistency of a unique water classification with applicable water quality management plans (for

example, § 208 water quality management plans); and

# 260 8. Whether the nominated sur face water is located within a national or state park, national monument,

national recreation area, wilderness area, riparian conservation area, area of critical environmental

concern, or it has another special use designation (for example, Wild and Scenic River designation).

H. The following water quality standards apply to the listed unique waters

. Water quality standards prescribed

in this subsection supplement the water quali ty standards prescribed by this Article.

1. The West Fork of the Little Colorad o River, above Government Springs:

Parameter Standard

pH (standard units) No change due to discharge

Temperature No increase due to discharge

Dissolved oxygen No decrease due to discharge

Total dissolved solids No increase due to di scharge

Chromium (as Cr)(D) 10 μg / L

2. Oak Creek, including the West Fork of Oak:

Parameter Standard

pH (standard units) No change due to discharge

Nitrogen (T) 1.00 mg / L (annual mean)

1.50 mg / L (90th percentile)

2.50 mg / L (single sample max.)

Phosphorus (T) 0.10 mg / L (annual mean)

0.25 mg / L (90th percentile)

0.30 mg / L (single sample max.)

Chromium (as Cr) (D) 5 μg / L

Turbidity change due to discharge 3 NTUs

3. Peoples Canyon Creek, tributary to the Santa Maria:

Parameter Standard

Temperature No increase due to discharge

Dissolved oxygen No decrease due to discharge

Turbidity change due to discharge 5 NTUs

Arsenic (T) 20 μg / L

Manganese (T) 500 μg / L

4. Burro Creek, above its confluence with Boulder Creek:

Parameter Standard

Manganese (T) 500 μg / L

5. Francis Creek, in Mohave and Yavapai counties:

Parameter Standard

Manganese (T) 500 μg / L

6. Cienega Creek, from its confluence with Ga rdner Canyon and Spring Water Canyon

# 261 at R18E T17S to Del Lago Dam, in Pima County:

Parameter Standard

pH No change due to discharge

Temperature No increase due to discharge

Dissolved oxygen No decrease due to discharge

Total dissolv ed solids No increase due to discharge

Turbidity 10 NTUs

7 5

. Bonita Creek, tributary to the Upper Gila River:

Parameter Standard

pH No change due to discharge

Temperature No increase due to discharge

Dissolved oxygen No decrease du e to discharge

Total dissolved solids No increase due to discharge

Turbidity 15 NTUs

Abbreviations:

“(D)” means dissolved fraction

“(T)” means total recoverable

“NTUs” means nephelometric turbidity units

“mg / L” means milligrams per liter

“μg / L” me ans micrograms per liter

H. The designation of Fossil Creek as an OAW under subsection (G)(22) takes effect on June 30, 2010.

R18-11-113. Effluent

- dependent Effluent-Dependent Waters

A. The Director shall classify a surface water as an effluent-dependent water by rule.

B. The Director may adopt, by rule, under R18-11-115, a site-specific water quality standards standard for an

effluent-dependent water.

C. Any person may submit a petition for rule adoption requesting that the Dir ector classify a surface water as an

effluent-dependent water. The petition for rule adoption shall include:

1. A map and a description of the surface water, ;

2. Information that demonstrates that the surface water consis ts of discharges of treated wastewater a

point source discharge of wastewater; and

3. Information that demonstrates that, without a point source discharge of a wastewater, the receiving

water is an ephemeral water in the absence of the discharge of treated wastewater

.

D. The following surface waters are classified as effluent

- dependent waters:

1. In the Colorado River Main Stem Basin:

a. Bright Angel Wash from the South Rim Grand Canyon WWTP outfall to its confluence with

Coconino Wash,

# 262 b. Cataract Creek from the Williams WWTP outfall to one kilometer downstream from the

outfall,

c. Holy Moses Wash from the Kingman WWTP outfall to three kilometers downstream from the

outfall, and

d. Transept Canyon from the North Rim Grand Canyon WWTP outfall to one kilometer

downstream from the outfall.

2. In the Little Colorado River Basin:

a. Dry Lake,

b. Lake Humphreys,

c. Lower Walnut Canyon Lake,

d. Ned Lake,

e. Pintail Lake,

f. Telephone Lake,

g. Rio de Flag from the City of Flagstaff WW TP outfall to its confluen ce with San Francisco

Wash, and

h. Whale Lake.

3. In the Middle Gila River Basin:

a. Unnamed wash from the Town of Prescott Valley WWTP outfall to its confluence with the

Agua Fria River, and the Agua Fria River below its confluence with the unnamed wash

receiving treated wastewater from the Prescott Valley WWTP to State R oute 169;

b. Agua Fria river from the El Mirage WWTP outfall to two kilometers downstream from the

outfall;

c. Gila River from the Florence WWTP outfall to Felix Road,

d. Gila River from its confluence with the Salt River to Gillespie Dam;

e. Queen Creek from the Town of Superior WWTP outfa ll to its confluence with Potts Canyon;

f. Unnamed wash from the Gila Bend WWTP outfall to its confluence with the Gila River;

g. Unnamed wash from the Luke AFB WWTP outf all to its confluence with the Agua Fria

River; an d

h. Unnamed wash from the Queen Valley WWTP outfall to its confluence with Queen Creek.

4. In the Rios de Mexico Basin:

a. Mule Gulch, from the Bisbee WWTP outfall to the Highway 80 bridge, and

b. Unnamed wash from the Bisbee

- Douglas International Airport WWTP outfall to Whitewater

Draw.

5. In the Salt River Basin:

a. Unnamed wash from the Globe WWTP outfall to its confluence with Pinal Creek and Pinal

Creek from its confluence with th e unnamed wash to Radium, and

b. Salt River from the 23rd Avenue WWTP ou tfall to its confluence with the Gila River.

# 263 6. In the San Pedro River Basin:

a. Unnamed wash from the Mt. Lemmon WWTP outfall to 0.25 kilometers downstream, and

b. Walnut Gulch from the Tombstone WWTP outfall to its confluence with Tombstone Gulch.

7. In the Santa Cruz Basin:

a. Santa Cruz River from the Nogales International WWTP outfall to Tubac Bridge,

b. Santa Cruz River from the Roger Road WWTP outfall to Baumgartner Road crossing,

c. Unnamed wash from the Oracle WWTP outfall to five kilometers downst ream, and

d. Sonoita Creek from the Town of Patagonia WWTP outfall to 750 feet downstream.

8. In the Upper Gila River Basin:

a. Bennett Wash from the Arizona Department of Corrections

- Safford WWTP outfall to the Gila

River. and

b. Unnamed wash from the Ari zona Department of Corrections

- Globe WWTP outfall to the

boundary of the San Carlos Indian Reservation.

9. In the Verde River Basin:

a. American Gulch from the Northern Gila County Sanitary District WWTP outfall to the East

Verde River,

b. Bitter Creek fro m the Jerome WWTP outfall to 2.5 kilometers downstream from the outfall,

and

c. Jacks Canyon Wash from the Big Park WWTP outfall to its confluence with Dry Beaver

Creek.

10

. In the Wi llcox Playa Basin: Lake Cochise

E. D. The NPDES permit issuing authority Directorshall use the water quality standards that apply to an effluentdependent water to derive discharge limitations water quality-based effluent limits for a point source

discharge from a wastew ater treatment plant of wastewater to an ephemeral water t hat changes that

ephemeral water in to an effluent

- dependent water

.

E. The Director may use aquatic and wildlife (edw) acute standards only to derive water quality based effluent

limits for a sporadic, infrequent, or emergency poin t source discharge to an ephemeral water or to an

effluent-dependent water. The Director shall consider the following factors when deciding whether to apply

A&Wedw (acute) standards:

1. The amount, frequency, and duration of the discharge,

2. The length of time water may be present in the receiving water,

3. The distance to a downstream water with aquatic and wildlife chronic standards, and

4. The likelihood of chronic exposure to pollutants.

F. The Director may establish alternative water quality-based effluent limits in an AZPDES permit based on

seasonal differences in the discharge.

# 264 F. The site

- specific standard of 36 μg / L for dissolved copper for the aquatic and wildlife (effluent

- dependent

water) designated use applies to the Rio de Flag from the City of Flagstaff WWTP outfall to its confluence

with the San Francisco Wash.

R18-11-114. Mixing Zones

A. The Director may establish a mixing zone for a point source discharge to a surface water as a condition of a

NPDES an AZPDES permit. Mixing zones are A mixing zone is prohibited in an ephemeral waters water or

where there is no water for dilution.

B. The owner or operator of a point source seeking the establishment of a mixing zone shall submit a mixing

zone application to the Department on a standard form that is available from th e Department request to the

Director for a mixing zone as part of an application for an AZPDES permit . The application request shall

include:

1. Identification An identification of the pollutant for which the mixing zone is requested;

2. A proposed outfall design;

3. A definition of the boundary of the proposed mixing zone. For purposes of this subsection, the

boundary of a mixing zone means the location where the concentration of treated wastewater across a

transect of the surface water differs by less than 5% percent ; and

4. A complete and detailed description of the existing physical, biological, and chemical conditions of

the receiving water and the predicted impact of the proposed mixing z one on those conditions.

C. The Department Director shall review the application request for a mixing zone to determine whether the

application written request is complete. If the application request is incomplete, the Department Director

shall identify in writing provide the applicant with a list of the additional information required that must be

submitted to the Department to complete the mixing zone application

.

D. The Director shall consid er the following factors when deciding wh ether to grant or deny a request for a

mixing zone:

1. The assimilative capacity of the receiving water;

2. The likelihood of advers e human health effects;

3. The location of drinking water plant intakes and public swimming areas;

4. The predicted exposure of biota and the likelihoo d that resident biota will be adversely affected;

5. Bioaccumulation and bioconcentration ;

6. Whether there will be acute toxicity in the mixi ng zone, and, if so, the size of the area of acute

toxicity zone of initial dilution ;

7. The known or predicted safe exposure levels for the pollutant of concern for which the mixing zone is

requested ;

8. The size of the mixing zone;

9. The location of the mixing zone relative to bi ologically sensitive areas in the surface water;

10. The concentration gradient of the pollutant within the mixing zone;

# 265 11. Sediment deposition;

12. The potential for attracting aquatic life to the mixing zone; and

13. The cumulative impacts of other mixing zones and other discharges to the surface water.

E. Director determination.

1. The Director shall deny the a request to establish a mixing zone if a water quality standards standard

will be violated outside the boundaries of the proposed mixing zone will be v iolated . The Director

shall notify the owner or operator of the denial of a request for a mixing zone shall be in writing and

shall state the reason for the denial.

2. If the Director determines that approves the request to establish a mixing zone should be established

,

the Director shall establish the mi xing zone as a condition of a NPDES an AZPDES permit. The

Director may shall include any mixing zone conditions condition in the AZPDES permit that the

Director deems is necessary to protect human health and th e designated uses of the surface water.

F. Any person who is adversely affected by the Director’s decision to grant or deny a request for a mixing zone

may appeal the decision to an administrative law judge under A.R.S. § 49-321 et seq. and A.R.S. § 41-1092

et seq.

G. The Department Director shall reevaluate a mixing zone upon issu ance, reissuance, or modification of the

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System AZPDES permit for the point source or a modification of

the outfall structure.

H. The length of a mixing zone shall not exceed 500 meters in a stream. The total horizo ntal area allocated to all

mixing zones on a lake shall not exceed 10 % of the surface area of the lake. Ad jacent mixing zones in a lake

shall be no closer than the greatest horizontal dimension of any individual mixing zone.

I. A mixing zone shall provide for a zone of passage of not less than 50 % of the cross

- sec tional area of a river

or stream.

J. The discharge outfall shall be designed to maximize in itial dilution of the treated wastewater in a surface

water.

H. Mixing zone requirements.

1. The length of a mixing zone shall not exceed 500 meters in a stream.

2. The total horizontal area allocated to all mixing zones on a lake shall not exceed 10 percent of the

surface area of the lake.

3. Adjacent mixing zones in a lake shall not overlap or be located closer together than the greatest

horizontal dimension of the largest mixing zone.

4. A mixing zone shall provide for a zone of passage of not less than 50 percent of the cross-sectional

area of a river or stream.

5. The design of any discharge outfall shall maximize initial dilution of the wastewater in a surface

water.

6. The size of the zone of initial dilution in a mixi ng zone shall prevent lethality to organisms passing

through the zone of initial dilution.

# 266 K. A mixing zone is prohibited The Director shall not establish a mixing zone in an AZPDES permit for the

following persistent, bioaccumulative pollutants:

1. Chlordane,

2. DDT and its metabo lites (DDD and DDE),

3. Dieldrin,

4. Dioxin,

5. Endrin,

6. Endrin aldehyde,

7. Heptachlor,

8. Heptachlor epoxide,

9. Lindane,

10. Mercury,

11. Polychlorinated biphenyls ( PCBs) , and

12. Toxaphene.

R18-11-115. Repealed Site-Specific Standards

A. The Director shall adopt a site-specific standard by rule.

B. The Director may adopt a site-specific standard based upon a request or upon the Director’s initiative for any

of the following reasons:

1. Local physical, chemical, or hydrological conditions of a surface water such as pH, hardness, or

temperature alters the biological availability or toxicity of a pollutant;

2. The sensitivity of resident aquatic organisms that occur in a surface water to a pollutant differs from

the sensitivity of the species used to derive the numeric water quality standards to protect aquatic life

in Appendix A;

3. Resident aquatic organisms that occur in a surface water represent a narrower mix of species than

those in the dataset used by the Department to derive numeric water quality standards to protect

aquatic life in Appendix A; or

4. The natural background concentration of a pollutant is greater than the numeric water quality

standard to protect aquatic life prescribed in Appendix A.

C. Site-specific study. A person shall conduct a study to support the development of a site-specific standard

using one of the following procedures:

1. The Recalculation Procedure, Appendix L, pa ges 90 - 98, Water Quality Standards Handbook,

Second Edition, EPA 823-B-94-005b, August 1994. Th is material is incorporated by reference and

does not include any later amendments or editions of the incorporated material. A copy of the

incorporated material is available for inspection at the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality,

1110 W. Washington, Phoenix, Arizona 85007 or: may be obtained from the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Water at http ://www.epa.gov/waterscien ce/standards/handbook/

# 267 handbookappxL.pdf.

2. Water-Effects Ratio for Metals, Appendix L, pages 1 - 89, Water Quality Standards Handbook,

Second Edition, EPA 823-B-94-005b, August 1994. Th is material is incorporated by reference and

does not include any later amendments or editions of the incorporated material. A copy of the

incorporated material is available for inspection at the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality,

1110 W. Washington, Phoenix, Arizona 85007 or: may be obtained from the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Water at http ://www.epa.gov/waterscien ce/standards/handbook/

handbookappxL.pdf.

3. Streamlined Water Effects Ratio Procedure for Discharges of Copper, EPA-822-R-01-005, March

2001. This material is incorporated by referen ce and does not include any later amendments or

editions of the incorporated material. A copy of th e incorporated material is available for inspection

at the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1110 W. Washington, Phoenix, Arizona 85007

or: may be obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water at

http://www.epa.gov/ost/criteria/copper/copper.pdf.

4. Natural background.

a. A person seeking to develop a site-specific standard based on natural background shall provide

a study outline to the Director and obtain the Director’s approval before conducting the study.

i. The person may use statistical or modeling approaches to determine natural background

concentration.

ii. Modeling approaches include Better As sessment Science Inte grating Source and

Nonpoint Sources (Basins), Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran (HSPF), and

Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) programs developed by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers.

b. The Director may establish a site-specific sta ndard at a concentration equal to the natural

background concentration.

c. For purposes of this subsection, “natural backgr ound” means the concentration of a pollutant in

a surface water due only to non-anthropogenic sources.

R18-11-116. Resource management agencies Management Agencies

Nothing in this Article shal l be construed to prohibit prohibits fisheries management activities by the Arizona Game

and Fish Department or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This provision Article does not exempt fish hatcheries

from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System AZPDES permit requirements.

R18-11-117. Canals and Municipal Urban Park Lakes

A. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to prevent prevents the routine physical or mechanical maintenance

of canals, drains, and the municipal park urban lakes identified in Appendix B. Physical or mechanical

maintenance includes dewatering, lining, dredging, and the physical, biological, or chemical control of

# 268 weeds and algae. Increases in turbidity that result from physical or mechanical maintenance activities are

permitted in canals, drains, and the municipal park urban lakes identified in Appendix B.

B. The discharge of lubricating oil that is associated with the start-up of well pumps which that discharge to

canals is not a violation of R18-11-108(B).

R18-11-118. Dams and Fl ood Control Structures

A. Increases in turbidity that result from the routine ph ysical or mechanical maintenance of a dam or flood

control structure are not violations of this Article.

B. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to require requires the release of water from a dam or a flood

control structure.

R18-11-121. Schedules of Compliance

A. A The Director may establish a schedule in an AZPDES permit to bring an existing point source into

compliance with a new or revised water quality standard may be established in a National Poll utant

Discharge Elimination System permit for an existing point source . A compliance schedule in an AZPDES

permit for an existing point source, other than a storm water stormwater discharge, shall require compliance

the permittee to comply with a discharge limitation based upon a ne w or revised water quality standard no

later than three years after the effective date of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

AZPDES permit. For a schedule of compliance to be granted, the owner or operator of the existing point

source The permittee shall demonstrate that all requirements under § 301(b) and § 306 of the Clean Water

Act [33 U.S.C. § 1311(b) and § 1316] have been are achieved and that the point source cannot comply with a

discharge limitation based upon the new or revised water quality standard through the application of existing

water pollution control technology, operational changes, or source reduction.

B. A The Director may establish a schedule of compliance may be established in a National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System an AZPDES permit for a new point source. The first National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System AZPDES permit issued to a new point source may contain a schedule of compliance

only when necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity the permittee to attain compliance with a new or

revised water quality standard that becomes effective after commencement of construction but less than three

years before commencement of the discharge begins . For purposes of this subsection, “ commencement of

construction” means that the owner or operator of the point source has obtained the federal, state, and local

approvals or permits necessary to begin physical construction of the point source and either:

1. Onsite physical construction has begun; or

2. The owner or operator has entered into a contract for physical construction of the point source and the

contract cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial loss. For purposes of this subsection,

“substantial loss” mean s in excess of 10% percent of the total cost incurred for physical construction.

C. A The Director may establish a schedule of compliance may be established in a National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System an AZPDES permit for a recommenci ng point source discharge. The first National

# 269 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System AZPDES permit issued to a recommencing point source discharge

discharger may contain a schedule of compliance only wh en necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to

attain compliance with a new or revised water quality standard that becomes is effective less than three years

before recommencement of the discharge.

D. A The Director may establish a schedule to bring a point source discharge of storm water stormwater into

compliance with a water quality standard may be established in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System an AZPDES permit. A compliance schedule for a storm water stormwater discharge shall require

implementation of all reasonable and cost-effective best management practices to control the discharge of

pollutants in storm water stormwater

.

R18-11-122. Variances

A. The Director may grant shall consider a variance from a water quality standard for a point source discharge if

the discharger demonstrates that treatment more advanced than that required to comply with technologybased effluent limitations is necessary to comply with the water quality standard and:

1. It is not technically feasible to achieve compliance within the next five years,

2. The cost of the treatment would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact, or

3. Human-caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent attainment of the water quality standard and

cannot be remedied within the next five years.

B

. A variance may be granted only on a pollutant

- specific basis. A point source disc harge is required to comply

with all other applicable water quality standards for which a variance is not granted.

C

. A variance applies only to a specific point source discha rge. The granting of a variance does not modify a

water quality standard. Other point source dischargers to the surface wate r shall comply with applicable

water quality standards, including any water quality standard for which a variance has been granted f or a

specific point source discharge.

B. If the Director grants a variance for a point source discharge:

1. The Director shall issue the variance fo r a fixed term not to exceed five years,

2. The variance shall apply only on a pollutant-specifi c basis. The point source discharge shall meet all

other applicable water quality standards for which a variance is not granted, and

3. The variance shall not modify a water quality sta ndard. Other point source discharges to the surface

water shall meet applicable water quality standards.

D

. C. A variance is for a fixed te rm not to exceed five years. Upon expiration of a variance, a point source

discharger shall either comply with the water quality st andard or apply for renewal of the variance. To renew

a variance, the applicant shall demonstrate reasonable progress towards compliance with the water quality

standard during the term of the variance.

E

. D. The Department Director shall reevaluate a variance upon the issu ance, reissuance, or modification of the

National Poll utant Discharge Elimination System AZPDES permit for the point source discharge.

# 270 F

. E. A person who seeks a variance from a water quality st andard shall submit a written request for a variance to

the Department Director . A request for a variance shall include the following information:

1. Identification of the specific pollutant and water quality standard for which a variance is sought;

2. Identification of the receiving surface water;

3. For an existing point source discharge, a detailed description of the existing discharge control

technologies that are used to achieve compliance with applicable water quality standards. For a new

point source discharge, a detailed description of th e proposed discharge control technologies that will

be used to achieve compliance with applicable water quality standards;

4. Documentation that the existing or proposed discharge control technologies will comply with

applicable technology-based effluent limitations and that more advanced treatment technology is

necessary to achieve compliance with the water quality standard for which a variance is sought;

5. A detailed discussion of the reasons why compliance with the water quality standard cannot be

achieved;

6. A detailed discussion of the discharge contro l technologies that are available for achieving

compliance with the water quality standard for which a variance is sought;

7. Documentation of one of the following:

a. That it is not technically feasible to install and operate any of the available discharge control

technologies to achieve compliance with the water quality standard for which a variance is

sought,

b. That installation and operation of each of the available discharge technologies to achieve

compliance with the water quality standard would result in substantial and widespread

economic and social impact, or

c. That human-caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the water

quality standard for which the variance is sought and it is not possible to remedy the

conditions or sources of polluti on within the next five years;

8. Documentation that the point source discharger has reduced, to the maximum extent practicable, the

discharge of the pollutant for which a variance is sought through implementation of a local

pretreatment, source reduction, or waste minimization program, ; and

9. A detailed description of proposed interim discharge limitations that represent the highest level of

treatment achievable by the point source discharger during the term of the variance. Interim

discharge limitations sha ll not be less stringent than technology

- based effluent limitations.

G

. F. In making a decision on whether to grant or deny the request for a variance, the The Director shall consider

the following factors when deciding whether to grant or deny a variance request :

1. Bioaccumulation and bioconcentration

,

2. The predicted exposure of biota and the likelihoo d that resident biota will be adversely affected,

3. The known or predicted safe exposure levels for the pollutant of concern for which the variance is

requested , and

# 271 4. The likelihood of adverse human health effects.

H

. G. The Department Director shall issue a public notice and shall provide an opportunity for a public hearing on

whether the request for a variance should be granted or denied under procedures prescribed in R18

- 1

- 401

and R18

- 1

- 402 A.A.C. R18-9-A907 and A.A.C. R18-9-A908. An interested party may request a public

hearing on a variance under A.A.C. R18-9-A908(B).

H. Any variance granted by the Director is subject to review and approval by the Regional Administrator.

I. Any person who is adversely affected by a decision of the Director to grant or deny a variance and who has

exercised any right to comment on the decision may appeal the decision to an administrative law judge under

A.R.S. § 49-321 et seq. and A.R.S. § 41-1092 et seq.

J. The Department Director shall not grant a variance for a point source discharge to a unique water an OAW



# listed in R18-11-112(G)

.

K

. A variance is subject to review and approval by the Regional Administrator of the U.S . Environmental

Protection Agency.

R18-11-123. Prohibition Agains t Discharge Prohibitions

A. The discharge of treated wastewater to Sabino Creek is the following surface waters is prohibited. :

1. Sabino Canyon Creek;

2. Vekol Wash, upstream of the Ak-Chin Indian Reservation; and

3. Smith Wash, upstream of the Ak-Chin Indian Reservation.

B. The discharge to Lake Powell of human body wastes and the wastes from toilets and other receptacles

intended to receive or retain those wastes on from a vessel to Lake Powell is prohibited.

# 272 Appendix A: Numeric Water Quality Criteria APPENDIX A. NUMERIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Table 1. Human Health and Ag ricultural Designated Uses Water Quality Criteria By Designated Use

PARAMETER CAS*

NUMBER DWS

(μg/L) FC

(μg/L) FBC

(μg/L) PBC

(μg/L) AgI

(μg /L) AgL

(μg/L)

Acenaphthene 83

- 32

- 9 420 2670 84,000 84,000 NNS NNS

Acenaphthylene 208

- 96

- 8 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Acrolein 107

- 02

- 8 3.5 25 700 700 NNS NNS

Acrylonitrile 107

- 13

- 1 0.07 0.7 3 56,000 NNS NNS

Alachlor 15972

- 60

- 8 2 NNS 14,000 14,000 NNS NN S

Aldrin 309

- 00

- 2 0.002 0.0001 0.08 42 p p

Ammonia 7664

- 41

- 7 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Anthracene 120

- 12

- 7 2100 1000 420,000 420,000 NNS NNS

Antimony (as Sb) 7440

- 36

- 0 6 T 4,300 T 560 T 560 T NNS NNS

Arsenic (as As) 7440

- 38

- 2 50 T 1450 T 50 T 420 T 2000 T 200 T

Asbestos 1332

- 21

- 4 a NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Atrazine 1912

- 24

- 9 3 NNS 49,000 49,000 NNS NNS

Barium (as Ba) 7440

- 39

- 3 2000 T NNS 98,000 T 98,000 T NNS NNS

Benzene 71

- 43

- 2 5 140 93 93 NNS NNS

Benzidine 92

- 87

- 5 0.0002 0.001 0.01 4,200 0.01 0.01

Be nz (a) anthracene 56

- 55

- 3 0.048 0.49 1.9 1.9 NNS NNS

Benzo (a) pyrene 50

- 32

- 8 0.2 0.05 0.2 0.2 NNS NNS

Benzo (ghi) perylene 191

- 24

- 2 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Benzo (k) fluoranthene 207

- 08

- 9 0.048 0.49 1.9 1.9 NNS NNS

3,4

- Benzofluoranthene 205

- 99

- 2 0.048 0.49 1.9 1.9 NNS NNS

Beryllium (as Be) 7440

- 41

- 7 4 T 1,130 T 2,800 T 2,800 T NNS NNS

Bis (2

- chloroethoxy) methane 111

- 91

- 1 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Bis (2

- chloroethyl) ether 111

- 44

- 4 0.03 1.4 1.3 1.3 NNS NNS

Bis (2

- chloroisopropyl) ether 108

- 60

- 1 280 1 74,400 56,000 56,000 NNS NNS

Boron (as B) 7440

- 42

- 8 630 T NNS 126,000 T 126,000 T 1000 T NNS

Bromodichloromethane 75

- 27

- 4 TTHM 46 TTHM 28,000 NNS NNS

p

- Bromodiphenyl ether 101

- 55

- 3 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Bromoform 75

- 25

- 2 TTHM 360 180 28,000 NNS NNS

Bromomethane 74

- 83

- 9 9.8 4020 2000 2000 NNS NNS

Butyl benzyl phthalate 85

- 68

- 7 1400 5200 280,000 280,000 NNS NNS

Cadmium (as Cd) 7440

- 43

- 9 5 T 84 T 700 T 700 T 50 T 50 T

Carbofuran 1563

- 66

- 2 40 NNS 7,000 7,000 NNS NNS

Carbon tetrachloride 56

- 23

- 5 5 4 1 1 980 NNS NNS

Chlordane 57

- 74

- 9 2 0.002 4 700 NNS NNS

Chlorine (total residual) 7782

- 50

- 5 700 NNS 140,000 140,000 NNS NNS

Chlorobenzene 108

- 90

- 7 100 20,900 28,000 28,000 NNS NNS

p

- Chloro

- m

- cresol 59

- 50

- 7 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

2

- Chloroethyl vinyl eth er 110

- 75

- 8 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

# 273 Chloroform 67

- 66

- 3 TTHM 470 230 14,000 NNS NNS

Chloromethane 74

- 87

- 3 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Chloronapthalene beta 91

- 58

- 7 560 4,300 112,000 112,000 NNS NNS

2

- Chlorophenol 95

- 57

- 8 35 400 7,000 7,000 NNS NNS

4

- Chloro phenyl phenyl ether 7005

- 72

- 3 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Chromium (as Cr III) 16065

- 83

- 1 10,500 T 1,010,000 T 2,100,000

T 2,100,000

T NNS NNS

Chromium (as Cr VI) 18540

- 29

- 9 21 T 2,000T 4,200 T 4,200 T NNS NNS

Chromium (Total as Cr) 7440

- 47

- 3 100 T NNS 100 T 100 T 1000 T 1000 T

Chrysene 218

- 01

- 9 0.479 4.92 19.2 19 NNS NNS

Copper (as Cu) 7440

- 50

- 8 1,300 T NNS 1,300 T 1,300 T 5000 T 500 T

Cyanide 57

- 12

- 5 200 T 215,000 T 28,000 T 28,000 T NNS 200 T

Dalapon 75

- 99

- 0 200 161,500 42,000 42,000 NNS NNS

Dibenz ( ah) anthracene 53

- 70

- 3 0.048 0.20 1.9 1.9 NNS NNS

Dibromochloromethane 124

- 48

- 1 TTHM 34 TTHM 28,000 NNS NNS

1,2

- Dibromo

- 3

- chloropropane

(DBCP) 96

- 12

- 8 0.2 NNS 2,800 2,800 NNS NNS

1,2

- Dibromoethane (EDB) 106

- 93

- 4 0.05 NNS 0.05 0.05 NNS NNS

Dibutyl phtha late 84

- 74

- 2 700 12,100 140,000 140,000 NNS NNS

1,2

- Dichlorobenzene 95

- 50

- 1 600 2800 126,000 126,000 NNS NNS

1,3

- Dichlorobenzene 541

- 73

- 1 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

1,4

- Dichlorobenzene 106

- 46

- 7 75 77,500 560,000 560,000 NNS NNS

3,3'

- Dichlorobenzidine 91

- 9 4

- 1 0.08 0.08 3.1 3.1 NNS NNS

p,p'

-

Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane

(DDD) 72

- 54

- 8 0.15 0.001 5.8 5.8 0.001 0.001

p,p'

-

Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene

(DDE) 72

- 55

- 9 0.1 0.001 4.1 4.1 0.001 0.001

p,p'

-

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

(DDT) 50

- 29

- 3 0.1 0.000 6 4.1 700 0.001 0.001

1,1

- Dichloroethane 75

- 34

- 3 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

1,2

- Dichloroethane 107

- 06

- 2 5 100 15 280,000 NNS NNS

1,1

- Dichloroethylene 75

- 35

- 4 7 320 230 12,600 NNS NNS

1,2

- cis

- Dichloroethylene 156

- 59

- 2 70 NNS 70 70 NNS NNS

1,2

- trans

- Dichlo roethylene 156

- 60

- 5 100 136,000 28,000 28,000 NNS NNS

Dichloromethane 75

- 09

- 2 5 1600 190 84,000 NNS NNS

2,4

- Dichlorophenol 120

- 83

- 2 21 800 4,200 4,200 NNS NNS

2,4

- Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid

(2,4

- D) 94

- 75

- 7 70 NNS 14,000 14,000 NNS NNS

1,2

- Dichloropropa ne 78

- 87

- 5 5 236,000 126,000 126,000 NNS NNS

# 274 1,3

- Dichloropropene 542

- 75

- 6 2 1,700 420 420 NNS NNS

Dieldrin 60

- 57

- 1 0.002 0.0001 0.09 70 p p

Diethyl phthalate 84

- 66

- 2 5600 118,000 1,120,000 1,120,000 NNS NNS

Di (2

- ethylhexyl) adipate 103

- 23

- 1 400 NNS 1, 200 840,000 NNS NNS

Di (2

- ethylhexyl) phthalate 117

- 81

- 7 6 7.4 100 28,000 NNS NNS

2,4

- Dimethylphenol 105

- 67

- 9 140 2300 28,000 28,000 NNS NNS

Dimethyl phthalate 131

- 11

- 3 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

4,6

- Dinitro

- o

- cresol 534

- 52

- 1 28 7,800 5,600 5,600 NNS NNS

2,4

- Dinitrophenol 51

- 28

- 5 14 14,400 2,800 2,800 NNS NNS

2,4

- Dinitrotoluene 121

- 14

- 2 14 5,700 2,800 2,800 NNS NNS

2,6

- Dinitrotoluene 606

- 20

- 2 0.05 NNS 2 5,600 NNS NNS

Di

- n

- octyl phthalate 117

- 84

- 0 2800 NNS 560,000 560,000 NNS NNS

Dinoseb 88

- 85

- 7 7 NNS 1,400 1,400 NNS NNS

1,2

- Diphenylhydrazine 122

- 66

- 7 0.04 0.5 1.8 1.8 NNS NNS

Diquat 85

- 00

- 7 20 NNS 3,080 3,080 NNS NNS

Endosulfan sulfate 1031

- 07

- 8 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Endosulfan (Total) 115

- 29

- 7 42 240 8,400 8,400 NNS NNS

Endothall 145

- 73

- 3 100 NN S 28,000 28,000 NNS NNS

Endrin 72

- 20

- 8 2 0.8 420 420 0.004 0.004

Endrin aldehyde 7421

- 93

- 3 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Ethylbenzene 100

- 41

- 4 700 28,700 140,000 140,000 NNS NNS

Ethyl chloride 75

- 00

- 3 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Fluoranthene 206

- 44

- 0 280 380 56 ,000 56,000 NNS NNS

Fluorene 86

- 73

- 7 280 14,400 56,000 56,000 NNS NNS

Fluoride 7782

- 41

- 4 4000 NNS 84,000 84,000 NNS NNS

Glyphosate 1071

- 83

- 6 700 1,077,000 140,000 140,000 NNS NNS

Heptachlor 76

- 44

- 8 0.4 0.0002 0.4 700 NNS NNS

Heptachlor epoxide 1024

- 57

- 3 0.2 0.0001 0.2 18 NNS NNS

Hexachlorobenzene 118

- 74

- 1 1 0.001 1 1,120 NNS NNS

Hexachlorobutadiene 87

- 68

- 3 0.45 50 18 280 NNS NNS

Hexachlorocyclohexane alpha 319

- 84

- 6 0.006 0.01 0.22 11,200 NNS NNS

Hexachlorocyclohexane beta 319

- 85

- 7 0.02 0.02 0.78 84 0 NNS NNS

Hexachlorocyclohexane delta 319

- 86

- 8 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Hexachlorocyclohexane gamma

(lindane) 58

- 89

- 9 0.2 25 420 420 NNS NNS

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77

- 47

- 4 50 580 9,800 9,800 NNS NNS

Hexachloroethane 67

- 72

- 1 2.5 9 100 1,400 NNS NNS

I ndeno (1,2,3

- cd) pyrene 193

- 39

- 5 0.048 0.49 1.9 1.9 NNS NNS

Isophorone 78

- 59

- 1 37 2,600 1,500 280,000 NNS NNS

Lead (as Pb) 7439

- 97

- 1 15 T NNS 15 T 15 T 10000

T 100 T

Manganese (as Mn) 7439

- 96

- 5 980 T NNS 196,000 T 196,000 T 10000 NNS

# 275 Mercury (as Hg) 74 39

- 97

- 6 2 T 0.6 T 420 T 420 T NNS 10 T

Methoxychlor 72

- 43

- 5 40 NNS 7,000 7,000 NNS NNS

Naphthalene 91

- 20

- 3 140 20,500 28,000 28,000 NNS NNS

Nickel (as Ni) 7440

- 02

- 0 140 T 4,600 T 28,000 T 28,000 T NNS NNS

Nitrate (as N) 14797

- 55

- 8 10000 NNS 2,240,000 2 ,240,000 NNS NNS

Nitrite (as N) 14797

- 65

- 0 1000 NNS 140,000 140,000 NNS NNS

Nitrate/Nitrite (as Total N) 10000 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Nitrobenzene 98

- 95

- 3 3.5 1,900 700 700 NNS NNS

o

- Nitrophenol 88

- 75

- 5 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

p

- Nitrophenol 100

- 02

- 7 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

N

- nitrosodimethylamine 62

- 75

- 9 0.001 8 0.03 0.03 NNS NNS

N

- nitrosodiphenylamine 86

- 30

- 6 7.1 16 290 290 NNS NNS

N

- nitrosodi

- n

- propylamine 621

- 64

- 7 0.005 1.4 0.2 133,000 NNS NNS

Oxamyl 23135

- 22

- 0 200 NNS 35,000 35,000 NNS NNS

Pentac hlorophenol 87

- 86

- 5 1 1000 12 42,000 NNS NNS

Phenanthrene 85

- 01

- 8 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Phenol 108

- 95

- 2 4200 1,000 840,000 840,000 NNS NNS

Picloram 1918

- 02

- 1 500 24,300 98,000 98,000 NNS NNS

Polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs) 1336

- 36

- 3 0.5 0.007 28 28 0 .001 0.001

Pyrene 129

- 00

- 0 210 10,800 42,000 42,000 NNS NNS

Selenium (as Se) 7782

- 49

- 2 50 T 9000 T 7,000 T 7,000 T 20 T 50 T

Silver (as Ag) 7440

- 22

- 4 35 T 107,700 T 7,000 T 7,000 T NNS NNS

Simazine 112

- 34

- 9 4 NNS 7,000 7,000 NNS NNS

Styrene 100

- 42

- 5 1 00 NNS 280,000 280,000 NNS NNS

Sulfides NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

2,3,7,8

- Tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

dioxin (2,3,7,8

- TCDD) 1746

- 01

- 6 0.0000003 0.000000004 0.00009 1.4 NNS NNS

1,1,2,2

- Tetrachloroethane 79

- 34

- 5 0.17 11 7 56,000 NNS NNS

Tetrachloroethylene 127

- 1 8

- 4 5 3,500 14,000 14,000 NNS NNS

Thallium (as Tl) 7440

- 28

- 0 2 T 7.2 T 112 T 112 T NNS NNS

Toluene 108

- 88

- 3 1000 201,000 280,000 280,000 NNS NNS

Toxaphene 8001

- 35

- 2 3 0.001 1.3 1400 0.005 0.005

1,2,4

- Trichlorobenzene 120

- 82

- 1 70 950 14,000 14,000 NNS N NS

1,1,1

- Trichloroethane 71

- 55

- 6 200 NNS 200 200 1000 NNS

1,1,2

- Trichloroethane 79

- 00

- 5 5 42 25 5,600 NNS NNS

Trichloroethylene 79

- 01

- 6 5 203,200 280,000 280,000 NNS NNS

2,4,6

- Trichlorophenol 88

- 06

- 2 3.2 6.5 130 130 NNS NNS

2

- (2,4,5

- Trichlorophenoxy)

proprionic acid (2,4,5

- TP) 93

- 72

- 1 50 NNS 11,200 11,200 NNS NNS

Trihalomethanes, Total 100 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Uranium (as Ur) 7440

- 61

- 1 35 D NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Vinyl chloride 75

- 01

- 4 2 13 2 4,200 NNS NNS

# 276 Xylenes (Total) 1330

- 20

- 7 10000 NNS 2,800,000 2,800,000 NNS NNS

Zinc (as Zn) 7440

- 66

- 6 2100 T 69,000 T 420,000 T 420,000 T 10000

T 25000

T277PARAMETERCASNUMBERDWS(μg/L)FC(μg/L)FBC(μg/L)PBC(μg/L)A&WcAcute(μg/L)A&WcChronic(μg/L)A&WwAcute(μg/L)A&WwChronic(μg/L)A&WedwAcute(μg/L)A&WedwChronic(μg/L)A&WeAcute(μg/L)AgI(μg/L)AgL(μg/L)Acenaphthene8332942019856,00056,000850550850550850550Acrolein1070283.51.9467467343034303430Acrylonitrile1071310.060.2337,3333,8002503,8002503,800250Alachlor1597260829,3339,3332,5001702,5001702,500170Aldrin3090020.0020.000050.08283334.50.003See (b)Alpha Particles (Gross)Radioactivity15pCi/LAmmonia7664417See (e) &Table 25See (e) &Table 26See (e) &Table 25See (e) &Table 26See (e) &Table 25See (e) &Table 26Anthracene1201272,10074280,000280,000Antimony74403606 T640 T747 T747 T88 D30 D88 D30 D1,000 D600 DArsenic744038210 T80 T30 T280 T340 D150 D340 D150 D340 D150 D440 D2,000 T200 TAsbestos1332214See (a)Atrazine1912249332,66732,667Barium74403932,000 T98,000 T98,000 TBenz(a)anthracene565530.0050.020.20.2Benzene714325114933,7332,7001802,7001808,8005603, 4 Benzofluoranthene2059920.0050.021.91.9Benzidine928750.00020.00020.012,8001,300891,300891,3008910,0000.010.01Benzo(a)pyrene503280.20.020.20.2Benzo(k)fluoranthene2070890.0050.021.91.9Beryllium74404174 T84 T1,867 T1,867 TBeta particles and photonemitters4millirems/yearBis(2-chloroethyl) ether1114440.030.511120,0006,700120,0006,700120,0006,700278PARAMETERCASNUMBERDWS(μg/L)FC(μg/L)FBC(μg/L)PBC(μg/L)A&WcAcute(μg/L)A&WcChronic(μg/L)A&WwAcute(μg/L)A&WwChronic(μg/L)A&WedwAcute(μg/L)A&WedwChronic(μg/L)A&WeAcute(μg/L)AgI(μg/L)AgL(μg/L)Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether1086012803,44137,33337,333Boron74404281,400 T186,667 T186,667 T1,000 TBromodichloromethane75274TTHMSee (g)1718,66718,667p-Bromodiphenyl ether101553180141801418014Bromoform75252TTHMSee (g)13318018,66715,00010,00015,00010,00015,00010,000Bromomethane748399.82991,3071,3075,5003605,5003605,500360Butyl benzyl phthalate856871,400386186,667186,6671,7001301,7001301,700130Cadmium74404395 T84 T700 T700 TSee (d) &Table 2See (d) &Table 3See (d) &Table 4See (d) &Table 5See (d) &Table 4See (d) &Table 5See (d) &Table 65050Carbofuran1563662404,6674,667650506505065050Carbon tetrachloride5623552111,30718,0001,10018,0001,10018,0001,100Chlordane5774920.000844672.40.0042.40.22.40.23.2Chlorine (total residual)77825054,0004,0004,000191119111911Chlorobenzene1089071001,55318,66718,6673,8002603,8002603,8002602-Chloroethyl vinyl ether110758180,0009,800180,0009,800180,0009,800Chloroform67663TTHMSee (g)2,1339,3339,33314,00090014,00090014,000900p-Chloro-m-cresol59507154.7154.7154.748,000Chloromethane74873270,00015,000270,00015,000270,00015,0002-Chloronapthalene9158756031774,66774,6672-Chlorophenol9557835304,6674,6672,2001502,2001502,200150Chloropyrifos2921882212,8002,8000.080.040.080.040.080.04Chromium III1606583175,000 T1,400,000T1,400,000TSee (d) &Table 7See (d) &Table 8See (d) &Table 7See (d) &Table 8See (d) &Table 7See (d) &Table 8See (d) &Table 9Chromium VI1854029921 T150 T2,800 T2,800 T16 D11 D16 D11 D16 D11 D34 D279PARAMETERCASNUMBERDWS(μg/L)FC(μg/L)FBC(μg/L)PBC(μg/L)A&WcAcute(μg/L)A&WcChronic(μg/L)A&WwAcute(μg/L)A&WwChronic(μg/L)A&WedwAcute(μg/L)A&WedwChronic(μg/L)A&WeAcute(μg/L)AgI(μg/L)AgL(μg/L)Chromium (Total)7440473100 T1,0001,000Chrysene2180190.0050.021919Copper74405081,300 T1,300 T1,300 TSee (d) &Table 10See (d) &Table 11See (d) &Table 10See (d) &Table 11See (d) &Table 10See (d) &Table 11See (d) &Table 125,000 T500 TCyanide (as free cyanide)57125200 T16,000 T18,667 T18,667 T22 T5.2 T41 T9.7 T41 T9.7 T84 T200 TDalapon759902008,00028,00028,000Dibenz (ah) anthracene537030.0050.021.91.9Dibromochloromethane124481TTHMSee (g)1318,66718,6671,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane961280.21,2-Dibromoethane1069340.058,4008,400Dibutyl phthalate8474270089993,33393,3334703547035470351,1001,2-Dichlorobenzene9550160020584,00084,0007903001,2004701,2004705,9001,3-Dichlorobenzene5417312,5009702,5009702,5009701,4-Dichlorobenzene106467755,755373,333373,3335602102,0007802,0007806,5003,3'-Dichlorobenzidine919410.080.0333p,p'-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane(DDT) and metabolites (DDD)and (DDE)502930.10.000244671.10.0011.10.0011.10.0011.10.0010.0011,2-Dichloroethane10706253715186,66759,00041,00059,00041,00059,00041,0001,1-Dichloroethylene7535477,14346,66746,66715,00095015,00095015,0009501,2-cis-Dichloroethylene1565927070701,2-trans-Dichloroethylene15660510010,12718,66718,66768,0003,90068,0003,90068,0003,900Dichloromethane75092559319056,00097,0005,50097,0005,50097,0005,5002,4-Dichlorophenol12083221592,8002,8001,000881,000881,000882,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid94757709,3339,333280PARAMETERCASNUMBERDWS(μg/L)FC(μg/L)FBC(μg/L)PBC(μg/L)A&WcAcute(μg/L)A&WcChronic(μg/L)A&WwAcute(μg/L)A&WwChronic(μg/L)A&WedwAcute(μg/L)A&WedwChronic(μg/L)A&WeAcute(μg/L)AgI(μg/L)AgL(μg/L)(2,4-D)1,2-Dichloropropane78875517,51884,00084,00026,0009,20026,0009,20026,0009,2001,3-Dichloropropene5427560.74242028,0003,0001,1003,0001,1003,0001,100Dieldrin605710.0020.000050.09470.20.060.20.060.20.0640.003See (b)Diethyl phthalate846625,6008,767746,667746,66726,0001,60026,0001,60026,0001,600Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate103231400560,000560,000Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate117817631,20018,6674003604003604003603,1002,4-Dimethylphenol10567914017118,66718,6671,0003101,0003101,000310150,000Dimethyl phthalate13111317,0001,00017,0001,00017,0001,0004,6-Dinitro-o-cresol534521285823,7333,7333102431024310242,4-Dinitrophenol51285141,0671,8671,8671109.21109.21109.22,4-Dinitrotoluene121142144211,8671,86714,00086014,00086014,0008602,6-Dinitrotoluene6062020.0523,733Di-n-octyl phthalate1178402,800373,333373,333Dinoseb8885779339331,2-Diphenylhydrazine1226670.040.21.81.8130111301113011Diquat85007202,0532,053Endosulfan sulfate103107842185,6005,6000.20.060.20.060.20.063Endosulfan (Total)11529742185,6005,6000.20.060.20.060.20.063Endothall14573310018,66718,667Endrin7220820.062802800.090.040.090.040.090.040.70.0040.004Endrin aldehyde74219330.090.040.090.040.090.040.7Ethylbenzene1004147002,13393,33393,33323,0001,40023,0001,40023,0001,400Fluoranthene2064402802837,33337,3332,0001,6002,0001,6002,0001,600Fluorene867372801,06737,33337,333Fluoride77824144,000140,000140,000Glyphosate1071836700266,66793,33393,333281PARAMETERCASNUMBERDWS(μg/L)FC(μg/L)FBC(μg/L)PBC(μg/L)A&WcAcute(μg/L)A&WcChronic(μg/L)A&WwAcute(μg/L)A&WwChronic(μg/L)A&WedwAcute(μg/L)A&WedwChronic(μg/L)A&WeAcute(μg/L)AgI(μg/L)AgL(μg/L)Guthion865000.010.010.01Heptachlor764480.40.000080.44670.50.0040.50.0040.60.010.9Heptachlor epoxide10245730.20.000040.2120.50.0040.50.0040.60.010.9Hexachlorobenzene11874110.0003174763.763.763.7Hexachlorobutadiene876830.41818187458.2458.2458.2Hexachlorocyclohexane alpha3198460.0060.0050.227,4671,6001301,6001301,6001301,600Hexachlorocyclohexane beta3198570.020.020.785601,6001301,6001301,6001301,600Hexachlorocyclohexane delta3198681,6001301,6001301,6001301,600Hexachlorocyclohexane gamma(lindane)588990.21.828028011111Hexachlorocyclopentadiene77474507411,20011,2003.50.33.50.33.50.3Hexachloroethane677212.53.3100933490350490350490350850Hydrogen sulfide77830642See (c)2See (c)2See (c)Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene1933950.050.21.91.9Iron74398961,000 D1,000 D1,000 DIsophorone78591379611,500186,66759,00043,00059,00043,00059,00043,000Lead743997115 T15 T15 TSee (d) &Table 13See (d) &Table 14See (d) &Table 13See (d) &Table 14See (d) &Table 13See (d) &Table 14See (d) &Table 1510,000 T100 TMalathion12175514018,66718,6670.10.10.1Manganese7439965980130,667130,66710,000Mercury74399762 T280 T280 T2.4 D0.01 D2.4 D0.01 D2.4 D0.01 D5 D10 TMethoxychlor72435404,6674,6670.030.030.03Methylmercury0.3mg/kgMirex238585511871870.0010.0010.001Naphthalene912031401,52418,66718,6671,1002103,2005803,200580Nickel7440020210 T511 T28,000 T28,000 TSee (d) &See (d) &See (d) &See (d) &See (d) &See (d) &See (d) &282PARAMETERCASNUMBERDWS(μg/L)FC(μg/L)FBC(μg/L)PBC(μg/L)A&WcAcute(μg/L)A&WcChronic(μg/L)A&WwAcute(μg/L)A&WwChronic(μg/L)A&WedwAcute(μg/L)A&WedwChronic(μg/L)A&WeAcute(μg/L)AgI(μg/L)AgL(μg/L)Table 16Table 17Table 16Table 17Table 16Table 17Table 18Nitrate1479755810,0003,733,3333,733,333Nitrite147976501,000233,333233,333Nitrate + Nitrite10,000Nitrobenzene989533.51384674671,3008501,3008501,300850p-Nitrophenol1000274,1003,0004,1003,0004,1003,000N-nitrosodimethylamine627590.00130.030.03N-nitrosodi-n-phenylamine863067.162902902,9002002,9002002,900200N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine6216470.0050.50.288,667Oxamyl2313522020023,33323,333Parathion563820.070.010.070.010.070.01Paraquat1910425324,2004,200100541005410054Pentachlorophenol8786513701228,000See (e) &Table 22See (e) &Table 23See (e) &Table 22See (e) &Table 23See (e) &Table 22See (e) &Table 23See (e) &Table 24Permethrin5264553135046,66746,6670.30.20.30.20.30.2Phenanthrene85018306.3306.3306.3Phenol1089522,10037280,000280,0005,1007307,0001,0007,0001,000180,000Picloram19180215002,71065,33365,333Polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs)13363630.50.00006191920.0120.0220.02110.0010.001Pyrene12900021080028,00028,000Radium 226 + Radium 2285 pCi/LSelenium778249250 T667 T4,667 T4,667 T2 T2 T2 T33 T20 T50 TSilver744022435 T8,000 T4,667 T4,667 TSee (d) &Table 19See (d) &Table 19See (d) &Table 19See (d) &Table 19Simazine11234944,6674,667Styrene100425100186,667186,6675,6003705,6003705,6003702,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-17460160.000035x10-90.000030.00090.010.0050.010.0050.010.0050.1283PARAMETERCASNUMBERDWS(μg/L)FC(μg/L)FBC(μg/L)PBC(μg/L)A&WcAcute(μg/L)A&WcChronic(μg/L)A&WwAcute(μg/L)A&WwChronic(μg/L)A&WedwAcute(μg/L)A&WedwChronic(μg/L)A&WeAcute(μg/L)AgI(μg/L)AgL(μg/L)dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane793450.24793,3334,7003,2004,7003,2004,7003,200Tetrachloroethylene12718452619,3339,3332,6002806,5006806,50068015,000Thallium74402802 T1 T75 T75 T700 D150 D700 D150 D700 D150 DToluene1088831,00029,907373,333373,3338,7001808,7001808,700180Toxaphene800135230.00031.39330.70.00020.70.00020.70.0002110.0050.005Tributyltin0.50.070.50.070.50.071,2,4-Trichlorobenzene12082170709,3339,3337501301,7003001,7003001,1,1-Trichloroethane71556200428,5711,866,6671,866,6672,6001,6002,6001,6002,6001,6001,0001,1,2-Trichloroethane79005516253,73318,00012,00018,00012,00018,00012,000Trichloroethylene79016529280,00028020,0001,30020,0001,30020,0001,3002,4,6-Trichlorophenol880623.221301301602516025160253,0002,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyproprionic acid (2,4,5-TP)93721507,4677,467Trihalomethanes (T)80Uranium744061130 D2,8002,800Vinyl chloride750142522,800Xylenes (T)133020710,000186,667186,667Zinc74406662,100 T5,106 T280,000 T280,000 TSee (d) &Table 20See (d) &Table 20See (d) &Table 20See (d) &Table 20See (d) &Table 20See (d) &Table 20See (d) &Table 2110,000 T25,000 T

# 284 Footnotes

a. The asbestos standard is 7 million fibers (longer than 10 micrometers) per liter.

b. The aldrin/dieldrin standard is exceeded when the sum of the two compounds exceeds 0.003 μg/L.

c. In lakes, the criteria for hydrogen su lfide apply only to water samples taken fro m the epilimnion, or the upper layer of a

lake or reservoir.

d. Hardness, expressed as mg/L CaCO 3 

# , is determined according to the following criteria:

i. If the receiving water body has an A&Wc or A&Ww designated use, then hardness is based on the hardness of

the receiving water body from a sample taken at the same time that the sample for the metal is taken, except that

the hardness may not exceed 400 mg/L CaCO 3



# .

ii. If the receiving water has an A&We dw or A&We designated use, then th e hardness is based on the hardness of

the effluent from a sample taken at the same time that th e sample for the metal is taken, except that the hardness

may not exceed 400 mg/L CaCO 3



# .

e. pH is determined according to the following criteria:

i. If the receiving water has an A&Wc or A&Ww designated use, then pH is based on the pH of the receiving

water body from a sample taken at the same time that th e sample for pentachlorophenol or ammonia is taken.

ii. If the receiving water body has an A&Wedw or A&We designated use, then the pH is based on the pH of the

effluent from a sample taken at th e same time that the sample for pe ntachlorophenol or ammonia is taken.

f. Table 1 abbreviations.

i. μg/L = micrograms per liter,

ii. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram,

iii. pCi/L = picocuries per liter,

iv. D = dissolved,

v. T = total recoverable,

vi. TTHM indicates that the chemical is a trihalomethane.

g. The total trihalomethane (TTHM) standard is exceeded when the sum of these four compounds exceeds 80 μg/L, as a

rolling annual average.

Appendix A: Numeric Water Quality Criteria

Table 2. Aquatic & Wildlife Designated Uses Acute Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Cadmium

Aquatic and Wildlife coldwater

PARAMETER CAS*

NUMBER A&Wc

Acute

(μg/L) A&Wc

Chronic

(μg/L) A&Ww

Acu te

(μg/L) A&Ww

Chronic

(μg/L) A&Wedw

Acute

(μg/L) A&Wedw

Chronic

(μg/L) A&We

Acute

(μg/L)

Acenaphthene 83

- 32

- 9 850 550 850 550 850 550 NNS

Acenaphthylene 208

- 96

- 8 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Acrolein 107

- 02

- 8 34 30 34 30 34 30 NNS

Acrylonitrile 107

- 13

- 1 3800 250 3800 250 3800 250 NNS

Alachlor 15972

- 60

- 8 2500 170 2500 170 2500 170 NNS

Aldrin 309

- 00

- 2 2.0 NNS 2.0 NNS 2.0 NNS 4.5

Ammonia 7664

- 41

- 7 b b b b NNS NNS NNS

Anthracene 120

- 12

- 7 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Antimony (as Sb) 7440

- 36

- 0 88 D 30 D 88 D 30 D 1000 D 600 D NNS

# 285 Arsenic (as As) 7440

- 38

- 2 360 D 190 D 360 D 190 D 360 D 190 D 440 D

Asbestos 1332

- 21

- 4 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Atrazine 1912

- 24

- 9 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Barium (as Ba) 7440

- 39

- 3 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Benzene 71

- 43

- 2 2700 180 2700 180 8800 560 NNS

Benzidine 92

- 87

- 5 1300 89 1300 89 1300 89 10000

Benz (a) anthracene 56

- 55

- 3 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Benzo (a) pyrene 50

- 32

- 8 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Benzo (ghi) perylene 191

- 24

- 2 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NN S

Benzo (k) fluoranthene 207

- 08

- 9 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

3,4

- Benzofluoranthene 205

- 99

- 2 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Beryllium (as Be) 7440

- 41

- 7 65 D 5.3 D 65 D 5.3 D 65 D 5.3 D NNS

Bis (2

- chloroethoxy) methane 111

- 91

- 1 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Bis (2

- chlorethyl) ether 111

- 44

- 4 120000 6700 120000 6700 120000 6700 NNS

Bis (2

- chloroisopropyl) ether 108

- 60

- 1 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Boron (as B) 7440

- 42

- 8 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Bromodichloromethane 75

- 27

- 4 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

p

- Bromodiphenyl ether 101

- 55

- 3 180 14 180 14 180 14 NNS

Bromoform 75

- 25

- 2 15000 10000 15000 10000 15000 10000 NNS

Bromomethane 74

- 83

- 9 5500 360 5500 360 5500 360 NNS

Butyl benzyl phthalate 85

- 68

- 7 1700 130 1700 130 1700 130 NNS

Cadmium (as Cd) 7440

- 43

- 9 c D c D c D c D c D c D c D

Carbofuran 1563

- 66

- 2 650 50 650 50 650 50 NNS

Carbon tetrachloride 56

- 23

- 5 18000 1100 18000 1100 18000 1100 NNS

Chlordane 57

- 74

- 9 2.4 0.004 2.4 0.21 2.4 0.21 3.2

Chlorine (total residual) 7782

- 50

- 5 11 5.0 11 5.0 11 5.0 NNS

Chlorobenzene 108

- 90

- 7 3800 260 3800 260 3800 260 NNS

p

- Chloro

- m

- cresol 59

- 50

- 7 15 4.7 15 4.7 15 4.7 48000

2

- Chloroethyl vinyl ether 110

- 75

- 8 180000 9800 180000 9800 180000 9800 NNS

Chloroform 67

- 66

- 3 14000 900 14000 900 14000 900 NNS

Chloromethane 74

- 87

- 3 270000 15000 270000 15000 270000 15000 NNS

Chloronapthalene beta 91

- 58

- 7 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

2

- Chlorophenol 95

- 57

- 8 2200 150 2200 150 2200 150 NNS

4

- Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 7005

- 72

- 3 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Chromium (as Cr III) 16065

- 83

- 1 d D d D d D d D d D d D d D

Chromium (as Cr VI) 18540

- 29

- 9 16 D 11 D 16 D 11 D 16 D 11 D 34 D

Chromium (Total as Cr) 7440

- 47

- 3 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Chrysene 218

- 01

- 9 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Copper (as Cu) 7440

- 50

- 8 e D e D e D e D e D e D e D

Cyanide 57

- 12

- 5 22 T 5.2 T 41 T 9.7 T 41 T 9.7 T 84 T

Dibenz (ah) anthracene 53

- 70

- 3 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

# 286 Dibromochloromethane 124

- 48

- 1 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

1,2

- Dibromo

- 3

- chloropropane

(DBCP) 96

- 12

- 8 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

1 ,2

- Dibromoethane (EDB) 106

- 93

- 4 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Dibutyl phthalate 84

- 74

- 2 470 35 470 35 470 35 1100

1,2

- Dichlorobenzene 95

- 50

- 1 790 300 1200 470 1200 470 5900

1,3

- Dichlorobenzene 541

- 73

- 1 2500 970 2500 970 2500 970 NNS

1,4

- Dichlorobenzene 1 06

- 46

- 7 560 210 2000 780 2000 780 6500

3,3'

- Dichlorobenzidine 91

- 94

- 1 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

p,p'

-

Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane

(DDD) 72

- 54

- 8 1.1 0.001 1.1 0.02 1.1 0.02 1.1

p,p'

-

Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene

(DDE) 72

- 55

- 9 1.1 0.001 1.1 0.02 1. 1 0.02 1.1

p,p'

-

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

(DDT) 50

- 29

- 3 1.1 0.001 1.1 0.001 1.1 0.001 1.1

1,1

- Dichloroethane 75

- 34

- 3 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

1,2

- Dichloroethane 107

- 06

- 2 59000 41000 59000 41000 59000 41000 NNS

1,1

- Dichloroethylene 75

- 35

- 4 1500 0 950 15000 950 15000 950 NNS

1,2

- cis

- Dichloroethylene 156

- 59

- 2 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

1,2

- trans

- Dichloroethylene 156

- 60

- 5 68000 3900 68000 3900 68000 3900 NNS

Dichloromethane 75

- 09

- 2 97000 5500 97000 5500 97000 5500 NNS

2,4

- Dichlorophenol 120

- 83

- 2 1000 88 1000 88 1000 88 NNS

2,4

- Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid

(2,4

- D) 94

- 75

- 7 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

1,2

- Dichloropropane 78

- 87

- 5 26000 9200 26000 9200 26000 9200 NNS

1,3

- Dichloropropene 542

- 75

- 6 3000 1100 3000 1100 3000 1100 NNS

Dieldrin 60

- 57

- 1 2. 5 0.002 2.5 0.002 2.5 0.005 4

Diethyl phthalate 84

- 66

- 2 26000 1600 26000 1600 26000 1600 NNS

Di(2

- ethylhexyl) phthalate 117

- 81

- 7 400 360 400 360 400 360 3100

2,4

- Dimethylphenol 105

- 67

- 9 1000 310 1000 310 1100 310 150000

Dimethyl phthalate 131

- 11

- 3 1700 0 1000 17000 1000 17000 1000 NNS

4,6

- Dinitro

- o

- cresol 534

- 52

- 1 310 24 310 24 310 24 NNS

2,4

- Dinitrophenol 51

- 28

- 5 110 9.2 110 9.2 110 9.2 NNS

2,4

- Dinitrotoluene 121

- 14

- 2 14000 860 14000 860 14000 860 NNS

2,6

- Dinitrotoluene 606

- 20

- 2 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

- Di

- n

- octyl phthalate 117

- 84

- 0 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

1,2

- Diphenylhydrazine 122

- 66

- 7 130 11 130 11 130 11 NNS

Endosulfan sulfate 1031

- 07

- 8 0.22 0.06 0.22 0.06 0.22 0.06 3.0

Endosulfan (Total) 115

- 29

- 7 0.22 0.06 0.22 0.06 0.22 0.06 3.0

# 287 End rin 72

- 20

- 8 0.18 0.002 0.2 0.08 0.2 0.08 0.7

Endrin aldehyde 7421

- 93

- 3 0.18 0.002 0.2 0.08 0.2 0.08 0.7

Ethylbenzene 100

- 41

- 4 23000 1400 23000 1400 23000 1400 NNS

Ethyl chloride 75

- 00

- 3 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Fluoranthene 206

- 44

- 0 2000 1600 2000 1 600 2000 1600 NNS

Fluorene 86

- 73

- 7 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Fluorine 7782

- 41

- 4 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Heptachlor 76

- 44

- 8 0.52 0.004 0.52 0.004 0.58 0.013 0.9

Heptachlor epoxide 1024

- 57

- 3 0.52 0.004 0.52 0.004 0.58 0.013 0.9

Hexachlorobenzene 1 18

- 74

- 1 6.0 3.7 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Hexachlorobutadiene 87

- 68

- 3 45 8.2 45 8.2 45 8.2 NNS

Hexachlorocyclohexane alpha 319

- 84

- 6 1600 130 1600 130 1600 130 1600

Hexachlorocyclohexane beta 319

- 85

- 7 1600 130 1600 130 1600 130 1600

Hexachlorocyclohexane delt a 319

- 86

- 8 1600 130 1600 130 1600 130 1600

Hexachlorocyclohexane gamma

(lindane) 58

- 89

- 9 2.0 0.08 3.4 0.28 7.6 0.61 11

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77

- 47

- 4 3.5 0.3 3.5 0.3 3.5 0.3 NNS

Hexachloroethane 67

- 72

- 1 490 350 490 350 490 350 850

Indeno (1,2,3

- cd) pyrene 193

- 39

- 5 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Isophorone 78

- 59

- 1 59000 43000 59000 43000 59000 43000 NNS

Lead (as Pb) 7439

- 97

- 1 f D f D f D f D f D f D f D

Manganese (as Mn) 7439

- 96

- 5 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Mercury (as Hg) 7439

- 97

- 6 2.4 D 0.01 D 2.4 D 0.01 D 2.6 D 0.2 D 5.0 D

Methoxychlor 72

- 43

- 5 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Naphthalene 91

- 20

- 3 1100 210 3200 580 3200 580 NNS

Nickel (as Ni) 7440

- 02

- 0 g D g D g D g D g D g D g D

Nitrate (as N) 14797

- 55

- 8 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Nitrite (as N) 1 4797

- 65

- 0 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Nitrate/Nitrite (as Total N) NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Nitrobenzene 98

- 95

- 3 1300 850 1300 850 1300 850 NNS

o

- Nitrophenol 88

- 75

- 5 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

p

- Nitrophenol 100

- 02

- 7 4100 3000 4100 3000 4100 3000 N NS

N

- nitrosodimethylamine 62

- 75

- 9 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

N

- nitrosodiphenylamine 86

- 30

- 6 2900 200 2900 200 2900 200 NNS

N

- nitrosodi

- n

- propylamine 621

- 64

- 7 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Pentachlorophenol 87

- 86

- 5 h h h h h h h

Phenanthrene 85

- 01

- 8 30 6.3 30 6.3 54 6.3 NNS

Phenol 108

- 95

- 2 5100 730 7000 1000 7000 1000 180000

Polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs) 1336

- 36

- 3 2.0 0.01 2.0 0.02 2.0 0.02 11

Pyrene 129

- 00

- 0 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Selenium (as Se) 7782

- 49

- 2 20 T 2.0 T 20 T 2.0 T 50 T 2.0 T 33 T

# 288 Silver (as Ag) 7440

- 22

- 4 i D NNS i D NNS i D NNS i D

Styrene 100

- 42

- 5 5600 370 5600 370 5600 370 NNS

Sulfides n 

# 100 NNS 100 NNS 100 NNS 100

2,3,7,8

- Tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

dioxin (2,3,7,8

- TCDD) 1746

- 01

- 6 0.01 0.005 0.01 0.005 0.12 0.01 0.1

1,1,2,2

- T etrachloroethane 79

- 34

- 5 4700 3200 4700 3200 4700 3200 NNS

Tetrachloroethylene 127

- 18

- 4 2600 280 6500 680 6500 680 15000

Thallium (as Tl) 7440

- 28

- 0 700 D 150 D 700 D 150 D 700 D 150 D NNS

Toluene 108

- 88

- 3 8700 180 8700 180 8700 180 NNS

Toxaphene 8001

- 3 5

- 2 0.73 0.0002 0.73 0.02 0.73 0.02 11

1,2,4

- Trichlorobenzene 120

- 82

- 1 750 130 1700 300 NNS NNS NNS

1,1,1

- Trichloroethane 71

- 55

- 6 2600 1600 2600 1600 2600 1600 NNS

1,1,2

- Trichloroethane 79

- 00

- 5 18000 12000 18000 12000 18000 12000 NNS

Trichloroethylene 79

- 01

- 6 20000 1300 20000 1300 20000 1300 NNS

2,4,6

- Trichlorophenol 88

- 06

- 2 160 25 160 25 160 25 3000

2

- (2,4,5

- Trichlorophenoxy)

proprionic acid (2,4,5

- TP) 93

- 72

- 1 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Trihalomethanes, Total NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Uranium ( as Ur) 7440

- 61

- 1 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Vinyl chloride 75

- 01

- 4 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Xylenes (Total) 1330

- 20

- 7 NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS

Zinc (as Zn) 7440

- 66

- 6 j D j D j D j D j D j D j D

Footnotes

a. The standard to protect this use is 7 million fibers (longer than 10 micrometers) per liter.

b. Values for ammonia are contained in separate tables located at the end of Appendix A

c. Cadmium

A&Wc acute standard: (e (1.128 [ln(Hardness)]

- 3.6867) 

# ) * (1.136672

- ln(hardness) * (0.041838))

A&W c chronic standard: (e (0.7852 [ln(Hardness)]

- 2.715) 

# ) * (1.101672

- ln(hardness) * (0.041838))

A&Ww acute standard: (e (1.128 [ln(Hardness)]

- 3.6867) 

# ) * (1.136672

- ln(hardness) * (0.041838))

A&Ww chronic standard: (e (0.7852 [ln(Hardness)]

- 2.715) 

# ) * (1.1016 72

- ln(hardness) * (0.041838))

A&Wedw acute standard: (e (1.128 [ln(Hardness)]

- 3.6867) 

# ) * (1.136672

- ln(hardness) * (0.041838))

A&Wedw chronic standard: (e (0.7852 [ln(Hardness)]

–2.715) 

# ) * (1.101672

- ln(hardness) ] * (0.041838))

A&We acute standard: (e (1.128 [ln(Hardness)]

- 0.9691) 

# ) * (1.136672

- ln(hardness) ] * (0.041838))

(See Footnote k)

d. Chromium III

A&Wc acute standard: (e (0.8190 [ln(Hardness)] [(ln hardness)] + 3.7256) 

# ) * (0.316)

A&Wc chronic standard: (e (0.8190 [ln(Hardness)] [(ln hardness)] + 0.68 48) 

# ) * (0.86)

A&Ww acute standard: (e (0.8190 [ln(Hardness)] [(ln hardness)] + 3.7256) 

# ) * (0.316)

A&Ww chronic standard: (e (0.8190 [ln(Hardness)] [(ln hardness)] + 0.6848) 

# ) * (0.86)

# 289 A&Wedw acute standard: (e (0.8190 [ln(Hardness)] [(ln hardness)] + 3.7256 ) 

# ) * (0.316)

A&Wedw chronic standard: (e (0.8190 [ln(Hardness)] [(ln hardness)] + 0.6848) 

# ) * (0.86)

A&We acute standard: (e (0.8190 [ln(Hardness)] [(ln hardness)] + 4.9361) 

# ) * (0.316)

(See Footnote k)

e. Copper

A&Wc acute standard: (e (0.9422 [ln(Hardness) ] [(ln hardness)]

- 1.7) 

# ) * (0.96)

A&Wc chronic standard: (e (0.8545 [ln(Hardness)] [(ln hardness)]

- 1.702) 

# ) * (0.96)

A&Ww acute standard: (e (0.9422 [ln(Hardness)] [(ln hardness)]

- 1.7) 

# ) * (0.96)

A&Ww chronic standard: (e (0.8545 [ln(Hardness)] [(ln har dness)]

- 1.702) 

# ) * (0.96)

A&Wedw acute standard: (e (0.9422 [ln(Hardness)] [(ln hardness)]

- 1.7) 

# ) * (0.96)

A&Wedw chronic standard: (e (0.8545 [ln(Hardness)] [(ln hardness)]

- 1.702) 

# ) * (0.96)

A&We acute standard: (e (0.9422 [ln(Hardness)] [(ln hardness) ]

- 1.1514) 

# ) * (0.96)

(See Footnote k)

f. Lead

A&Wc acute standard: (e (1.2730 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)]

- 1.460) 

# ) * (1.46203

- ln(hardness) * (0.145712))

A&Wc chronic standard: (e (1.2730 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)]

- 4.705) 

# ) * (1.46203

- ln(hardness) * (0.145712))

A&Ww acute standard: (e (1.2730 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)]

- 1.460) 

# ) * (1.46203

- ln(hardness) * (0.145712))

A&Ww chronic standard: (e (1.2730 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)]

- 4.705) 

# ) * (1.46203

- ln(hardness) * (0.145712))

A&Wedw acute standard : (e (1.2730 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)]

- 1.460) 

# ) * (1.46203

- ln(hardness) * (0.145712))

A&Wedw chronic standard: (e (1.2730 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)]

- 4.705) 

# ) * (1.46203

- ln(hardness) * (0.145712))

A&We acute standard: (e (1.2730 [ln(Hardness)] [ln( hardness)]

- 0.7131) 

# ) * (1.46203

- ln(hardness) * (0.145712))

(See Footnote k)

g. Nickel

A&Wc acute standard: (e (0.8460 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)] + 2.255) 

# ) * (0.998)

A&Wc chronic standard: (e (0.8460 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)] + 0.0584) 

# ) * (0.997)

A& Ww acute standard: (e (0.8460 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)] + 2.255) 

# ) * (0.998)

A&Ww chronic standard: (e (0.8460 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)] + 0.0584) 

# ) * (0.997)

A&Wedw acute standard: (e (0.8460 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)] + 2.255) 

# ) * (0.998)

A&Wedw chronic standard: (e (0.8460 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)] + 0.0584) 

# ) * (0.997)

A&We acute standard: (e (0.8460 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)] + 4.4389) 

# ) * (0.998)

(See Footnote k)

h. Pentachlorophenol

A&Wc acute standard: e (1.005 (pH)

- 4.830)



# A&Wc chroni c standard: e (1.005 (pH)

- 5.290)



# A&Ww acute standard: e (1.005 (pH)

- 4.830)



# A&Ww chronic standard: e (1.005 (pH)

- 5.290)



# A&Wedw acute standard: e (1.005 (pH)

- 4.830)



# A&Wedw chronic standard: e (1.005 (pH)

- 5.290)



# A&We acute standard: e (1.005 (pH)

- 3.4306)



# (See Footnote )

i. Silver

A&Wc acute standard: (e (1.72 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)]

- 6.52 6.59 ) 

# ) * (0.85)

A&Ww acute standard: (e (1.72 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)]

- .52 6.59 ) 

# ) * (0.85)

# 290 A&Wedw acute standard: (e (1.72 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardn ess)]

- 6.52 6.59 ) 

# ) * (0.85)

A&We acute standard: (e (1.72 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)]

- 6.52 6.59 ) 

# ) * (0.85)

(See Footnote k)

j. Zinc

A&Wc acute standard: (e (0.8473 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)] + 0.884) 

# ) * (0.978)

A&Wc chronic standard: (e (0.8473 [ln( Hardness)] [ln(hardness)] + 0.884) 

# ) * (0.978)

A&Ww acute standard: (e (0.8473 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)] + 0.884) 

# ) * 0.978)

A&Ww chronic standard: (e (0.8473 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)] + 0.884) 

# ) * (0.978)

A&Wedw acute standard: (e (0.8473 [ln(Hardnes s)] [ln(hardness)] + 0.884) 

# ) * (0.978)

A&Wedw chronic standard: (e (0.8473 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)] + 0.884) 

# ) * (0.978)

A&We acute standard: (e (0.8473 [ln(Hardness)] [ln(hardness)] + 3.1342) 

# ) * (0.978)

(See Footnote k)

k. Hardness, expressed as mg/L CaCO 3 

# , is inserted into the equation where it says “Hardness.” Hardness is determined

according to the following criteria:

1. If the receiving water body has an A&Wc or A&Ww designated use, then ha rdness is based on the hardness of

the receiving water body from a sample taken at the same time that the sample for the metal is taken, except that

the hardness may not exceed 400 mg/L CaCO 3



# .

2. If the receiving water has an A&Wedw or A&We designated use, then the hardness is based on the hardness of

the effluent from a sample taken at the same time that the sample for the metal is taken, except that the hardness

may not exceed 400 mg/L CaCO 3



# .

l. The pH is inserted into the equation where it says “pH” . pH is determined according to the following criteria:

1. If th e receiving water has an A&Wc or A&Ww designated use, then pH is based on the pH of the receiving

water body from a sample taken at the same time that the sample for pentachlorophenol is taken.

2. If the receiving water body has an A&Wedw or A&We designate d use, then the pH is based on the pH of the

effluent from a sample taken at the same time that the sample for pentachlorophenol is taken.

m. The mathematical equations for the pH dependent and hardness dependent pa rameters represent the water quality

stan dards. Criteria for the hardness depende nt and pH dependent parame ters have been calculated and are presented in

separate tables at the end of Appendi x A for the convenience of the user.

n. In lakes, the acute criteria for sulfide apply only to water sampl es taken from the epilimnion, or the upper layer of a lake

or reservoir.

o. Bromoform, chloroform , chlorodibromomethane, and dichlorobromomethane are trihalomethanes regulated by the total

trihalomethane numeric standard. Th e total trihalomethane standard is exceeded when the sum of these four compounds

exceeds 100 μg/L.

p. The standard to protect this us e is 0.003 μg/L aldrin/dieldrin.

μg/L micrograms per liter

NNS No numeric standard

D Dissolved

T Total recoverable

TTHM indicates that the chemical is a t rihalomethane. See Trihalomethanes, Total for DWS standard291Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L10.02410.85811.641212.421613.202013.972414.732815.493216.253617.0020.04420.87821.661222.441623.222023.992424.752825.513226.273627.0230.07430.89831.681232.461633.242034.012434.772835.533236.293637.0440.09440.91841.701242.481643.262044.032444.792845.553246.313647.0650.11450.93851.721252.501653.282054.042454.812855.573256.333657.0860.13460.95861.741262.521663.302064.062464.832865.593266.343667.1070.15470.97871.761272.541673.312074.082474.852875.613276.363677.1280.17480.99881.781282.561683.332084.102484.872885.633286.383687.1490.19491.01891.801292.581693.352094.122494.882895.643296.403697.15100.21501.03901.821302.601703.372104.142504.902905.663306.423707.17110.23511.05911.841312.621713.392114.162514.922915.683316.443717.19120.26521.07921.861322.641723.412124.182524.942925.703326.463727.21130.28531.09931.881332.661733.432134.202534.962935.723336.483737.23140.30541.11941.901342.681743.452144.222544.982945.743346.503747.25150.32551.13951.921352.701753.472154.242555.002955.763356.513757.27160.34561.15961.941362.721763.492164.262565.022965.783366.533767.29170.36571.17971.951372.731773.512174.272575.042975.803376.553777.30180.38581.19981.971382.751783.532184.292585.062985.813386.573787.32190.40591.21991.991392.771793.552194.312595.082995.833396.593797.34200.42601.231002.011402.791803.562204.332605.093005.853406.613807.36210.44611.251012.031412.811813.582214.352615.113015.873416.633817.38220.46621.261022.051422.831823.602224.372625.133025.893426.653827.40230.48631.281032.071432.851833.622234.392635.153035.913436.663837.42240.50641.301042.091442.871843.642244.412645.173045.933446.683847.44250.52651.321052.111452.891853.662254.432655.193055.953456.703857.45292Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L260.54661.341062.131462.911863.682264.452665.213065.973466.723867.47270.56671.361072.151472.931873.702274.472675.233075.993476.743877.49280.58681.381082.171482.951883.722284.482685.253086.003486.763887.51290.60691.401092.191492.971893.742294.502695.273096.023496.783897.53300.62701.421102.211502.991903.762304.522705.283106.043506.803907.55310.64711.441112.231513.011913.782314.542715.303116.063516.823917.57320.66721.461122.251523.031923.802324.562725.323126.083526.833927.59330.68731.481132.271533.041933.812334.582735.343136.103536.853937.60340.70741.501142.291543.061943.832344.602745.363146.123546.873947.62350.72751.521152.311553.081953.852354.622755.383156.143556.893957.64360.75761.541162.331563.101963.872364.642765.403166.163566.913967.66370.77771.561172.351573.121973.892374.662775.423176.173576.933977.68380.79781.581182.371583.141983.912384.682785.443186.193586.953987.70390.81791.601192.381593.161993.932394.692795.453196.213596.973997.72400.83801.621202.401603.182003.952404.712805.473206.233606.984007.74Table 3. Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolved CadmiumChronic Water Quality Standards for Dissolved CadmiumAquatic and Wildlife ephemeralAquatic and Wildlife coldwaterHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L1NA4124.568151.3912179.40161108.18201137.55241167.40281197.64321228.24361259.142NA4225.218252.0812280.11162108.90202138.29242168.15282198.40322229.01362259.913NA4325.868352.7712380.82163109.63203139.03243168.90283199.17323229.78363260.694NA4426.518453.4612481.53164110.36204139.77244169.65284199.93324230.54364261.465NA4527.178554.1512582.24165111.09205140.51245170.40285200.69325231.31365262.246NA4627.828654.8412682.96166111.82206141.25246171.16286201.45326232.08366263.027NA4728.488755.5312783.67167112.55207142.00247171.91287202.21327232.85367263.79293Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L8NA4829.148856.2212884.38168113.28208142.74248172.66288202.97328233.62368264.579NA4929.808956.9212985.10169114.01209143.48249173.41289203.74329234.39369265.3510NA5030.469057.6113085.81170114.74210144.22250174.17290204.50330235.16370266.1311NA5131.129158.3113186.53171115.47211144.97251174.92291205.26331235.93371266.9012NA5231.789259.0013287.24172116.20212145.71252175.68292206.02332236.71372267.6813NA5332.449359.7013387.96173116.93213146.46253176.43293206.79333237.48373268.4614NA5433.119460.3913488.68174117.66214147.20254177.18294207.55334238.25374269.2415NA5533.779561.0913589.39175118.40215147.94255177.94295208.31335239.02375270.0216NA5634.449661.7913690.11176119.13216148.69256178.69296209.08336239.79376270.7917NA5735.119762.4813790.83177119.86217149.43257179.45297209.84337240.56377271.5718NA5835.789863.1813891.55178120.59218150.18258180.21298210.61338241.33378272.3519NA5936.459963.8813992.26179121.33219150.93259180.96299211.37339242.11379273.1320NA6037.1210064.5814092.98180122.06220151.67260181.72300212.13340242.88380273.9121NA6137.7910165.2814193.70181122.80221152.42261182.47301212.90341243.65381274.6922NA6238.4610265.9814294.42182123.53222153.16262183.23302213.66342244.42382275.4723NA6339.1310366.6814395.14183124.27223153.91263183.99303214.43343245.20383276.2524NA6439.8110467.3814495.86184125.00224154.66264184.74304215.20344245.97384277.032514.356540.4810568.0914596.58185125.74225155.40265185.50305215.96345246.74385277.812614.986641.1610668.7914697.31186126.47226156.15266186.26306216.73346247.51386278.592715.606741.8410769.4914798.03187127.21227156.90267187.01307217.49347248.29387279.372816.236842.5110870.2014898.75188127.95228157.65268187.77308218.26348249.06388280.152916.866943.1910970.9014999.47189128.68229158.40269188.53309219.03349249.84389280.933017.497043.8711071.61150100.20190129.42230159.14270189.29310219.79350250.61390281.713118.137144.5511172.31151100.92191130.16231159.89271190.05311220.56351251.38391282.493218.767245.2311273.02152101.64192130.89232160.64272190.81312221.33352252.16392283.273319.407345.9111373.72153102.37193131.63233161.39273191.56313222.09353252.93393284.053420.047446.6011474.43154103.09194132.37234162.14274192.32314222.86354253.71394284.83294Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L3520.687547.2811575.14155103.82195133.11235162.89275193.08315223.63355254.48395285.613621.327647.9611675.85156104.54196133.85236163.64276193.84316224.40356255.26396286.403721.977748.6511776.56157105.27197134.59237164.39277194.60317225.16357256.03397287.183822.617849.3311877.27158106.00198135.33238165.14278195.36318225.93358256.81398287.963923.267950.0211977.97159106.72199136.07239165.89279196.12319226.70359257.58399288.744023.918050.7112078.68160107.45200136.81240166.64280196.88320227.47360258.36400289.52Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L10.01410.13810.211210.281610.342010.402410.452810.503210.553610.6020.02420.13820.211220.281620.342020.402420.452820.503220.553620.6030.02430.14830.221230.281630.352030.402430.462830.513230.553630.6040.03440.14840.221240.291640.352040.402440.462840.513240.563640.6050.03450.14850.221250.291650.352050.402450.462850.513250.563650.6060.03460.14860.221260.291660.352060.412460.462860.513260.563660.6070.04470.15870.221270.291670.352070.412470.462870.513270.563670.6180.04480.15880.231280.291680.352080.412480.462880.513280.563680.6190.05490.15890.231290.291690.352090.412490.462890.513290.563690.61100.05500.15900.231300.301700.362100.412500.462900.513300.563700.61110.05510.15910.231310.301710.362110.412510.472910.523310.563710.61120.06520.16920.231320.301720.362120.412520.472920.523320.573720.61130.06530.16930.231330.301730.362130.422530.472930.523330.573730.61140.06540.16940.241340.301740.362140.422540.472940.523340.573740.61150.07550.16950.241350.301750.362150.422550.472950.523350.573750.62160.07560.16960.241360.301760.362160.422560.472960.523360.573760.62170.07570.17970.241370.311770.372170.422570.472970.523370.573770.62180.07580.17980.241380.311780.372180.422580.472980.523380.573780.62295Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L190.08590.17990.241390.311790.372190.422590.482990.533390.573790.62200.08600.171000.251400.311800.372200.432600.483000.533400.573800.62210.08610.171010.251410.311810.372210.432610.483010.533410.583810.62220.09620.181020.251420.311820.372220.432620.483020.533420.583820.62230.09630.181030.251430.321830.372230.432630.483030.533430.583830.62240.09640.181040.251440.321840.382240.432640.483040.533440.583840.63250.09650.181050.251450.321850.382250.432650.483050.533450.583850.63260.10660.181060.261460.321860.382260.432660.483060.533460.583860.63270.10670.191070.261470.321870.382270.432670.493070.543470.583870.63280.10680.191080.261480.321880.382280.442680.493080.543480.583880.63290.10690.191090.261490.321890.382290.442690.493090.543490.593890.63300.11700.191100.261500.331900.382300.442700.493100.543500.593900.63310.11710.191110.261510.331910.392310.442710.493110.543510.593910.63320.11720.201120.271520.331920.392320.442720.493120.543520.593920.63330.11730.201130.271530.331930.392330.442730.493130.543530.593930.64340.12740.201140.271540.331940.392340.442740.503140.543540.593940.64350.12750.201150.271550.331950.392350.452750.503150.553550.593950.64360.12760.201160.271560.331960.392360.452760.503160.553560.593960.64370.12770.211170.271570.341970.392370.452770.503170.553570.593970.64380.13780.211180.281580.341980.402380.452780.503180.553580.603980.64390.13790.211190.281590.341990.402390.452790.503190.553590.603990.64400.13800.211200.281600.342000.402400.452800.503200.553600.604000.64Table 4. Acute Water Quality Standards fordissolved CadmiumAcute Water Quality Standards for Dissolved CadmiumAquatic and Wildlife coldwater, warmwater, and edwAquatic and Wildlife warmwater, and edw296Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L1NA411.62813.391215.241617.142019.0824111.0528113.0532115.0736117.112NA421.66823.441225.291627.192029.1324211.1028213.1032215.1236217.163NA431.71833.481235.341637.242039.1824311.1528313.1532315.1736317.214NA441.75843.531245.381647.292049.2324411.2028413.2032415.2236417.275NA451.79853.581255.431657.342059.2824511.2528513.2532515.2736517.326NA461.84863.621265.481667.382069.3324611.3028613.3032615.3336617.377NA471.88873.671275.521677.432079.3824711.3528713.3532715.3836717.428NA481.92883.711285.571687.482089.4324811.4028813.4032815.4336817.479NA491.97893.761295.621697.532099.4724911.4528913.4532915.4836917.5210NA502.01903.801305.671707.582109.5225011.5029013.5033015.5337017.5711NA512.05913.851315.711717.622119.5725111.5529113.5533115.5837117.6212NA522.10923.901325.761727.672129.6225211.6029213.6033215.6337217.6813NA532.14933.941335.811737.722139.6725311.6529313.6533315.6837317.7314NA542.19943.991345.861747.772149.7225411.7029413.7133415.7337417.7815NA552.23954.031355.901757.822159.7725511.7529513.7633515.7837517.8316NA562.27964.081365.951767.872169.8225611.8029613.8133615.8337617.8817NA572.32974.131376.001777.912179.8725711.8529713.8633715.8937717.9318NA582.36984.171386.051787.962189.9225811.9029813.9133815.9437817.9819NA592.41994.221396.091798.012199.9725911.9529913.9633915.9937918.0420NA602.451004.261406.141808.0622010.0226012.0030014.0134016.0438018.0921NA612.501014.311416.191818.1122110.0626112.0530114.0634116.0938118.1422NA622.541024.361426.241828.1622210.1126212.1030214.1134216.1438218.1923NA632.581034.401436.281838.2122310.1626312.1530314.1634316.1938318.2424NA642.631044.451446.331848.2522410.2126412.2030414.2134416.2438418.29250.95652.671054.501456.381858.3022510.2626512.2530514.2634516.2938518.34260.99662.721064.541466.431868.3522610.3126612.3030614.3134616.3438618.40271.03672.761074.591476.471878.4022710.3626712.3530714.3634716.4038718.45297Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L281.07682.811084.641486.521888.4522810.4126812.4030814.4134816.4538818.50291.11692.851094.681496.571898.5022910.4626912.4530914.4634916.5038918.55301.16702.901104.731506.621908.5523010.5127012.5031014.5135016.5539018.60311.20712.941114.771516.661918.5923110.5627112.5531114.5635116.6039118.65321.24722.991124.821526.711928.6423210.6127212.6031214.6135216.6539218.71331.28733.031134.871536.761938.6923310.6627312.6531314.6735316.7039318.76341.32743.081144.911546.811948.7423410.7127412.7031414.7235416.7539418.81351.37753.121154.961556.861958.7923510.7627512.7531514.7735516.8039518.86361.41763.171165.011566.901968.8423610.8127612.8031614.8235616.8639618.91371.45773.211175.061576.951978.8923710.8627712.8531714.8735716.9139718.96381.49783.261185.101587.001988.9423810.9027812.9031814.9235816.9639819.01391.54793.301195.151597.051998.9823910.9527912.9531914.9735917.0139919.07401.58803.351205.201607.102009.0324011.0028013.0032015.0236017.0640019.12Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L10.09413.30816.411219.4716112.5020115.5124118.4928121.4732124.4236127.3720.17423.38826.491229.5516212.5820215.5824218.5728221.5432224.5036227.4430.26433.46836.571239.6216312.6520315.6624318.6428321.6132324.5736327.5240.34443.54846.641249.7016412.7320415.7324418.7228421.6932424.6436427.5950.42453.62856.721259.7816512.8020515.8124518.7928521.7632524.7236527.6660.51463.70866.801269.8516612.8820615.8824618.8728621.8432624.7936627.7470.59473.77876.871279.9316712.9520715.9624718.9428721.9132724.8736727.8180.67483.85886.9512810.0016813.0320816.0324819.0228821.9832824.9436827.8890.75493.93897.0312910.0816913.1020916.1124919.0928922.0632925.0136927.96100.83504.01907.1013010.1617013.1821016.1825019.1629022.1333025.0937028.03110.92514.09917.1813110.2317113.2521116.2625119.2429122.2133125.1637128.10298Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L121.00524.17927.2613210.3117213.3321216.3325219.3129222.2833225.2337228.18131.08534.24937.3313310.3817313.4021316.4025319.3929322.3533325.3137328.25141.16544.32947.4113410.4617413.4821416.4825419.4629422.4333425.3837428.32151.24554.40957.4913510.5317513.5621516.5525519.5429522.5033525.4637528.40161.32564.48967.5613610.6117613.6321616.6325619.6129622.5833625.5337628.47171.40574.55977.6413710.6917713.7121716.7025719.6829722.6533725.6037728.54181.48584.63987.7213810.7617813.7821816.7825819.7629822.7233825.6837828.62191.56594.71997.7913910.8417913.8621916.8525919.8329922.8033925.7537928.69201.64604.791007.8714010.9118013.9322016.9326019.9130022.8734025.8238028.77211.72614.871017.9514110.9918114.0122117.0026119.9830122.9534125.9038128.84221.80624.941028.0214211.0718214.0822217.0826220.0630223.0234225.9738228.91231.88635.021038.1014311.1418314.1622317.1526320.1330323.0934326.0538328.99241.96645.101048.1814411.2218414.2322417.2326420.2030423.1734426.1238429.06252.04655.181058.2514511.2918514.3122517.3026520.2830523.2434526.1938529.13262.12665.251068.3314611.3718614.3822617.3826620.3530623.3234626.2738629.21272.20675.331078.4014711.4418714.4622717.4526720.4330723.3934726.3438729.28282.28685.411088.4814811.5218814.5322817.5326820.5030823.4634826.4138829.35292.36695.491098.5614911.5918914.6122917.6026920.5830923.5434926.4938929.43302.44705.561108.6315011.6719014.6823017.6727020.6531023.6135026.5639029.50312.52715.641118.7115111.7519114.7623117.7527120.7231123.6935126.6339129.57322.60725.721128.7915211.8219214.8323217.8227220.8031223.7635226.7139229.65332.67735.791138.8615311.9019314.9123317.9027320.8731323.8335326.7839329.72342.75745.871148.9415411.9719414.9823417.9727420.9531423.9135426.8539429.79352.83755.951159.0115512.0519515.0623518.0527521.0231523.9835526.9339529.87362.91766.031169.0915612.1219615.1323618.1227621.0931624.0535627.0039629.94372.99776.101179.1715712.2019715.2123718.2027721.1731724.1335727.0839730.01383.07786.181189.2415812.2719815.2823818.2727821.2431824.2035827.1539830.08299Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L393.15796.261199.3215912.3519915.3623918.3527921.3231924.2835927.2239930.16403.23806.331209.4016012.4320015.4324018.4228021.3932024.3536027.3040030.23Table 5. Chronic Water Quality Standards fordissolved CadmiumChronic Water Quality Standards for Dissolved CadmiumAquatic and Wildlife coldwater, warmwater, and edwAquatic and Wildlife warmwater and edwHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L1NA411.16811.921212.581613.182013.752414.282814.803215.293615.772NA421.18821.931222.591623.202023.762424.302824.813225.303625.783NA431.20831.951232.611633.212033.772434.312834.823235.323635.794NA441.22841.971242.621643.232043.792444.322844.843245.333645.815NA451.24851.981252.641653.242053.802454.342854.853255.343655.826NA461.26862.001262.651663.252063.822464.352864.863265.353665.837NA471.28872.021272.671673.272073.832474.362874.873275.363675.848NA481.30882.041282.691683.282083.842484.382884.893285.383685.859NA491.32892.051292.701693.302093.862494.392894.903295.393695.8610NA501.34902.071302.721703.312103.872504.402904.913305.403705.8811NA511.36912.091312.731713.332113.882514.412914.923315.413715.8912NA521.38922.101322.751723.342123.902524.432924.943325.423725.9013NA531.40932.121332.761733.352133.912534.442934.953335.443735.9114NA541.42942.141342.781743.372143.922544.452944.963345.453745.9215NA551.44952.151352.791753.382153.942554.472954.973355.463755.9316NA561.46962.171362.811763.402163.952564.482964.983365.473765.9517NA571.48972.191372.821773.412173.972574.492975.003375.483775.9618NA581.50982.201382.841783.432183.982584.502985.013385.503785.9719NA591.51992.221392.851793.442193.992594.522995.023395.513795.98300Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L20NA601.531002.241402.871803.452204.012604.533005.033405.523805.9921NA611.551012.251412.881813.472214.022614.543015.053415.533816.0022NA621.571022.271422.901823.482224.032624.563025.063425.543826.0223NA631.591032.291432.911833.502234.052634.573035.073435.563836.0324NA641.611042.301442.931843.512244.062644.583045.083445.573846.04250.80651.631052.321452.941853.532254.072654.593055.103455.583856.05260.83661.651062.341462.961863.542264.092664.613065.113465.593866.06270.85671.661072.351472.971873.552274.102674.623075.123475.603876.07280.87681.681082.371482.991883.572284.112684.633085.133485.623886.08290.89691.701092.391493.001893.582294.132694.653095.153495.633896.10300.92701.721102.401503.021903.602304.142704.663105.163505.643906.11310.94711.741112.421513.031913.612314.152714.673115.173515.653916.12320.96721.761122.431523.051923.622324.172724.683125.183525.663926.13330.98731.771132.451533.061933.642334.182734.703135.193535.683936.14341.01741.791142.471543.081943.652344.192744.713145.213545.693946.15351.03751.811152.481553.091953.662354.212754.723155.223555.703956.17361.05761.831162.501563.111963.682364.222764.733165.233565.713966.18371.07771.841172.511573.121973.692374.232774.753175.243575.723976.19381.09781.861182.531583.141983.712384.242784.763185.263585.733986.20391.11791.881192.541593.151993.722394.262794.773195.273595.753996.21401.14801.901202.561603.172003.732404.272804.783205.283605.764006.22Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L10.02410.30810.481210.641610.782010.912411.032811.153211.263611.3720.04420.31820.491220.641620.782020.912421.042821.153221.263621.3730.05430.31830.491230.651630.792030.922431.042831.163231.273631.37301Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L40.06440.32840.501240.651640.792040.922441.042841.163241.273641.3850.07450.32850.501250.661650.792050.922451.052851.163251.273651.3860.08460.33860.511260.661660.802060.932461.052861.163261.273661.3870.09470.33870.511270.661670.802070.932471.052871.173271.283671.3880.10480.34880.511280.671680.802080.932481.052881.173281.283681.3990.10490.34890.521290.671690.812090.942491.062891.173291.283691.39100.11500.35900.521300.671700.812100.942501.062901.173301.283701.39110.12510.35910.531310.681710.812110.942511.062911.183311.293711.39120.13520.36920.531320.681720.822120.952521.072921.183321.293721.40130.14530.36930.531330.681730.822130.952531.072931.183331.293731.40140.14540.37940.541340.691740.822140.952541.072941.193341.303741.40150.15550.37950.541350.691750.832150.952551.072951.193351.303751.40160.16560.38960.551360.691760.832160.962561.082961.193361.303761.41170.16570.38970.551370.701770.832170.962571.082971.193371.303771.41180.17580.38980.551380.701780.842180.962581.082981.203381.313781.41190.18590.39990.561390.711790.842190.972591.092991.203391.313791.41200.18600.391000.561400.711800.842200.972601.093001.203401.313801.42210.19610.401010.571410.711810.852210.972611.093011.213411.313811.42220.20620.401020.571420.721820.852220.982621.103021.213421.323821.42230.20630.411030.571430.721830.852230.982631.103031.213431.323831.42240.21640.411040.581440.721840.862240.982641.103041.213441.323841.43250.21650.421050.581450.731850.862250.992651.103051.223451.323851.43260.22660.421060.581460.731860.862260.992661.113061.223461.333861.43270.23670.421070.591470.731870.872270.992671.113071.223471.333871.43280.23680.431080.591480.741880.872280.992681.113081.223481.333881.44290.24690.431090.601490.741890.872291.002691.123091.233491.343891.44300.24700.441100.601500.741900.882301.002701.123101.233501.343901.44302Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L310.25710.441110.601510.751910.882311.002711.123111.233511.343911.44320.25720.451120.611520.751920.882321.012721.123121.243521.343921.45330.26730.451130.611530.751930.892331.012731.133131.243531.353931.45340.26740.461140.611540.761940.892341.012741.133141.243541.353941.45350.27750.461150.621550.761950.892351.022751.133151.243551.353951.46360.28760.461160.621560.761960.902361.022761.143161.253561.353961.46370.28770.471170.631570.771970.902371.022771.143171.253571.363971.46380.29780.471180.631580.771980.902381.022781.143181.253581.363981.46390.29790.481190.631590.771990.912391.032791.143191.263591.363991.47400.30800.481200.641600.782000.912401.032801.153201.263601.364001.47Table 6. Acute Water Quality Standards for Dissolved CadmiumAquatic and Wildlife ephemeralHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L10.25419.588118.5812127.4516136.2320144.9424153.5928162.2132170.7836179.3220.50429.808218.8012227.6716236.4520245.1524253.8128262.4232270.9936279.5330.754310.038319.0312327.8916336.6620345.3724354.0328362.6432371.2136379.7440.994410.268419.2512428.1116436.8820445.5924454.2428462.8532471.4236479.9551.234510.498519.4712528.3316537.1020545.8124554.4628563.0632571.6336580.1761.474610.718619.6912628.5516637.3220646.0224654.6728663.2832671.8536680.3871.714710.948719.9212728.7716737.5420746.2424754.8928763.4932772.0636780.5981.954811.178820.1412828.9916837.7620846.4624855.1028863.7132872.2736880.8192.184911.398920.3612929.2116937.9720946.6724955.3228963.9232972.4936981.02102.425011.629020.5813029.4317038.1921046.8925055.5429064.1433072.7037081.23112.655111.849120.8113129.6517138.4121147.1125155.7529164.3533172.9237181.44303Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L122.895212.079221.0313229.8717238.6321247.3225255.9729264.5733273.1337281.66133.135312.309321.2513330.0917338.8521347.5425356.1829364.7833373.3437381.87143.365412.529421.4713430.3117439.0621447.7625456.4029465.0033473.5637482.08153.595512.759521.7013530.5317539.2821547.9725556.6129565.2133573.7737582.30163.835612.979621.9213630.7517639.5021648.1925656.8329665.4233673.9837682.51174.065713.209722.1413730.9717739.7221748.4125757.0429765.6433774.2037782.72184.295813.429822.3613831.1917839.9421848.6225857.2629865.8533874.4137882.93194.535913.659922.5813931.4117940.1521948.8425957.4829966.0733974.6237983.15204.766013.8710022.8114031.6318040.3722049.0626057.6930066.2834074.8438083.36214.996114.1010123.0314131.8518140.5922149.2726157.9130166.5034175.0538183.57225.226214.3210223.2514232.0718240.8122249.4926258.1230266.7134275.2638283.78235.456314.55103z23.4714332.2918341.0322349.7126358.3430366.9334375.4838384.00245.686414.7710423.6914432.5018441.2422449.9226458.5530467.1434475.6938484.21255.916515.0010523.9114532.7218541.4622550.1426558.7730567.3534575.9038584.42266.146615.2210624.1314632.9418641.6822650.3526658.9830667.5734676.1238684.64276.376715.4510724.3614733.1618741.9022750.5726759.2030767.7834776.3338784.85286.606815.6710824.5814833.3818842.1122850.7926859.4130868.0034876.5438885.06296.836915.9010924.8014933.6018942.3322951.0026959.6330968.2134976.7638985.27307.067016.1211025.0215033.8219042.5523051.2227059.8431068.4235076.9739085.49317.297116.3411125.2415134.0419142.7723151.4427160.0631168.6435177.1839185.70327.527216.5711225.4615234.2619242.9823251.6527260.2731268.8535277.4039285.91337.757316.7911325.6815334.4819343.2023351.8727360.4931369.0735377.6139386.12347.987417.0211425.9015434.7019443.4223452.0827460.7031469.2835477.8239486.33358.217517.2411526.1215534.9119543.6323552.3027560.9231569.4935578.0439586.55368.447617.4611626.3415635.1319643.8523652.5227661.1331669.7135678.2539686.76378.677717.6911726.5715735.3519744.0723752.7327761.3531769.9235778.4639786.97388.897817.9111826.7915835.5719844.2923852.9527861.5631870.1435878.6839887.18304Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L399.127918.1311927.0115935.7919944.5023953.1627961.7831970.3535978.8939987.40409.358018.3612027.2316036.0120044.7224053.3828061.9932070.5636079.1040087.61Table 7. Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolvedDissolvedChromium IIIAquatic and Wildlife coldwater, warmwater, and edwHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.mμg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L1 NA1341 27581 479121 666161 842201 1009241 1171281 1328321 1481361 16302 NA2342 28082 484122 671162 846202 1013242 1175282 1332322 1485362 16343 NA3243 28583 489123 675163 850203 1017243 1179283 1336323 1488363 16384 NA4144 29184 494124 680164 854204 1022244 1183284 1340324 1492364 16415 NA4945 29685 499125 684165 859205 1026245 1187285 1343325 1496365 16456 NA5746 30286 504126 688166 863206 1030246 1191286 1347326 1500366 16497 NA6547 30787 508127 693167 867207 1034247 1195287 1351327 1504367 16538 NA7248 31288 513128 697168 871208 1038248 1199288 1355328 1507368 16569 NA7949 31889 518129 702169 876209 1042249 1203289 1359329 1511369 166010 NA8650 32390 523130 706170 880210 1046250 1207290 1363330 1515370 166411 NA9351 32891 527131 711171 884211 1050251 1211291 1367331 1519371 166712NA10052 33492 532132 715172 888212 1054252 1215292 1370332 1522372 167113NA10753 33993 537133 720173 893213 1058253 1219293 1374333 1526373 167514NA11454 34494 542134 724174 897214 1062254 1223294 1378334 1530374 167815NA12055 34995 546135 729175 901215 1067255 1226295 1382335 1534375 168216 NA56 35496 551136 733176 905216 1071256 1230296 1386336 1537376 1686305Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.mμg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L12717NA13357 36097 556137 737177 909217 1075257 1234297 1390337 1541377 168918NA14058 36598 560138 742178 914218 1079258 1238298 1393338 1545378 169319NA14659 37099 565139 746179 918219 1083259 1242299 1397339 1549379 169720NA15260 375100 570140 751180 922220 1087260 1246300 1401340 1552380 170021NA15961 380101 574141 755181 926221 1091261 1250301 1405341 1556381 170422NA16562 385102 579142 759182 930222 1095262 1254302 1409342 1560382 170823NA17163 390103 584143 764183 935223 1099263 1258303 1413343 1564383 171124NA17764 395104 588144 768184 939224 1103264 1262304 1416344 1567384 171525 18365 400105 593145 772185 943225 1107265 1266305 1420345 1571385 171926 18966 405106 598146 777186 947226 1111266 1270306 1424346 1575386 172227 19567 410107 602147 781187 951227 1115267 1274307 1428347 1578387 172628 20168 415108 607148 785188 955228 1119268 1277308 1432348 1582388 173029 20769 420109 611149 790189 960229 1123269 1281309 1435349 1586389 173330 21370 425110 616150 794190 964230 1127270 1285310 1439350 1590390 173731 21871 430111 621151 799191 968231 1131271 1289311 1443351 1593391 174132 22472 435112 625152 803192 972232 1135272 1293312 1447352 1597392 174433 23073 440113 630153 807193 976233 1139273 1297313 1451353 1601393 174834 23574 445114 634154 811194 980234 1143274 1301314 1454354 1604394 1751306Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.mμg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L35 24175 450115 639155 816195 985235 1147275 1305315 1458355 1608395 175536 24776 455116 643156 820196 989236 1151276 1309316 1462356 1612396 175937 25277 460117 648157 824197 993237 1155277 1312317 1466357 1616397 176238 25878 465118 652158 829198 997238 1159278 1316318 1470358 1619398 176639 26379 470119 657159 833199 1001239 1163279 1320319 1473359 1623399 177040 26980 475120 662160 837200 1005240 1167280 1324320 1477360 1627400 1773Table 8. Chronic Water Quality Standards for dissolvedDissolvedChromium IIIAquatic and Wildlife coldwater, warmwater, and edwHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L1NA1.7141 35.7181 62.37121 86.64161 109.47201 131.29241 152.33281 172.74321 192.63361 212.082NA3.0142 36.4282 63.00122 87.22162 110.03202 131.82242 152.84282 173.24322 193.12362 212.563NA4.1943 37.1383 63.63123 87.81163 110.58203 132.36243 153.36283 173.75323 193.62363 213.044NA5.3144 37.8384 64.25124 88.39164 111.14204 132.89244 153.88284 174.25324 194.11364 213.525NA6.3745 38.5485 64.88125 88.98165 111.69205 133.42245 154.39285 174.75325 194.60365 214.006NA7.4046 39.2486 65.50126 89.56166 112.25206 133.96246 154.91286 175.25326 195.09366 214.487NA8.4047 39.9387 66.13127 90.14167 112.80207 134.49247 155.43287 175.76327 195.58367 214.968NA9.3748 40.6388 66.75128 90.72168 113.35208 135.02248 155.94288 176.26328 196.07368 215.44307Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L9NA10.3149 41.3289 67.37129 91.30169 113.90209 135.55249 156.46289 176.76329 196.56369 215.9210NA11.2450 42.0190 67.99130 91.88170 114.46210 136.08250 156.97290 177.26330 197.05370 216.4011NA12.1651 42.7091 68.61131 92.46171 115.01211 136.61251 157.48291 177.76331 197.53371 216.8812NA13.0552 43.3892 69.22132 93.04172 115.56212 137.14252 158.00292 178.26332 198.02372 217.3613NA13.9453 44.0693 69.84133 93.61173 116.11213 137.67253 158.51293 178.76333 198.51373 217.8414NA14.8154 44.7494 70.45134 94.19174 116.66214 138.20254 159.02294 179.26334 199.00374 218.3215NA15.6755 45.4295 71.07135 94.76175 117.21215 138.73255 159.54295 179.76335 199.49375 218.7916NA16.5256 46.1096 71.68136 95.34176 117.75216 139.26256 160.05296 180.26336 199.97376 219.2717NA17.3657 46.7797 72.29137 95.91177 118.30217 139.79257 160.56297 180.76337 200.46377 219.7518NA18.2058 47.4498 72.90138 96.49178 118.85218 140.31258 161.07298 181.25338 200.95378 220.2319NA19.0259 48.1199 73.51139 97.06179 119.40219 140.84259 161.58299 181.75339 201.44379 220.7020NA19.8460 48.78100 74.11140 97.63180 119.94220 141.37260 162.09300 182.25340 201.92380 221.1821NA20.6461 49.44101 74.72141 98.20181 120.49221 141.89261 162.60301 182.75341 202.41381 221.6622 NA62 50.10102 75.33142 98.77182 121.03222 142.42262 163.11302 183.24342 202.89382 222.13308Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L21.4523NA22.2463 50.76103 75.93143 99.34183 121.58223 142.94263 163.62303 183.74343 203.38383 222.6124NA23.0364 51.42104 76.53144 99.91184 122.12224 143.47264 164.13304 184.24344 203.87384 223.0925 23.8165 52.08105 77.14145 100.48185 122.66225 143.99265 164.64305 184.73345 204.35385 223.5626 24.5966 52.74106 77.74146 101.04186 123.21226 144.52266 165.15306 185.23346 204.84386 224.0427 25.3667 53.39107 78.34147 101.61187 123.75227 145.04267 165.66307 185.72347 205.32387 224.5128 26.1368 54.04108 78.94148 102.18188 124.29228 145.56268 166.17308 186.22348 205.81388 224.9929 26.8969 54.69109 79.53149 102.74189 124.83229 146.09269 166.67309 186.72349 206.29389 225.4630 27.6570 55.34110 80.13150 103.31190 125.37230 146.61270 167.18310 187.21350 206.77390 225.9431 28.4071 55.99111 80.73151 103.87191 125.91231 147.13271 167.69311 187.70351 207.26391 226.4132 29.1572 56.63112 81.32152 104.43192 126.45232 147.65272 168.20312 188.20352 207.74392 226.8833 29.8973 57.27113 81.92153 104.99193 126.99233 148.17273 168.70313 188.69353 208.22393 227.3634 30.6374 57.92114 82.51154 105.56194 127.53234 148.69274 169.21314 189.19354 208.71394 227.8335 31.3775 58.56115 83.10155 106.12195 128.07235 149.21275 169.71315 189.68355 209.19395 228.3136 32.1076 59.20116 83.69156 106.68196 128.61236 149.73276 170.22316 190.17356 209.67396 228.7837 32.8377 59.83117 84.28157 107.24197 129.14237 150.25277 170.72317 190.66357 210.15397 229.2538 33.5578 60.47118 84.87158 107.80198 129.68238 150.77278 171.23318 191.16358 210.64398 229.7239 34.2879 61.10119 85.46159 108.35199 130.22239 151.29279 171.73319 191.65359 211.12399 230.2040 34.9980 61.74120 86.05160 108.91200 130.75240 151.81280 172.24320 192.14360 211.60400 230.67Table 6.9.Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolvedDissolvedChromium IIIAquatic and Wildlife ephemeralHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L309Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L1 NA4441 92181 1609121 2235161 2824201 3386241 3929281 4456321 4969361 54702 NA7842 93982 1625122 2250162 2838202 3400242 3942282 4469322 4981362 54833NA10843 95883 1641123 2265163 2852203 3414243 3956283 4481323 4994363 54954NA13744 97684 1657124 2280164 2867204 3428244 3969284 4494324 5007364 55075NA16445 99485 1673125 2295165 2881205 3441245 3982285 4507325 5019365 55206NA19146 101286 1690126 2310166 2895206 3455246 3996286 4520326 5032366 55327NA21747 103087 1706127 2325167 2909207 3469247 4009287 4533327 5045367 55458NA24248 104888 1722128 2340168 2924208 3483248 4022288 4546328 5057368 55579NA26649 106689 1738129 2355169 2938209 3496249 4035289 4559329 5070369 556910NA29050 108490 1754130 2370170 2952210 3510250 4049290 4572330 5082370 558211NA31451 110191 1770131 2385171 2966211 3524251 4062291 4585331 5095371 559412NA33752 111992 1785132 2400172 2981212 3537252 4075292 4598332 5108372 560613NA36053 113793 1801133 2415173 2995213 3551253 4088293 4611333 5120373 561914NA38254 115494 1817134 2429174 3009214 3565254 4102294 4624334 5133374 563115 NA55 117295 1833135 2444175 3023215 3578255 4115295 4637335 5145375 5643310Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L40416NA42656 118996 1849136 2459176 3037216 3592256 4128296 4649336 5158376 565617NA44857 120697 1865137 2474177 3051217 3606257 4141297 4662337 5171377 566818NA46958 122498 1880138 2489178 3066218 3619258 4155298 4675338 5183378 568019NA49159 124199 1896139 2503179 3080219 3633259 4168299 4688339 5196379 569320NA51260 1258100 1912140 2518180 3094220 3646260 4181300 4701340 5208380 570521NA53261 1275101 1927141 2533181 3108221 3660261 4194301 4714341 5221381 571722NA55362 1292102 1943142 2548182 3122222 3673262 4207302 4726342 5233382 573023NA57463 1309103 1958143 2562183 3136223 3687263 4220303 4739343 5246383 574224NA59464 1326104 1974144 2577184 3150224 3701264 4234304 4752344 5258384 575425 61465 1343105 1990145 2592185 3164225 3714265 4247305 4765345 5271385 576626 63466 1360106 2005146 2606186 3178226 3728266 4260306 4778346 5283386 577927 65467 1377107 2021147 2621187 3192227 3741267 4273307 4790347 5296387 579128 67468 1394108 2036148 2635188 3206228 3755268 4286308 4803348 5308388 580329 69469 1411109 2051149 2650189 3220229 3768269 4299309 4816349 5321389 581530 71370 1427110 2067150 2665190 3234230 3781270 4312310 4829350 5333390 582831 73371 1444111 2082151 2679191 3248231 3795271 4325311 4841351 5346391 584032 75272 1461112 2098152 2694192 3262232 3808272 4338312 4854352 5358392 5852311Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L33 77173 1477113 2113153 2708193 3276233 3822273 4351313 4867353 5371393 586434 79074 1494114 2128154 2723194 3289234 3835274 4364314 4880354 5383394 587735 80975 1510115 2143155 2737195 3303235 3849275 4377315 4892355 5396395 588936 82876 1527116 2159156 2752196 3317236 3862276 4390316 4905356 5408396 590137 84777 1543117 2174157 2766197 3331237 3875277 4404317 4918357 5421397 591338 86578 1560118 2189158 2780198 3345238 3889278 4417318 4931358 5433398 592539 88479 1576119 2204159 2795199 3359239 3902279 4430319 4943359 5445399 593840 90380 1592120 2220160 2809200 3372240 3916280 4443320 4956360 5458400 5950Table 11.10.Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolvedDissolvedCopperAquatic and Wildlife coldwater, warmwater, and edwHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L1NA0.1841 5.8081 11.02121 16.08161 21.05201 25.94241 30.78281 35.57321 40.33361 45.052NA0.3442 5.9382 11.15122 16.21162 21.17202 26.07242 30.90282 35.69322 40.45362 45.163NA0.4943 6.0783 11.28123 16.33163 21.30203 26.19243 31.02283 35.81323 40.56363 45.284NA0.6544 6.2084 11.40124 16.46164 21.42204 26.31244 31.14284 35.93324 40.68364 45.405NA0.8045 6.3385 11.53125 16.58165 21.54205 26.43245 31.26285 36.05325 40.80365 45.526NA0.9546 6.4786 11.66126 16.71166 21.66206 26.55246 31.38286 36.17326 40.92366 45.637NA1.1047 6.6087 11.79127 16.83167 21.79207 26.67247 31.50287 36.29327 41.04367 45.75312Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L8NA1.2448 6.7388 11.91128 16.96168 21.91208 26.79248 31.62288 36.41328 41.16368 45.879NA1.3949 6.8689 12.04129 17.08169 22.03209 26.92249 31.74289 36.53329 41.27369 45.9910NA1.5450 6.9990 12.17130 17.21170 22.16210 27.04250 31.86290 36.65330 41.39370 46.1011NA1.6851 7.1391 12.30131 17.33171 22.28211 27.16251 31.98291 36.77331 41.51371 46.2212NA1.8252 7.2692 12.42132 17.46172 22.40212 27.28252 32.10292 36.89332 41.63372 46.3413NA1.9753 7.3993 12.55133 17.58173 22.52213 27.40253 32.22293 37.00333 41.75373 46.4614NA2.1154 7.5294 12.68134 17.71174 22.65214 27.52254 32.34294 37.12334 41.86374 46.5715NA2.2555 7.6595 12.81135 17.83175 22.77215 27.64255 32.46295 37.24335 41.98375 46.6916NA2.3956 7.7896 12.93136 17.96176 22.89216 27.76256 32.58296 37.36336 42.10376 46.8117NA2.5357 7.9197 13.06137 18.08177 23.02217 27.89257 32.70297 37.48337 42.22377 46.9218NA2.6758 8.0498 13.19138 18.20178 23.14218 28.01258 32.82298 37.60338 42.34378 47.0419NA2.8159 8.1799 13.31139 18.33179 23.26219 28.13259 32.94299 37.72339 42.45379 47.1620NA2.9560 8.31100 13.44140 18.45180 23.38220 28.25260 33.06300 37.84340 42.57380 47.2821 NA61 8.44101 13.57141 18.58181 23.50221 28.37261 33.18301 37.96341 42.69381 47.39313Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L3.0922NA3.2362 8.57102 13.69142 18.70182 23.63222 28.49262 33.30302 38.07342 42.81382 47.5123NA3.3763 8.70103 13.82143 18.82183 23.75223 28.61263 33.42303 38.19343 42.93383 47.6324NA3.5064 8.83104 13.95144 18.95184 23.87224 28.73264 33.54304 38.31344 43.04384 47.7425 3.6465 8.96105 14.07145 19.07185 23.99225 28.85265 33.66305 38.43345 43.16385 47.8626 3.7866 9.09106 14.20146 19.20186 24.12226 28.97266 33.78306 38.55346 43.28386 47.9827 3.9167 9.22107 14.32147 19.32187 24.24227 29.09267 33.90307 38.67347 43.40387 48.1028 4.0568 9.34108 14.45148 19.44188 24.36228 29.22268 34.02308 38.79348 43.52388 48.2129 4.1969 9.47109 14.58149 19.57189 24.48229 29.34269 34.14309 38.91349 43.63389 48.3330 4.3270 9.60110 14.70150 19.69190 24.60230 29.46270 34.26310 39.02350 43.75390 48.4531 4.4671 9.73111 14.83151 19.82191 24.73231 29.58271 34.38311 39.14351 43.87391 48.5632 4.5972 9.86112 14.95152 19.94192 24.85232 29.70272 34.50312 39.26352 43.99392 48.6833 4.7373 9.99113 15.08153 20.06193 24.97233 29.82273 34.62313 39.38353 44.10393 48.8034 4.8674 10.12114 15.20154 20.19194 25.09234 29.94274 34.74314 39.50354 44.22394 48.9235 5.0075 10.25115 15.33155 20.31195 25.21235 30.06275 34.86315 39.62355 44.34395 49.0336 5.1376 10.38116 15.46156 20.43196 25.34236 30.18276 34.98316 39.74356 44.46396 49.1537 5.2777 10.51117 15.58157 20.56197 25.46237 30.30277 35.10317 39.85357 44.58397 49.2738 5.4078 10.63118 15.71158 20.68198 25.58238 30.42278 35.22318 39.97358 44.69398 49.3839 5.5379 10.76119 15.83159 20.80199 25.70239 30.54279 35.34319 40.09359 44.81399 49.5040 5.6780 10.89120 15.96160 20.93200 25.82240 30.66280 35.46320 40.21360 44.93400 49.62Table 9.11.Chronic Water Quality Standards for dissolvedDissolvedCopperAquatic and Wildlife coldwater, warmwater, and edw314Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L1NA0.1841 4.1881 7.48121 10.54161 13.45201 16.26241 18.99281 21.65321 24.26361 26.822NA0.3242 4.2782 7.56122 10.61162 13.52202 16.33242 19.06282 21.72322 24.33362 26.893NA0.4543 4.3583 7.64123 10.69163 13.60203 16.40243 19.13283 21.78323 24.39363 26.954NA0.5744 4.4484 7.72124 10.76164 13.67204 16.47244 19.19284 21.85324 24.45364 27.015NA0.6945 4.5385 7.79125 10.84165 13.74205 16.54245 19.26285 21.92325 24.52365 27.086NA0.8146 4.6186 7.87126 10.91166 13.81206 16.61246 19.33286 21.98326 24.58366 27.147NA0.9247 4.7087 7.95127 10.99167 13.88207 16.68247 19.39287 22.05327 24.65367 27.208NA1.0348 4.7888 8.03128 11.06168 13.95208 16.75248 19.46288 22.11328 24.71368 27.279NA1.1449 4.8789 8.11129 11.13169 14.02209 16.81249 19.53289 22.18329 24.78369 27.3310NA1.2550 4.9590 8.18130 11.21170 14.09210 16.88250 19.59290 22.24330 24.84370 27.3911NA1.3651 5.0491 8.26131 11.28171 14.16211 16.95251 19.66291 22.31331 24.91371 27.4612NA1.4652 5.1292 8.34132 11.35172 14.24212 17.02252 19.73292 22.38332 24.97372 27.5213NA1.5753 5.2193 8.42133 11.43173 14.31213 17.09253 19.80293 22.44333 25.03373 27.5814 NA54 5.2994 8.49134 11.50174 14.38214 17.16254 19.86294 22.51334 25.10374 27.65315Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L1.6715NA1.7755 5.3795 8.57135 11.57175 14.45215 17.23255 19.93295 22.57335 25.16375 27.7116NA1.8756 5.4696 8.65136 11.65176 14.52216 17.29256 20.00296 22.64336 25.23376 27.7717NA1.9757 5.5497 8.73137 11.72177 14.59217 17.36257 20.06297 22.70337 25.29377 27.8318NA2.0758 5.6298 8.80138 11.79178 14.66218 17.43258 20.13298 22.77338 25.35378 27.9019NA2.1759 5.7199 8.88139 11.87179 14.73219 17.50259 20.20299 22.83339 25.42379 27.9620NA2.2660 5.79100 8.96140 11.94180 14.80220 17.57260 20.26300 22.90340 25.48380 28.0221NA2.3661 5.87101 9.03141 12.01181 14.87221 17.64261 20.33301 22.96341 25.55381 28.0922NA2.4662 5.95102 9.11142 12.08182 14.94222 17.70262 20.40302 23.03342 25.61382 28.1523NA2.5563 6.03103 9.18143 12.16183 15.01223 17.77263 20.46303 23.09343 25.68383 28.2124NA2.6564 6.12104 9.26144 12.23184 15.08224 17.84264 20.53304 23.16344 25.74384 28.2825 2.7465 6.20105 9.34145 12.30185 15.15225 17.91265 20.60305 23.22345 25.80385 28.3426 2.8366 6.28106 9.41146 12.37186 15.22226 17.98266 20.66306 23.29346 25.87386 28.4027 2.9367 6.36107 9.49147 12.45187 15.29227 18.04267 20.73307 23.35347 25.93387 28.4628 3.0268 6.44108 9.56148 12.52188 15.36228 18.11268 20.79308 23.42348 25.99388 28.5329 3.1169 6.52109 9.64149 12.59189 15.43229 18.18269 20.86309 23.48349 26.06389 28.5930 3.2070 6.60110 9.72150 12.66190 15.50230 18.25270 20.93310 23.55350 26.12390 28.65316Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L31 3.2971 6.68111 9.79151 12.74191 15.57231 18.32271 20.99311 23.61351 26.19391 28.7232 3.3872 6.76112 9.87152 12.81192 15.64232 18.38272 21.06312 23.68352 26.25392 28.7833 3.4773 6.84113 9.94153 12.88193 15.71233 18.45273 21.13313 23.74353 26.31393 28.8434 3.5674 6.92114 10.02154 12.95194 15.78234 18.52274 21.19314 23.81354 26.38394 28.9035 3.6575 7.00115 10.09155 13.02195 15.85235 18.59275 21.26315 23.87355 26.44395 28.9736 3.7476 7.08116 10.17156 13.10196 15.92236 18.65276 21.32316 23.94356 26.50396 29.0337 3.8377 7.16117 10.24157 13.17197 15.99237 18.72277 21.39317 24.00357 26.57397 29.0938 3.9278 7.24118 10.32158 13.24198 16.05238 18.79278 21.46318 24.07358 26.63398 29.1539 4.0179 7.32119 10.39159 13.31199 16.12239 18.86279 21.52319 24.13359 26.70399 29.2240 4.0980 7.40120 10.47160 13.38200 16.19240 18.92280 21.59320 24.20360 26.76400 29.28Table 10.12.Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolvedDissolvedCopperAquatic and Wildlife ephemeralHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L1NA0.3041 10.0481 19.07121 27.84161 36.43201 44.91241 53.28281 61.57321 69.80361 77.972NA0.5842 10.2782 19.29122 28.05162 36.65202 45.12242 53.49282 61.78322 70.00362 78.173NA0.8543 10.5083 19.52123 28.27163 36.86203 45.33243 53.70283 61.99323 70.21363 78.374NA1.1244 10.7384 19.74124 28.49164 37.07204 45.54244 53.90284 62.19324 70.41364 78.585NA1.3845 10.9685 19.96125 28.70165 37.29205 45.75245 54.11285 62.40325 70.62365 78.786NA1.6446 11.1986 20.18126 28.92166 37.50206 45.96246 54.32286 62.61326 70.82366 78.98317Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L7NA1.9047 11.4287 20.40127 29.14167 37.71207 46.17247 54.53287 62.81327 71.03367 79.198NA2.1548 11.6588 20.62128 29.35168 37.92208 46.38248 54.74288 63.02328 71.23368 79.399NA2.4149 11.8889 20.84129 29.57169 38.14209 46.59249 54.94289 63.22329 71.44369 79.5910NA2.6650 12.1190 21.06130 29.78170 38.35210 46.80250 55.15290 63.43330 71.64370 79.8011NA2.9151 12.3391 21.28131 30.00171 38.56211 47.01251 55.36291 63.64331 71.85371 80.0012NA3.1652 12.5692 21.50132 30.22172 38.77212 47.22252 55.57292 63.84332 72.05372 80.2013NA3.4053 12.7993 21.72133 30.43173 38.99213 47.43253 55.78293 64.05333 72.26373 80.4114NA3.6554 13.0294 21.94134 30.65174 39.20214 47.64254 55.98294 64.25334 72.46374 80.6115NA3.8955 13.2495 22.16135 30.86175 39.41215 47.85255 56.19295 64.46335 72.66375 80.8116NA4.1456 13.4796 22.38136 31.08176 39.62216 48.06256 56.40296 64.67336 72.87376 81.0217NA4.3857 13.7097 22.60137 31.29177 39.84217 48.27257 56.61297 64.87337 73.07377 81.2218NA4.6258 13.9298 22.82138 31.51178 40.05218 48.48258 56.81298 65.08338 73.28378 81.4219NA4.8659 14.1599 23.04139 31.72179 40.26219 48.68259 57.02299 65.28339 73.48379 81.6220 NA60 14.37100 23.26140 31.94180 40.47220 48.89260 57.23300 65.49340 73.69380 81.83318Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L5.1121NA5.3561 14.60101 23.48141 32.15181 40.68221 49.10261 57.44301 65.69341 73.89381 82.0322NA5.5962 14.83102 23.70142 32.37182 40.89222 49.31262 57.64302 65.90342 74.09382 82.2323NA5.8263 15.05103 23.92143 32.58183 41.11223 49.52263 57.85303 66.11343 74.30383 82.4424NA6.0664 15.28104 24.14144 32.80184 41.32224 49.73264 58.06304 66.31344 74.50384 82.6425 6.3065 15.50105 24.36145 33.01185 41.53225 49.94265 58.26305 66.52345 74.71385 82.8426 6.5466 15.73106 24.57146 33.23186 41.74226 50.15266 58.47306 66.72346 74.91386 83.0427 6.7767 15.95107 24.79147 33.44187 41.95227 50.36267 58.68307 66.93347 75.11387 83.2528 7.0168 16.17108 25.01148 33.65188 42.16228 50.57268 58.89308 67.13348 75.32388 83.4529 7.2569 16.40109 25.23149 33.87189 42.37229 50.78269 59.09309 67.34349 75.52389 83.6530 7.4870 16.62110 25.45150 34.08190 42.59230 50.99270 59.30310 67.54350 75.73390 83.8531 7.7271 16.85111 25.66151 34.30191 42.80231 51.19271 59.51311 67.75351 75.93391 84.0632 7.9572 17.07112 25.88152 34.51192 43.01232 51.40272 59.71312 67.95352 76.13392 84.2633 8.1873 17.29113 26.10153 34.72193 43.22233 51.61273 59.92313 68.16353 76.34393 84.4634 8.4274 17.52114 26.32154 34.94194 43.43234 51.82274 60.13314 68.36354 76.54394 84.6635 8.6575 17.74115 26.53155 35.15195 43.64235 52.03275 60.33315 68.57355 76.74395 84.8736 8.8876 17.96116 26.75156 35.37196 43.85236 52.24276 60.54316 68.77356 76.95396 85.0737 9.1277 18.18117 26.97157 35.58197 44.06237 52.45277 60.75317 68.98357 77.15397 85.2738 9.3578 18.41118 27.19158 35.79198 44.27238 52.65278 60.95318 69.18358 77.36398 85.4739 9.5879 18.63119 27.40159 36.01199 44.48239 52.86279 61.16319 69.39359 77.56399 85.6840 9.8180 18.85120 27.62160 36.22200 44.69240 53.07280 61.37320 69.59360 77.76400 85.88Table 14.13.Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolvedDissolvedLead319Aquatic and Wildlife coldwater, warmwater, and edwHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L1NA0.3441 24.1781 51.30121 79.43161 108.02201 136.86241 165.82281 194.81321 223.79361 252.722NA0.7642 24.8282 52.00122 80.14162 108.74202 137.59242 166.55282 195.54322 224.52362 253.443NA1.2243 25.4883 52.69123 80.85163 109.46203 138.31243 167.27283 196.26323 225.24363 254.164NA1.7144 26.1484 53.39124 81.56164 110.18204 139.03244 167.99284 196.99324 225.96364 254.895NA2.2145 26.8185 54.08125 82.27165 110.90205 139.76245 168.72285 197.71325 226.69365 255.616NA2.7346 27.4786 54.78126 82.98166 111.62206 140.48246 169.44286 198.44326 227.41366 256.337NA3.2647 28.1387 55.48127 83.69167 112.34207 141.20247 170.17287 199.16327 228.14367 257.058NA3.8048 28.8088 56.17128 84.41168 113.06208 141.93248 170.89288 199.89328 228.86368 257.779NA4.3549 29.4789 56.87129 85.12169 113.78209 142.65249 171.62289 200.61329 229.58369 258.5010NA4.9150 30.1490 57.57130 85.83170 114.50210 143.37250 172.34290 201.34330 230.31370 259.2211NA5.4751 30.8191 58.27131 86.54171 115.22211 144.10251 173.07291 202.06331 231.03371 259.9412NA6.0452 31.4892 58.97132 87.26172 115.94212 144.82252 173.79292 202.79332 231.75372 260.6613NA6.6253 32.1593 59.67133 87.97173 116.66213 145.54253 174.52293 203.51333 232.48373 261.38320Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L14NA7.2054 32.8294 60.37134 88.68174 117.38214 146.27254 175.24294 204.24334 233.20374 262.1015NA7.7955 33.4995 61.07135 89.40175 118.10215 146.99255 175.97295 204.96335 233.92375 262.8316NA8.3856 34.1796 61.77136 90.11176 118.82216 147.71256 176.69296 205.69336 234.65376 263.5517NA8.9857 34.8497 62.47137 90.83177 119.54217 148.44257 177.42297 206.41337 235.37377 264.2718NA9.5858 35.5298 63.18138 91.54178 120.26218 149.16258 178.14298 207.13338 236.09378 264.9919NA10.1859 36.2099 63.88139 92.25179 120.98219 149.89259 178.87299 207.86339 236.82379 265.7120NA10.7960 36.88100 64.58140 92.97180 121.70220 150.61260 179.59300 208.58340 237.54380 266.4321NA11.4061 37.56101 65.28141 93.68181 122.42221 151.33261 180.32301 209.31341 238.26381 267.1522NA12.0262 38.24102 65.99142 94.40182 123.14222 152.06262 181.04302 210.03342 238.99382 267.8823NA12.6463 38.92103 66.69143 95.12183 123.87223 152.78263 181.77303 210.76343 239.71383 268.6024NA13.2664 39.60104 67.40144 95.83184 124.59224 153.51264 182.49304 211.48344 240.43384 269.3225 13.8865 40.28105 68.10145 96.55185 125.31225 154.23265 183.22305 212.21345 241.16385 270.0426 14.5166 40.97106 68.81146 97.26186 126.03226 154.95266 183.94306 212.93346 241.88386 270.7627 15.1467 41.65107 69.51147 97.98187 126.75227 155.68267 184.67307 213.65347 242.60387 271.4828 15.7768 42.33108 70.22148 98.70188 127.47228 156.40268 185.39308 214.38348 243.33388 272.2029 16.4069 43.02109 70.93149 99.41189 128.20229 157.13269 186.12309 215.10349 244.05389 272.92321Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L30 17.0470 43.71110 71.63150 100.13190 128.92230 157.85270 186.84310 215.83350 244.77390 273.6431 17.6871 44.39111 72.34151 100.85191 129.64231 158.58271 187.57311 216.55351 245.49391 274.3632 18.3272 45.08112 73.05152 101.56192 130.36232 159.30272 188.29312 217.28352 246.22392 275.0833 18.9673 45.77113 73.75153 102.28193 131.08233 160.02273 189.02313 218.00353 246.94393 275.8034 19.6174 46.46114 74.46154 103.00194 131.81234 160.75274 189.74314 218.72354 247.66394 276.5235 20.2575 47.15115 75.17155 103.72195 132.53235 161.47275 190.47315 219.45355 248.38395 277.2536 20.9076 47.84116 75.88156 104.43196 133.25236 162.20276 191.19316 220.17356 249.11396 277.9737 21.5577 48.53117 76.59157 105.15197 133.97237 162.92277 191.92317 220.90357 249.83397 278.6938 22.2078 49.22118 77.30158 105.87198 134.70238 163.65278 192.64318 221.62358 250.55398 279.4139 22.8679 49.92119 78.01159 106.59199 135.42239 164.37279 193.36319 222.34359 251.27399 280.1340 23.5180 50.61120 78.72160 107.31200 136.14240 165.10280 194.09320 223.07360 252.00400 280.85322Table 15.14.Chronic Water Quality Standards for dissolvedDissolvedLeadAquatic and Wildlife coldwater, warmwater, and edwHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L1NA0.0141 0.9481 2.00121 3.10161 4.21201 5.33241 6.46281 7.59321 8.72361 9.852NA0.0342 0.9782 2.03122 3.12162 4.24202 5.36242 6.49282 7.62322 8.75362 9.883NA0.0543 0.9983 2.05123 3.15163 4.27203 5.39243 6.52283 7.65323 8.78363 9.904NA0.0744 1.0284 2.08124 3.18164 4.29204 5.42244 6.55284 7.68324 8.81364 9.935NA0.0945 1.0485 2.11125 3.21165 4.32205 5.45245 6.57285 7.70325 8.83365 9.966NA0.1146 1.0786 2.13126 3.23166 4.35206 5.47246 6.60286 7.73326 8.86366 9.997NA0.1347 1.1087 2.16127 3.26167 4.38207 5.50247 6.63287 7.76327 8.89367 10.028NA0.1548 1.1288 2.19128 3.29168 4.41208 5.53248 6.66288 7.79328 8.92368 10.059NA0.1749 1.1589 2.22129 3.32169 4.43209 5.56249 6.69289 7.82329 8.95369 10.0710NA0.1950 1.1790 2.24130 3.34170 4.46210 5.59250 6.72290 7.85330 8.97370 10.1011NA0.2151 1.2091 2.27131 3.37171 4.49211 5.62251 6.74291 7.87331 9.00371 10.1312NA0.2452 1.2392 2.30132 3.40172 4.52212 5.64252 6.77292 7.90332 9.03372 10.1613NA0.2653 1.2593 2.33133 3.43173 4.55213 5.67253 6.80293 7.93333 9.06373 10.19323Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L14NA0.2854 1.2894 2.35134 3.46174 4.57214 5.70254 6.83294 7.96334 9.09374 10.2115NA0.3055 1.3195 2.38135 3.48175 4.60215 5.73255 6.86295 7.99335 9.12375 10.2416NA0.3356 1.3396 2.41136 3.51176 4.63216 5.76256 6.89296 8.02336 9.14376 10.2717NA0.3557 1.3697 2.43137 3.54177 4.66217 5.78257 6.91297 8.04337 9.17377 10.3018NA0.3758 1.3898 2.46138 3.57178 4.69218 5.81258 6.94298 8.07338 9.20378 10.3319NA0.4059 1.4199 2.49139 3.60179 4.71219 5.84259 6.97299 8.10339 9.23379 10.3520NA0.4260 1.44100 2.52140 3.62180 4.74220 5.87260 7.00300 8.13340 9.26380 10.3821NA0.4461 1.46101 2.54141 3.65181 4.77221 5.90261 7.03301 8.16341 9.28381 10.4122NA0.4762 1.49102 2.57142 3.68182 4.80222 5.93262 7.05302 8.18342 9.31382 10.4423NA0.4963 1.52103 2.60143 3.71183 4.83223 5.95263 7.08303 8.21343 9.34383 10.4724NA0.5264 1.54104 2.63144 3.73184 4.85224 5.98264 7.11304 8.24344 9.37384 10.4925 0.5465 1.57105 2.65145 3.76185 4.88225 6.01265 7.14305 8.27345 9.40385 10.5226 0.5766 1.60106 2.68146 3.79186 4.91226 6.04266 7.17306 8.30346 9.43386 10.5527 0.5967 1.62107 2.71147 3.82187 4.94227 6.07267 7.20307 8.33347 9.45387 10.5828 0.6168 1.65108 2.74148 3.85188 4.97228 6.09268 7.22308 8.35348 9.48388 10.6129 0.6469 1.68109 2.76149 3.87189 5.00229 6.12269 7.25309 8.38349 9.51389 10.6430 0.6670 1.70110 2.79150 3.90190 5.02230 6.15270 7.28310 8.41350 9.54390 10.6631 0.6971 1.73111 2.82151 3.93191 5.05231 6.18271 7.31311 8.44351 9.57391 10.69324Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L32 0.7172 1.76112 2.85152 3.96192 5.08232 6.21272 7.34312 8.47352 9.59392 10.7233 0.7473 1.78113 2.87153 3.99193 5.11233 6.24273 7.37313 8.50353 9.62393 10.7534 0.7674 1.81114 2.90154 4.01194 5.14234 6.26274 7.39314 8.52354 9.65394 10.7835 0.7975 1.84115 2.93155 4.04195 5.16235 6.29275 7.42315 8.55355 9.68395 10.8036 0.8176 1.86116 2.96156 4.07196 5.19236 6.32276 7.45316 8.58356 9.71396 10.8337 0.8477 1.89117 2.98157 4.10197 5.22237 6.35277 7.48317 8.61357 9.74397 10.8638 0.8778 1.92118 3.01158 4.13198 5.25238 6.38278 7.51318 8.64358 9.76398 10.8939 0.8979 1.95119 3.04159 4.15199 5.28239 6.41279 7.54319 8.66359 9.79399 10.9240 0.9280 1.97120 3.07160 4.18200 5.31240 6.43280 7.56320 8.69360 9.82400 10.94Table 13.15.Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolvedDissolvedLeadAquatic and Wildlife ephemeralHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L1NA0.7241 51.0081 108.27121 167.63161 227.98201 288.85241 349.96281 411.15321 472.30361 533.352NA1.6142 52.3982 109.74122 169.13162 229.50202 290.37242 351.49282 412.68322 473.83362 534.873NA2.5843 53.7883 111.21123 170.63163 231.01203 291.90243 353.02283 414.21323 475.36363 536.404NA3.6144 55.1884 112.67124 172.13164 232.53204 293.42244 354.54284 415.73324 476.89364 537.925NA4.6745 56.5785 114.14125 173.63165 234.05205 294.95245 356.07285 417.26325 478.41365 539.456NA5.7646 57.9786 115.61126 175.13166 235.57206 296.48246 357.60286 418.79326 479.94366 540.977NA6.8847 59.3887 117.08127 176.63167 237.08207 298.00247 359.13287 420.32327 481.47367 542.49325Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L8NA8.0248 60.7888 118.55128 178.13168 238.60208 299.53248 360.66288 421.85328 483.00368 544.029NA9.1849 62.1989 120.03129 179.64169 240.12209 301.05249 362.19289 423.38329 484.52369 545.5410NA10.3550 63.6090 121.50130 181.14170 241.64210 302.58250 363.72290 424.91330 486.05370 547.0611NA11.5451 65.0191 122.98131 182.65171 243.16211 304.11251 365.25291 426.44331 487.58371 548.5912NA12.7552 66.4392 124.45132 184.15172 244.68212 305.64252 366.78292 427.97332 489.10372 550.1113NA13.9753 67.8593 125.93133 185.66173 246.20213 307.16253 368.31293 429.50333 490.63373 551.6314NA15.2054 69.2694 127.41134 187.16174 247.72214 308.69254 369.84294 431.03334 492.16374 553.1615NA16.4455 70.6995 128.89135 188.67175 249.24215 310.22255 371.37295 432.56335 493.68375 554.6816NA17.6956 72.1196 130.37136 190.17176 250.76216 311.74256 372.90296 434.09336 495.21376 556.2017NA18.9557 73.5497 131.85137 191.68177 252.28217 313.27257 374.43297 435.62337 496.74377 557.7218NA20.2158 74.9698 133.33138 193.19178 253.80218 314.80258 375.96298 437.15338 498.26378 559.2519NA21.4959 76.3999 134.81139 194.70179 255.32219 316.33259 377.49299 438.68339 499.79379 560.7720NA22.7760 77.83100 136.30140 196.21180 256.85220 317.85260 379.02300 440.20340 501.32380 562.2921NA24.0761 79.26101 137.78141 197.72181 258.37221 319.38261 380.55301 441.73341 502.84381 563.8122 NA62 80.70102 139.27142 199.23182 259.89222 320.91262 382.08302 443.26342 504.37382 565.34326Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L25.3623NA26.6763 82.13103 140.75143 200.74183 261.41223 322.44263 383.61303 444.79343 505.90383 566.8624NA27.9864 83.57104 142.24144 202.25184 262.93224 323.97264 385.14304 446.32344 507.42384 568.3825 29.3065 85.01105 143.73145 203.76185 264.46225 325.49265 386.67305 447.85345 508.95385 569.9026 30.6266 86.46106 145.21146 205.27186 265.98226 327.02266 388.20306 449.38346 510.47386 571.4227 31.9567 87.90107 146.70147 206.78187 267.50227 328.55267 389.73307 450.91347 512.00387 572.9428 33.2868 89.35108 148.19148 208.29188 269.03228 330.08268 391.26308 452.44348 513.53388 574.4729 34.6269 90.79109 149.68149 209.80189 270.55229 331.61269 392.79309 453.96349 515.05389 575.9930 35.9670 92.24110 151.18150 211.32190 272.07230 333.14270 394.32310 455.49350 516.58390 577.5131 37.3171 93.69111 152.67151 212.83191 273.60231 334.67271 395.85311 457.02351 518.10391 579.0332 38.6672 95.14112 154.16152 214.34192 275.12232 336.19272 397.38312 458.55352 519.63392 580.5533 40.0273 96.60113 155.65153 215.86193 276.65233 337.72273 398.91313 460.08353 521.15393 582.0734 41.3874 98.05114 157.15154 217.37194 278.17234 339.25274 400.44314 461.61354 522.68394 583.5935 42.7475 99.51115 158.64155 218.89195 279.69235 340.78275 401.97315 463.13355 524.20395 585.1136 44.1176 100.97116 160.14156 220.40196 281.22236 342.31276 403.50316 464.66356 525.73396 586.6337 45.4877 102.43117 161.64157 221.92197 282.74237 343.84277 405.03317 466.19357 527.25397 588.1538 46.8678 103.89118 163.13158 223.43198 284.27238 345.37278 406.56318 467.72358 528.78398 589.6739 48.2479 105.35119 164.63159 224.95199 285.79239 346.90279 408.09319 469.25359 530.30399 591.1940 49.6280 106.81120 166.13160 226.46200 287.32240 348.43280 409.62320 470.77360 531.83400 592.71Table 16. Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolvedDissolvedNickelAquatic and Wildlife coldwater, warmwater, and edwHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L1 NA1041 22081 392121 550161 701201 845241 985281 1122321 1256361 13872 NA1742 22582 396122 554162 704202 849242 989282 1126322 1259362 1390327Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L3 NA2443 22983 400123 558163 708203 852243 992283 1129323 1263363 13944 NA3144 23484 404124 562164 712204 856244 996284 1132324 1266364 13975 NA3745 23885 408125 566165 715205 859245 999285 1136325 1269365 14006 NA4346 24386 412126 569166 719206 863246 1003286 1139326 1272366 14037 NA4947 24787 416127 573167 723207 867247 1006287 1142327 1276367 14078 NA5548 25288 420128 577168 726208 870248 1010288 1146328 1279368 14109 NA6149 25689 424129 581169 730209 874249 1013289 1149329 1282369 141310 NA6750 26090 428130 585170 734210 877250 1017290 1153330 1286370 141611 NA7251 26591 432131 588171 737211 881251 1020291 1156331 1289371 142012 NA7852 26992 436132 592172 741212 884252 1023292 1159332 1292372 142313 NA8353 27493 440133 596173 744213 888253 1027293 1163333 1296373 142614 NA8954 27894 444134 600174 748214 891254 1030294 1166334 1299374 142915 NA9455 28295 448135 604175 752215 895255 1034295 1169335 1302375 143316 NA9956 28796 452136 607176 755216 898256 1037296 1173336 1305376 143617NA10557 29197 456137 611177 759217 902257 1041297 1176337 1309377 143918NA11058 29598 460138 615178 763218 905258 1044298 1179338 1312378 144219NA11559 30099 464139 619179 766219 909259 1047299 1183339 1315379 144520NA12060 304100 468140 622180 770220 912260 1051300 1186340 1319380 144921NA12561 308101 472141 626181 774221 916261 1054301 1189341 1322381 145222NA13062 312102 476142 630182 777222 919262 1058302 1193342 1325382 145523NA13563 317103 480143 634183 781223 923263 1061303 1196343 1328383 1458328Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L24NA14064 321104 484144 637184 784224 926264 1064304 1199344 1332384 146225 14565 325105 488145 641185 788225 930265 1068305 1203345 1335385 146526 15066 329106 492146 645186 792226 933266 1071306 1206346 1338386 146827 15567 334107 496147 649187 795227 937267 1075307 1209347 1341387 147128 15968 338108 500148 652188 799228 940268 1078308 1213348 1345388 147429 16469 342109 504149 656189 802229 944269 1082309 1216349 1348389 147830 16970 346110 508150 660190 806230 947270 1085310 1219350 1351390 148131 17471 350111 511151 664191 810231 951271 1088311 1223351 1355391 148432 17972 355112 515152 667192 813232 954272 1092312 1226352 1358392 148733 18373 359113 519153 671193 817233 958273 1095313 1229353 1361393 149034 18874 363114 523154 675194 820234 961274 1099314 1233354 1364394 149435 19375 367115 527155 678195 824235 965275 1102315 1236355 1368395 149736 19776 371116 531156 682196 827236 968276 1105316 1239356 1371396 150037 20277 375117 535157 686197 831237 972277 1109317 1243357 1374397 150338 20778 379118 539158 689198 835238 975278 1112318 1246358 1377398 150639 21179 384119 542159 693199 838239 979279 1115319 1249359 1381399 151040 21680 388120 546160 697200 842240 982280 1119320 1253360 1384400 1513Table 17. Chronic Water Quality Standards for dissolvedDissolvedNickelAquatic and Wildlife coldwater, warmwater, and edwHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L1NA1.0641 24.4681 43.51121 61.11161 77.81201 93.88241 109.46281 124.64321 139.50361 154.072NA1.9042 24.9682 43.97122 61.53162 78.22202 94.27242 109.84282 125.02322 139.86362 154.433 NA43 25.4783 44.42123 61.96163 78.63203 94.67243 110.23283 125.39323 140.23363 154.79329Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L2.684NA3.4244 25.9784 44.87124 62.39164 79.03204 95.06244 110.61284 125.77324 140.60364 155.155NA4.1245 26.4785 45.33125 62.81165 79.44205 95.46245 110.99285 126.14325 140.96365 155.516NA4.8146 26.9686 45.78126 63.24166 79.85206 95.85246 111.38286 126.52326 141.33366 155.877NA5.4847 27.4687 46.23127 63.66167 80.26207 96.24247 111.76287 126.89327 141.70367 156.238NA6.1448 27.9588 46.68128 64.09168 80.66208 96.64248 112.14288 127.26328 142.07368 156.599NA6.7849 28.4489 47.12129 64.51169 81.07209 97.03249 112.52289 127.64329 142.43369 156.9510NA7.4150 28.9390 47.57130 64.93170 81.47210 97.42250 112.91290 128.01330 142.80370 157.3111NA8.0451 29.4291 48.02131 65.35171 81.88211 97.81251 113.29291 128.38331 143.16371 157.6712NA8.6552 29.9192 48.46132 65.78172 82.28212 98.21252 113.67292 128.76332 143.53372 158.0313NA9.2653 30.3993 48.91133 66.20173 82.69213 98.60253 114.05293 129.13333 143.90373 158.3914NA9.8654 30.8894 49.35134 66.62174 83.09214 98.99254 114.43294 129.50334 144.26374 158.7515NA10.4555 31.3695 49.80135 67.04175 83.50215 99.38255 114.81295 129.88335 144.63375 159.1116NA11.0356 31.8496 50.24136 67.46176 83.90216 99.77256 115.19296 130.25336 144.99376 159.4717NA11.6157 32.3297 50.68137 67.88177 84.30217 100.16257 115.57297 130.62337 145.36377 159.82330Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L18NA12.1958 32.8098 51.13138 68.30178 84.71218 100.55258 115.95298 130.99338 145.72378 160.1819NA12.7659 33.2899 51.57139 68.71179 85.11219 100.94259 116.33299 131.36339 146.09379 160.5420NA13.3360 33.76100 52.01140 69.13180 85.51220 101.33260 116.71300 131.74340 146.45380 160.9021NA13.8961 34.23101 52.45141 69.55181 85.91221 101.72261 117.09301 132.11341 146.81381 161.2622NA14.4562 34.71102 52.89142 69.97182 86.31222 102.11262 117.47302 132.48342 147.18382 161.6223NA15.0063 35.18103 53.32143 70.38183 86.71223 102.50263 117.85303 132.85343 147.54383 161.9724NA15.5564 35.65104 53.76144 70.80184 87.12224 102.89264 118.23304 133.22344 147.91384 162.3325 16.1065 36.12105 54.20145 71.22185 87.52225 103.28265 118.61305 133.59345 148.27385 162.6926 16.6466 36.59106 54.63146 71.63186 87.92226 103.67266 118.99306 133.96346 148.63386 163.0527 17.1867 37.06107 55.07147 72.05187 88.32227 104.05267 119.37307 134.33347 149.00387 163.4028 17.7268 37.53108 55.51148 72.46188 88.71228 104.44268 119.75308 134.70348 149.36388 163.7629 18.2569 37.99109 55.94149 72.87189 89.11229 104.83269 120.12309 135.07349 149.72389 164.1230 18.7870 38.46110 56.37150 73.29190 89.51230 105.22270 120.50310 135.44350 150.09390 164.4731 19.3171 38.92111 56.81151 73.70191 89.91231 105.60271 120.88311 135.81351 150.45391 164.8332 19.8372 39.39112 57.24152 74.11192 90.31232 105.99272 121.26312 136.18352 150.81392 165.1933 20.3673 39.85113 57.67153 74.53193 90.71233 106.38273 121.63313 136.55353 151.17393 165.5434 20.8874 40.31114 58.10154 74.94194 91.10234 106.76274 122.01314 136.92354 151.54394 165.9035 21.4075 40.77115 58.53155 75.35195 91.50235 107.15275 122.39315 137.29355 151.90395 166.2636 21.9176 41.23116 58.96156 75.76196 91.90236 107.53276 122.76316 137.66356 152.26396 166.6137 22.4377 41.69117 59.39157 76.17197 92.29237 107.92277 123.14317 138.02357 152.62397 166.9738 22.9478 42.15118 59.82158 76.58198 92.69238 108.30278 123.52318 138.39358 152.98398 167.32331Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L39 23.4579 42.60119 60.25159 76.99199 93.09239 108.69279 123.89319 138.76359 153.34399 167.6840 23.9680 43.06120 60.68160 77.40200 93.48240 109.07280 124.27320 139.13360 153.71400 168.04Table 18. Water Quality Standards for dissolved SilverAquatic and Wildlife coldwater, warmwater,edw, and ephemeralHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/L1NA410.74812.401214.791617.8320111.4624115.6628120.4032125.6536131.392NA420.78822.451224.861627.9120211.5624215.7828220.5232225.7836231.543NA430.81832.501234.931637.9920311.6624315.8928320.6532325.9236331.694NA440.84842.561244.991648.0820411.7624416.0028420.7732426.0636431.845NA450.87852.611255.061658.1620511.8624516.1128520.9032526.2036531.996NA460.91862.661265.131668.2520611.9624616.2328621.0332626.3436632.147NA470.94872.721275.201678.3320712.0624716.3428721.1532726.4836732.298NA480.98882.771285.271688.4220812.1624816.4528821.2832826.6136832.449NA491.01892.821295.351698.5120912.2624916.5728921.4132926.7536932.5910NA501.05902.881305.421708.5921012.3625016.6829021.5333026.8937032.7411NA511.08912.931315.491718.6821112.4625116.8029121.6633127.0337132.9012NA521.12922.991325.561728.7721212.5625216.9129221.7933227.1837233.0513NA531.16933.051335.631738.8621312.6725317.0329321.9233327.3237333.2014NA541.20943.101345.711748.9421412.7725417.1429422.0533427.4637433.3515NA551.23953.161355.781759.0321512.8725517.2629522.1833527.6037533.5116NA561.27963.221365.851769.1221612.9725617.3829622.3133627.7437633.6617NA571.31973.271375.931779.2121713.0825717.4929722.4433727.8837733.8218NA581.35983.331386.001789.3021813.1825817.6129822.5733828.0337833.9719NA591.39993.391396.081799.3921913.2925917.7329922.7033928.1737934.1320NA601.431003.451406.151809.4822013.3926017.8530022.8334028.3138034.2821NA611.471013.511416.231819.5722113.5026117.9730122.9634128.4538134.44332Hard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/L22NA621.521023.571426.311829.6622213.6026218.0830223.0934228.6038234.5923NA631.561033.631436.381839.7622313.7126318.2030323.2234328.7438334.7524NA641.601043.691446.461849.8522413.8126418.3230423.3534428.8938434.90250.32651.641053.751456.541859.9422513.9226518.4430523.4934529.0338535.06260.34661.691063.811466.6118610.0322614.0226618.5630623.6234629.1838635.22270.36671.731073.881476.6918710.1222714.1326718.6830723.7534729.3238735.37280.39681.781083.941486.7718810.2222814.2426818.8030823.8934829.4738835.53290.41691.821094.001496.8518910.3122914.3526918.9230924.0234929.6138935.69300.43701.871104.061506.9319010.4123014.4527019.0431024.1535029.7639035.85310.46711.911114.131517.0119110.5023114.5627119.1731124.2935129.9139136.01320.49721.961124.191527.0919210.5923214.6727219.2931224.4235230.0539236.16330.51732.011134.261537.1719310.6923314.7827319.4131324.5635330.2039336.32340.54742.061144.321547.2519410.7923414.8927419.5331424.6935430.3539436.48350.57752.101154.391557.3319510.8823515.0027519.6531524.8335530.4939536.64360.60762.151164.451567.4119610.9823615.1127619.7831624.9635630.6439636.80370.62772.201174.521577.4919711.0723715.2227719.9031725.1035730.7939736.96380.65782.251184.591587.5819811.1723815.3327820.0331825.2335830.9439837.12390.68792.301194.651597.6619911.2723915.4427920.1531925.3735931.0939937.28400.71802.351204.721607.7420011.3724015.5528020.2732025.5136031.2440037.44Table 12.18.Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolvedDissolvedNickelAquatic and Wildlife ephemeralHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L1 NA8541 195681 3479121 4886161 6221201 7506241 8752281 9966321 11154361 123192NA15242 199682 3516122 4920162 6254202 7538242 8783282 9996322 11183362 123483 NA43 203683 3552123 4954163 6287203 7569243 8813283 10026323 11213363 12377333Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L2144NA27344 207684 3588124 4988164 6319204 7601244 8844284 10056324 11242364 124055NA33045 211685 3624125 5022165 6352205 7632245 8875285 10086325 11271365 124346NA38546 215686 3660126 5056166 6385206 7664246 8905286 10116326 11301366 124637NA43847 219587 3696127 5090167 6417207 7695247 8936287 10146327 11330367 124928NA49148 223588 3732128 5124168 6450208 7727248 8967288 10176328 11359368 125219NA54249 227489 3768129 5158169 6482209 7758249 8997289 10206329 11389369 1254910NA59350 231390 3804130 5192170 6514210 7790250 9028290 10235330 11418370 1257811NA64351 235291 3839131 5226171 6547211 7821251 9058291 10265331 11447371 1260712NA69252 239192 3875132 5259172 6579212 7852252 9089292 10295332 11476372 1263613NA74053 243093 3911133 5293173 6612213 7884253 9119293 10325333 11506373 1266414NA78854 246994 3946134 5327174 6644214 7915254 9150294 10355334 11535374 1269315NA83555 250895 3982135 5360175 6676215 7946255 9180295 10385335 11564375 1272216NA88256 254696 4017136 5394176 6708216 7978256 9211296 10414336 11593376 1275117NA92957 258597 4053137 5427177 6741217 8009257 9241297 10444337 11622377 12779334Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L18NA97558 262398 4088138 5461178 6773218 8040258 9272298 10474338 11652378 1280819NA102059 266199 4123139 5494179 6805219 8071259 9302299 10504339 11681379 1283720NA106660 2699100 4158140 5528180 6837220 8102260 9332300 10533340 11710380 1286521NA111061 2737101 4193141 5561181 6869221 8133261 9363301 10563341 11739381 1289422NA115562 2775102 4229142 5594182 6901222 8165262 9393302 10593342 11768382 1292223NA119963 2813103 4264143 5628183 6934223 8196263 9423303 10622343 11797383 1295124NA124364 2851104 4299144 5661184 6966224 8227264 9454304 10652344 11826384 1298025 128765 2888105 4334145 5694185 6998225 8258265 9484305 10682345 11855385 1300826 133066 2926106 4368146 5727186 7030226 8289266 9514306 10711346 11884386 1303727 137467 2963107 4403147 5761187 7062227 8320267 9544307 10741347 11913387 1306528 141668 3001108 4438148 5794188 7093228 8351268 9575308 10770348 11943388 1309429 145969 3038109 4473149 5827189 7125229 8382269 9605309 10800349 11972389 1312330 150270 3075110 4508150 5860190 7157230 8413270 9635310 10830350 12001390 1315131 154471 3112111 4542151 5893191 7189231 8444271 9665311 10859351 12030391 1318032 158672 3149112 4577152 5926192 7221232 8475272 9695312 10889352 12059392 1320833 162873 3186113 4611153 5959193 7253233 8506273 9726313 10918353 12088393 1323734 166974 3223114 4646154 5992194 7285234 8536274 9756314 10948354 12116394 1326535 171175 3260115 4680155 6025195 7316235 8567275 9786315 10977355 12145395 1329436 175276 3297116 4715156 6058196 7348236 8598276 9816316 11007356 12174396 1332237 179377 3333117 4749157 6090197 7380237 8629277 9846317 11036357 12203397 1335038 183478 3370118 4783158 6123198 7411238 8660278 9876318 11066358 12232398 13379335Hard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/LHard.mg/LStd.μg/L39 187579 3407119 4818159 6156199 7443239 8691279 9906319 11095359 12261399 1340740 191580 3443120 4852160 6189200 7475240 8721280 9936320 11124360 12290400 13436Table 19. Acute Water Quality Standards for Dissolved SilverAquatic and Wildlife coldwater, warmwater, edw, and ephemeralHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/L10.001410.69812.241214.461617.3020110.6924114.6028119.0232123.9136129.2620.004420.72822.291224.531627.3820210.7824214.7128219.1432224.0436229.4030.01430.75832.331234.591637.4520310.8724314.8128319.2532324.1736329.5440.01440.78842.381244.661647.5320410.9624414.9228419.3732424.3036429.6850.02450.81852.431254.721657.6120511.0624515.0228519.4932524.4336529.8260.03460.85862.481264.791667.6920611.1524615.1328619.6132624.5636629.9670.03470.88872.531274.851677.7720711.2424715.2428719.7232724.6936730.1180.04480.91882.581284.921687.8520811.3424815.3428819.8432824.8236830.2590.05490.94892.631294.981697.9320911.4324915.4528919.9632924.9536930.39100.06500.98902.681305.051708.0121011.5225015.5629020.0833025.0837030.53110.07511.01912.741315.121718.0921111.6225115.6629120.2033125.2137130.67120.08521.04922.791325.191728.1821211.7125215.7729220.3233225.3437230.81130.10531.08932.841335.251738.2621311.8125315.8829320.4433325.4737330.96140.11541.11942.891345.321748.3421411.9125415.9929420.5633425.6037431.10150.12551.15952.951355.391758.4221512.0025516.0929520.6833525.7337531.24160.14561.19963.001365.461768.5121612.1025616.2029620.8033625.8737631.39170.15571.22973.051375.531778.5921712.1925716.3129720.9233726.0037731.53180.17581.26983.111385.601788.6721812.2925816.4229821.0433826.1337831.67190.18591.30993.161395.671798.7621912.3925916.5329921.1633926.2637931.82200.20601.341003.221405.741808.8422012.4826016.6430021.2834026.4038031.96210.22611.371013.271415.811818.9322112.5826116.7530121.4134126.5338132.11336Hard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/L220.24621.411023.331425.881829.0122212.6826216.8630221.5334226.6738232.25230.26631.451033.381435.951839.1022312.7826316.9730321.6534326.8038332.40240.28641.491043.441446.021849.1822412.8826417.0830421.7834426.9338432.54250.30651.531053.501456.091859.2722512.9826517.1930521.9034527.0738532.69260.32661.571063.561466.171869.3522613.0826617.3130622.0234627.2038632.84270.34671.621073.611476.241879.4422713.1826717.4230722.1534727.3438732.98280.36681.661083.671486.311889.5322813.2826817.5330822.2734827.4738833.13290.38691.701093.731496.391899.6122913.3826917.6430922.3934927.6138933.28300.41701.741103.791506.461909.7023013.4827017.7631022.5235027.7539033.42310.43711.781113.851516.541919.7923113.5827117.8731122.6435127.8839133.57320.45721.831123.911526.611929.8823213.6827217.9831222.7735228.0239233.72330.48731.871133.971536.681939.9723313.7827318.1031322.9035328.1639333.87340.50741.921144.031546.7619410.0623413.8827418.2131423.0235428.2939434.02350.53751.961154.091556.8419510.1523513.9827518.3331523.1535528.4339534.16360.55762.011164.151566.9119610.2423614.0927618.4431623.2735628.5739634.31370.58772.051174.211576.9919710.3323714.1927718.5631723.4035728.7139734.46380.61782.101184.281587.0619810.4223814.2927818.6731823.5335828.8539834.61390.64792.141194.341597.1419910.5123914.4027918.7931923.6635928.9939934.76400.67802.191204.401607.2220010.6024014.5028018.9032023.7836029.1240034.91Table 20. Acute and Chronic WaterQuality Standards for dissolvedDissolvedZincAquatic and Wildlife coldwater, warmwater, and edwHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/L1 NA2.441 55.181 98.0121 137.7161 175.4201 211.7241 246.9281 281.2321 314.8361 347.72 NA4.342 56.282 99.0122 138.7162 176.4202 212.6242 247.8282 282.1322 315.6362 348.53 NA6.043 57.383 100.1123 139.6163 177.3203 213.5243 248.6283 282.9323 316.4363 349.44 NA7.744 58.484 101.1124 140.6164 178.2204 214.4244 249.5284 283.8324 317.3364 350.2337Hard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/L5 NA9.345 59.685 102.1125 141.6165 179.1205 215.3245 250.4285 284.6325 318.1365 351.06NA10.846 60.786 103.1126 142.5166 180.0206 216.2246 251.2286 285.5326 318.9366 351.87NA12.347 61.887 104.1127 143.5167 181.0207 217.1247 252.1287 286.3327 319.8367 352.68NA13.848 62.988 105.2128 144.4168 181.9208 217.9248 253.0288 287.1328 320.6368 353.49NA15.249 64.089 106.2129 145.4169 182.8209 218.8249 253.8289 288.0329 321.4369 354.210NA16.750 65.190 107.2130 146.4170 183.7210 219.7250 254.7290 288.8330 322.2370 355.111NA18.151 66.291 108.2131 147.3171 184.6211 220.6251 255.6291 289.7331 323.1371 355.912NA19.452 67.392 109.2132 148.3172 185.5212 221.5252 256.4292 290.5332 323.9372 356.713NA20.853 68.493 110.2133 149.2173 186.4213 222.4253 257.3293 291.4333 324.7373 357.514NA22.154 69.594 111.2134 150.2174 187.4214 223.3254 258.1294 292.2334 325.6374 358.315NA23.555 70.695 112.2135 151.1175 188.3215 224.1255 259.0295 293.0335 326.4375 359.116NA24.856 71.796 113.2136 152.1176 189.2216 225.0256 259.9296 293.9336 327.2376 359.917NA26.157 72.897 114.2137 153.0177 190.1217 225.9257 260.7297 294.7337 328.0377 360.718NA27.458 73.998 115.2138 153.9178 191.0218 226.8258 261.6298 295.6338 328.9378 361.519NA28.759 74.999 116.2139 154.9179 191.9219 227.7259 262.4299 296.4339 329.7379 362.4338Hard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/L20NA30.060 76.0100 117.2140 155.8180 192.8220 228.6260 263.3300 297.2340 330.5380 363.221NA31.261 77.1101 118.2141 156.8181 193.7221 229.4261 264.2301 298.1341 331.3381 364.022NA32.562 78.2102 119.2142 157.7182 194.6222 230.3262 265.0302 298.9342 332.2382 364.823NA33.763 79.2103 120.2143 158.7183 195.5223 231.2263 265.9303 299.8343 333.0383 365.624NA35.064 80.3104 121.1144 159.6184 196.4224 232.1264 266.7304 300.6344 333.8384 366.425 36.265 81.3105 122.1145 160.5185 197.3225 232.9265 267.6305 301.4345 334.6385 367.226 37.466 82.4106 123.1146 161.5186 198.3226 233.8266 268.4306 302.3346 335.4386 368.027 38.667 83.5107 124.1147 162.4187 199.2227 234.7267 269.3307 303.1347 336.3387 368.828 39.968 84.5108 125.1148 163.3188 200.1228 235.6268 270.2308 304.0348 337.1388 369.629 41.169 85.6109 126.1149 164.3189 201.0229 236.5269 271.0309 304.8349 337.9389 370.430 42.270 86.6110 127.0150 165.2190 201.9230 237.3270 271.9310 305.6350 338.7390 371.231 43.471 87.7111 128.0151 166.2191 202.8231 238.2271 272.7311 306.5351 339.5391 372.132 44.672 88.7112 129.0152 167.1192 203.7232 239.1272 273.6312 307.3352 340.4392 372.933 45.873 89.8113 130.0153 168.0193 204.6233 239.9273 274.4313 308.1353 341.2393 373.734 47.074 90.8114 130.9154 168.9194 205.5234 240.8274 275.3314 309.0354 342.0394 374.535 48.175 91.8115 131.9155 169.9195 206.3235 241.7275 276.1315 309.8355 342.8395 375.336 49.376 92.9116 132.9156 170.8196 207.2236 242.6276 277.0316 310.6356 343.6396 376.137 50.577 93.9117 133.9157 171.7197 208.1237 243.4277 277.8317 311.5357 344.5397 376.938 51.678 94.9118 134.8158 172.7198 209.0238 244.3278 278.7318 312.3358 345.3398 377.739 52.879 96.0119 135.8159 173.6199 209.9239 245.2279 279.5319 313.1359 346.1399 378.540 53.980 97.0120 136.8160 174.5200 210.8240 246.0280 280.4320 314.0360 346.9400 379.3Table 19.21.Acute Water Quality Standards for dissolvedDissolvedZincAquatic and Wildlife ephemeral339Hard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/L1 NA2241 52281 930121 1307161 1665201 2009241 2343281 2669321 2987361 33002 NA4042 53382 940122 1316162 1674202 2018242 2351282 2677322 2995362 33073 NA5743 54483 950123 1325163 1682203 2026243 2360283 2685323 3003363 33154 NA7344 55584 959124 1334164 1691204 2034244 2368284 2693324 3011364 33235 NA8845 56585 969125 1343165 1700205 2043245 2376285 2701325 3019365 33316NA10346 57686 979126 1353166 1708206 2051246 2384286 2709326 3027366 33387NA11747 58787 988127 1362167 1717207 2060247 2392287 2717327 3034367 33468NA13148 59788 998128 1371168 1726208 2068248 2401288 2725328 3042368 33549NA14549 60889 1007129 1380169 1735209 2077249 2409289 2733329 3050369 336210NA15850 61890 1017130 1389170 1743210 2085250 2417290 2741330 3058370 336911NA17151 62991 1027131 1398171 1752211 2093251 2425291 2749331 3066371 337712NA18452 63992 1036132 1407172 1761212 2102252 2433292 2757332 3074372 338513NA19753 64993 1046133 1416173 1769213 2110253 2442293 2765333 3082373 339214NA21054 66094 1055134 1425174 1778214 2119254 2450294 2773334 3089374 340015NA22355 67095 1065135 1434175 1787215 2127255 2458295 2781335 3097375 340816NA23556 68096 1074136 1443176 1795216 2135256 2466296 2789336 3105376 341617NA24857 69197 1084137 1452177 1804217 2144257 2474297 2797337 3113377 3423340Hard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/L18NA26058 70198 1093138 1461178 1813218 2152258 2482298 2805338 3121378 343119NA27259 71199 1103139 1470179 1821219 2161259 2491299 2813339 3129379 343920NA28460 721100 1112140 1479180 1830220 2169260 2499300 2821340 3136380 344621NA29661 732101 1121141 1488181 1838221 2177261 2507301 2829341 3144381 345422NA30862 742102 1131142 1497182 1847222 2186262 2515302 2837342 3152382 346223NA32063 752103 1140143 1506183 1856223 2194263 2523303 2845343 3160383 346924NA33264 762104 1150144 1515184 1864224 2202264 2531304 2853344 3168384 347725 34465 772105 1159145 1523185 1873225 2211265 2539305 2861345 3175385 348526 35566 782106 1168146 1532186 1881226 2219266 2547306 2869346 3183386 349227 36767 792107 1178147 1541187 1890227 2227267 2556307 2876347 3191387 350028 37868 802108 1187148 1550188 1898228 2236268 2564308 2884348 3199388 350829 39069 812109 1196149 1559189 1907229 2244269 2572309 2892349 3207389 351530 40170 822110 1206150 1568190 1916230 2252270 2580310 2900350 3214390 352331 41271 832111 1215151 1577191 1924231 2260271 2588311 2908351 3222391 353132 42372 842112 1224152 1586192 1933232 2269272 2596312 2916352 3230392 353833 43573 852113 1233153 1594193 1941233 2277273 2604313 2924353 3238393 354634 44674 862114 1243154 1603194 1950234 2285274 2612314 2932354 3245394 355435 45775 871115 1252155 1612195 1958235 2294275 2620315 2940355 3253395 356136 46876 881116 1261156 1621196 1967236 2302276 2628316 2948356 3261396 356937 47977 891117 1270157 1630197 1975237 2310277 2636317 2956357 3269397 357738 49078 901118 1279158 1638198 1984238 2318278 2645318 2964358 3276398 3584341Hard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/LHard.mg/LStd.ug/L39 50179 911119 1289159 1647199 1992239 2327279 2653319 2971359 3284399 359240 51280 920120 1298160 1656200 2001240 2335280 2661320 2979360 3292400 3599Table 21.22.AcuteWater Quality Standards forPentachlorophenolAcuteAquatic and Wildlife coldwater,warmwater, and edwTable 22.23.ChronicWater Quality Standardsfor PentachlorophenolChronicAquatic and Wildlife coldwater,warmwater, and edwTable 23.24.AcuteWater Quality Standards forPentachlorophenolAcuteAquatic and Wildlife ephemeralpH ug/LpH ug/LpH ug/LpH ug/LpH ug/LpH ug/L3 0.1637 9.0703 0.1037 5.7263 0.6607 36.7603.1 0.1807.1 10.0293.1 0.1147.1 6.3313.1 0.7307.1 40.6463.2 0.1997.2 11.0903.2 0.1267.2 7.0013.2 0.8077.2 44.9433.3 0.2207.3 12.2623.3 0.1397.3 7.7413.3 0.8927.3 49.6953.4 0.2437.4 13.5583.4 0.1547.4 8.5593.4 0.9867.4 54.9493.5 0.2697.5 14.9923.5 0.1707.5 9.4643.5 1.0917.5 60.7583.6 0.2987.6 16.5773.6 0.1887.6 10.4653.6 1.2067.6 67.1823.7 0.3297.7 18.3293.7 0.2087.7 11.5713.7 1.3347.7 74.2843.8 0.3647.8 20.2673.8 0.2307.8 12.7943.8 1.4757.8 82.1383.9 0.4027.9 22.4103.9 0.2547.9 14.1473.9 1.6317.9 90.8224 0.4458 24.7794 0.2818 15.6434 1.8038 100.4244.1 0.4928.1 27.3994.1 0.3118.1 17.2964.1 1.9948.1 111.0414.2 0.5448.2 30.2964.2 0.3438.2 19.1254.2 2.2048.2 122.7814.3 0.6018.3 33.4984.3 0.3808.3 21.1474.3 2.4378.3 135.7624.4 0.6658.4 37.0404.4 0.4208.4 23.3834.4 2.6958.4 150.1154.5 0.7358.5 40.9564.5 0.4648.5 25.8554.5 2.9808.5 165.9854.6 0.8138.6 45.2864.6 0.5138.6 28.5884.6 3.2958.6 183.5344.7 0.8998.7 50.0744.7 0.5688.7 31.6114.7 3.6438.7 202.9384.8 0.9948.8 55.3684.8 0.6288.8 34.9534.8 4.0298.8 224.3934.9 1.0998.9 61.2224.9 0.6948.9 38.6484.9 4.4548.9 248.117342pH ug/LpH ug/LpH ug/LpH ug/LpH ug/LpH ug/L5 1.2159 67.6945 0.7679 42.7345 4.9259 274.3495.1 1.3449.1 74.8515.1 0.8489.1 47.2525.1 5.4469.1 303.3545.2 1.4869.2 82.7655.2 0.9389.2 52.2485.2 6.0229.2 335.4265.3 1.6439.3 91.5155.3 1.0379.3 57.7725.3 6.6599.3 370.8885.4 1.8179.4 101.1905.4 1.1479.4 63.8805.4 7.3639.4 410.1005.5 2.0099.5 111.8885.5 1.2689.5 70.6335.5 8.1419.5 453.4575.6 2.2219.6 123.7175.6 1.40229.6 78.1015.6 9.0029.6 501.3985.7 2.4569.7 136.7975.7 1.5509.7 86.3585.7 9.9539.7 554.4085.8 2.7169.8 151.2605.8 1.7149.8 95.4885.8 11.0069.8 613.0215.9 3.0039.9 167.2525.9 1.8969.9 105.5835.9 12.1699.9 677.8326 3.32010 184.9346 2.09610 116.7466 13.45610 749.4956.1 3.67110.1 204.4866.1 2.31810.1 129.0896.1 14.87810.1 828.7356.2 4.05910.2 226.1056.2 2.56310.2 142.7366.2 16.45110.2 916.3516.3 4.48810.3 250.0106.3 2.83310.3 157.8276.3 18.19110.3 1013.2316.4 4.96310.4 276.4426.4 3.13310.4 174.5136.4 20.11410.4 1120.3546.5 5.48810.5 305.6686.5 3.46410.5 192.9636.5 22.24010.5 1238.8026.6 6.06810.6 337.9846.6 3.83110.6 213.3646.6 24.59110.6 1369.7736.7 6.70910.7 373.7176.7 4.23510.7 235.9226.7 27.19110.7 1514.5906.8 7.41910.8 413.2286.8 4.68310.8 260.8646.8 30.06610.8 1674.7186.9 8.20310.9 456.9166.9 5.17810.9 288.4446.9 33.24510.9 1851.77511 505.22311 318.93911 2047.552Table 24.25.Acute Criteria for Total Ammonia (in mg N / Lmg/L as N)Aquatic and Wildlife coldwater, warmwater, and edwpH A&WcA&Ww andA&W edw6.5 32.6 48.86.6 31.3 46.86.7 29.8 44.63436.8 28.1 42.06.9 26.2 39.17.0 24.1 36.17.1 22.0 32.87.2 19.7 29.57.3 17.5 26.27.4 15.4 23.07.5 13.3 19.97.3 11.4 17.07.7 9.65 14.47.8 8.11 12.17.9 6.77 10.18.0 5.62 8.408.1 4.64 6.958.2 3.830 5.728.3 3.15 4.718.4 2.59 3.888.5 2.14 3.208.6 1.77 2.658.7 1.47 2.208.8 1.23 1.848.9 1.04 1.569.0 0.885 1.32Table 25.26.Chronic Criteria for Total Ammonia (inL / Nmg/L as N) forA&Wc,andA&WwDesignated UsesAquatic and Wildlife coldwater, warmwater, and edwTemperature, °CpH0 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 306.5 6.67 6.67 6.06 5.33 4.68 4.12 3.62 3.18 2.80 2.466.6 6.57 6.57 5.97 5.25 4.61 4.05 3.56 3.13 2.75 2.42344Temperature, °CpH0 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 306.7 6.44 6.44 5.86 5.15 4.52 3.98 3.50 3.07 2.70 2.376.8 6.29 6.29 5.72 5.03 4.42 3.89 3.42 3.00 2.64 2.326.9 6.12 6.12 5.56 4.89 4.30 3.78 3.32 2.92 2.57 2.257.0 5.91 5.91 5.37 4.72 4.15 3.65 3.21 2.82 2.48 2.187.1 5.67 5.67 5.15 4.53 3.98 3.50 3.08 2.70 2.38 2.097.2 5.39 5.39 4.90 4.31 3.78 3.33 2.92 2.57 2.26 1.997.3 5.08 5.08 4.61 4.06 3.57 3.13 2.76 2.42 2.13 1.877.4 4.73 4.73 4.30 3.78 3.33 2.92 2.57 2.26 1.98 1.747.5 4.36 4.36 3.97 3.49 3.06 2.69 2.37 2.08 1.83 1.617.6 3.98 3.98 3.61 3.18 2.79 2.45 2.16 1.90 1.67 1.477.7 3.58 3.58 3.25 2.86 2.51 2.21 1.94 1.71 1.50 1.327.8 3.18 3.18 2.89 2.54 2.23 1.96 1.73 1.52 1.33 1.177.9 2.80 2.80 2.54 2.24 1.96 1.73 1.52 1.33 1.17 1.038.0 2.43 2.43 2.21 1.94 1.71 1.50 1.32 1.16 1.02 0.8978.1 2.10 2.10 1.91 1.68 1.47 1.29 1.14 1.00 0.879 0.7738.2 1.79 1.79 1.63 1.43 1.26 1.11 0.973 0.855 0.752 0.6618.3 1.52 1.52 1.39 1.22 1.07 0.941 0.827 0.727 0.639 0.5628.4 1.29 1.29 1.17 1.03 0.906 0.796 0.700 0.615 0.541 0.4758.5 1.09 1.09 0.990 0.870 0.765 0.672 0.591 0.520 0.457 0.4018.6 0.920 0.920 0.836 0.735 0.646 0.568 0.499 0.439 0.386 0.3398.7 0.778 0.778 0.707 0.622 0.547 0.480 0.422 0.371 0.326 0.2878.8 0.661 0.661 0.601 0.528 0.464 0.408 0.359 0.315 0.277 0.2448.9 0.565 0.565 0.513 0.451 0.397 0.349 0.306 0.269 0.237 0.2089.0 0.486 0.486 0.442 0.389 0.342 0.300 0.264 0.232 0.204 0.179345Appendix B.APPENDIX B.List of Surface Waters and Designated UsesSURFACE WATERS AND DESIGNATED USESAbbreviationsRiver BasinsBW = Bill WilliamsCM = Colorado Mainstem (includes Red Lake)LC = Little ColoradoMG = Middle Gila (includes Gila River below San Carlos Indian Reservation, Salt River below Granite Reef Dam and Phoenix area waterbodies)RM = Rios de Mexico (includes Rio Magdalena, Rio Sonoita, and Rio Yaqui Basins)SC = Santa CruzSP = San PedroSR = Salt River (includes Salt River and tributaries above Granite Reef Dam)UG = Upper Gila (includes Gila River and tributaries above San Carlos Indian Reservation)VR = Verde RiverWP = Wilcox PlayaDesignated UsesA&Wc = Aquatic and Wildlife cold waterA&Wc = Aquatic and Wildlife warm waterA&We =Aquatic and Wildlife ephemeralA&Wedw = Aquatic and Wildlife effluent dependent waterFBC = Full-body ContactPBC = Partial-body ContactDWS = Domestic Water SourceFC = Fish ConsumptionAgI = Agricultural IrrigationAgL = Agricultural Livestock Watering346OtherU = Unique WaterEDW = Effluent-dependent WaterWWTP = Wastewater Treatment PlantKm = kilometersAquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLBWAlamo Lake 34°14'45"/113°35'00"DeepA&Ww FBC FC AgLBWBig Sandy River Tributary to the Santa Maria RiverHeadwaters toconfluence at Alamo Lakeat 34°18'36"/113°31'34"A&Ww FBC FC AgLBWBill WilliamsRiverTributary to theAlamo Lake to confluence withColorado River at 34°18'04"/114°08'10"A&Ww FBC FC AgLBWBlue Tank 34°40'14"/112°58'16"A&Ww FBC FC AgLBWBoulder Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 34°41'14"/113°03'34"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLBWBoulder Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary toconfluence with Burro Creek at34°36'47"/113°18'00"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLBWBurro Creek(Unique Water)(OAW)Headwaters to confluence with Boulder Creek at34°36'47"/113°18'00"A&Ww FBC FC AgLBWBurro Creek Below confluence with Boulder Creek toconfluence with Big Sandy River at34°32'24"/113°34'19.2"A&Ww FBC FC AgLBWConger Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 34°45'13"/113°05'45"A&Wc FBC FC AgLBWConger Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary toA&Ww FBC FC AgL347Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLconfluence with Burro Creek at34°46'05"/113°12'54"BWCoors Lake 34°36'20"/113°11'25"IgneousA&Ww FBC FCBWCopper BasinWashHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 34°28'11"/112°35'31"A&Wc FBC FC AgLBWCopper BasinWashBelow confluence with unnamed tributary to SkullValley Wash at 34°25'55"/112°41'42"A&We PBC AgLBWCottonwoodCanyonHeadwaters to Bear Trap Spring at34°45'10"/112°52'32"A&Wc FBC FC AgLBWCottonwoodCanyonBelow Bear Trap Spring to confluence at SmithCanyon at 34°37'34"/112°54'46.8"A&Ww FBC FC AgLBWDate Creek Tributary to theHeadwaters to confluence withSanta Maria River at 34°18'11"/113°29'53"A&Ww FBC FC AgLBWFrancis Creek(Unique Water)OAWTributary toHeadwaters to confluence withBurroCreek at 34°44'28"/113°14'35"A&Ww FBC DWS FC AgI AgLBWKirkland Creek Tributary toHeadwaters to confluence withSantaMaria River at 34°32'02"/112°59'38"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLBWKnight Creek Tributary to theHeadwaters to confluence withBigSandy River at 34°55'16"/113°37'30"A&Ww FBC FC AgLBWPeoplesPeeplesCanyon (UniqueWater)(OAW)Tributary to theHeadwaters to confluence withSanta Maria River at 34°20'35"/113°15'11"A&Ww FBC FC AgLBWSanta MariaRiverTributary to the Bill Williams RiverHeadwaters toconfluence with Alamo Lakeat34°18'36"/113°31'34"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLBWTrout Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryA&Wc FBC FC AgL348Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLat 35°06'47"/113°13'01"BWTrout Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary toconfluence with Knight Creek at34°55'16"/113°37'30"A&Ww FBC FC AgLCMA-10 Backwater33°31'38"/114°33'19"A&WwFBCFCCMA-7 Backwater33°34'39"/114°39'42"A&WwFBCFCCMAdobe Lake33°02'39"/114°39'19"A&WwFBCFCCMCGAgate CanyonCreekGrand Canyon, tributary to theHeadwaters toconfluence with theColorado River at36°08'38"/112°16'48"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGBeaver DamWashTributary to theHeadwaters to confluence with theVirgin River at 36°53'42"/113°55'09"A&Ww FBC FC AgLCMCGBig Springs Tank 36°36'10"/112°20'58"A&Wc FBC FC AgLCMCGBoucher Creek Grand Canyon, tributary toHeadwaters toconfluence withthe Colorado River at36°06'54"/112°13'44"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGBright AngelCreekHeadwaters to confluence withRoaring SpringsCanyon at 36°11'34"/112°01'54"A&Wc FBC FCCMCGBright AngelCreekBelow confluence withRoaring Spring Canyon toColorado River at 36°05'56"/112°05'27.6"A&Ww FBC FCCGBright AngelWashHeadwaters to South Rim of Grand CanyonWWTP outfall at 36°02'59"/112°09'02"A&WePBCCMCGBright AngelWash (EDW)South rimRim Grand CanyonWWTP outfall at36°00'11"/112°39'06"to Coconino WashA&Wedw PBC AgLCMCGBulrush CanyonWashTributary toHeadwaters to confluence withKanabCreek at 36°46'55"/112°37'08"A&We PBC349Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLCMCGCataract Creek Headwaters to Santa Fe ReservoirA&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLCMCGCataract Creek Santa Fe Reservoir to Williams WWTP outfall at35°15'40"/112°10'40"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLCMCGCataract Creek(EDW)Williams WWTP outfall to 1 km downstreamA&Wedw PBCCMCataract CreekBelow 1 km downstream of Williams WWTPoutfall to confluence of Red Lake WashA&WcFBCFCAgLCMCGCataract Creek Red Lake Washto Havasupai Reservation at33°56'52"/112°30'38.3"A&We PBC AgLCMCGCataract Lake 35°15'05"/112°12'58"IgneousA&Wc FBC DWS FC AgLCMCGChuar Creek Grand Canyon; headwatersHeadwaterstoconfluence with unnamed tributary at36°11'36"/111°52'17"A&Wc FBC FCCMCGChuar Creek Below confluence withunnamed tributary at36°11'36.4"/111°52'17 to confluence withColorado River at 36°08'20.4"/111°48' 58.7"A&Ww FBC FCCMCibola Lake33°14'20"/114°40'16"A&WwFBCFCCMCGCity Reservoir 35°13'57"/112°11'23"IgneousA&Wc FBC DWS FCCMCGClear Creek Grand Canyon; headwatersHeadwaterstoconfluence with unnamed tributary at36°09'12"/111°58'25"A&Wc FBC FCCMCGClear Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary toconfluence with Colorado River at36°04'55"/112°02'09.6"A&Ww FBC FC350Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLCMClear Lake33°01'57"/114°31'26"A&WwFBCFCCGCoconino Wash(EDW)South Grand Canyon Sanitary District TusayanWRF outfall at 35°58'39"/112°08'25" to 1kmdownstream at 35°58'36"/112°08'54"A&WedwPBCCMCGColorado River Lake Powell to TopockLake Mead.A&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLCMColorado RiverTopock to Morelos DamA&WwFBCDWSFCAgIAgLCMCGCottonwoodCreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 35°20'45.5"/113°35'31"A&Wc FBC FC AgLCMCGCottonwoodCreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary toconfluence with Colorado River at35°22'05"/113°40'04.8"A&Ww FBC FC AgLCMCGCrystal Creek Grand Canyon; headwatersHeadwaterstoconfluence with unnamed tributary at36°13'42"/112°11'48"A&Wc FBC FCCMCGCrystal Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary toColorado River at 36°08'06"/112°14'34.8"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGDeer Creek Grand Canyon;headwatersHeadwaterstoconfluence with unnamed tributary at36°26'16"/112°28'15.5"A&Wc FBC FCCMCGDeer Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary toconfluence with Colorado River at36°23'20"/112°30'28.8"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGDetrital Wash TributaryHeadwatersto Lake Mead at36°02'20"/114°27'47"A&We PBCCMCGDogtownReservoir35°12'40"/112°07'46"IgneousA&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgL351Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLCMCGDragon Creek Grand Canyon; headwatersHeadwaterstoconfluence with Milk Creek at36°12'25"/112°09'33"A&Wc FBC FCCMCGDragon Creek Below confluence with Milk Creek to confluencewith Crystal Creek at 36°10'12"/112°12'10.8"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGGarden Creek Grand Canyon, tributaryHeadwatersto confluencewithPipe Creek at 36°05'35"/112°06'40"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGGonzalez Lake 35°15'26"/112°12'07"ShallowA&WcA&WwFBC FC AgI AgLCMCGGrand Wash TributaryHeadwatersto Lake Mead at36°15'29"/114°00'18"A&We PBCCMCGGrapevine Creek Grand Canyon;tributaryHeadwatersto theColorado River at 36°03'29"/112°00'00"A&WwFBC FCCMCGGrapevine Wash TributaryHeadwatersto Lake Mead at36°06'29"/114°00'07"A&We PBCCMCGHakatai CanyonCreekGrand Canyon; tributaryHeadwatersto theColorado River at 36°14'42"/112°22'59"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGHance Creek Grand Canyon; tributaryHeadwatersto theColorado River at 36°02'46"/111°57'07"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGHavasu CanyonCreekBelowFromthe Havasupai Indian Reservation;tributaryboundaryto confluence withthe ColoradoRiver at 36°18'29"/112°45'43"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGHermit Creek Grand Canyon; headwatersHeadwatersto HermitPack Trail crossing at 36°03'23"/112°13'25"A&Wc FBC FCCMCGHermit Creek Below Hermit Pack Trail crossing to confluencewith the Colorado River at 36°06'00"/112°32'04"A&Ww FBC FCCMHoly MosesKingman WWTP outfall to 3 km downstreamA&WedwPBC352Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLWash (EDW)CMCGHorn Creek Grand Canyon; tributaryHeadwatersto confluencewiththe Colorado River at 36°05'56"/112°07'59"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGHualapai Wash TributaryHeadwatersto Lake Mead at36°00'40"/114°07'37"A&We PBCCMHunter's HoleBackwater32°31'15"/114°48'03"A&WwFBCFCAgLCMImperialReservoir32°53'04"/114°27'40"A&WwFBCDWSFCAgIAgLCMIsland Lake33°01'52"/114°35'07"A&WwFBCFCCMCGJacob Lake 36°42'26"/112°13'48"SedimentaryA&WcA&WwFBC FCCMCGKaibab Lake 35°17'04"/112°09'17"IgneousA&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLCMCGKanab Creek Kanab Plateau; tributaryHeadwatersto confluencewiththe Colorado River at 36°23'31"/112°37'44"A&Ww FBC DWS FC AgLCMCGKwagunt Creek Grand Canyon; headwatersHeadwaterstoconfluence with unnamed tributary at36°13'29"/111°55'24"A&Wc FBC FCCMCGKwagunt Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary toconfluence with the Colorado River at36°15'47"/111°49'40.8"A&Ww FBC FCCMLaguna Reservoir32°51'15"/114°28'38"A&WwFBCDWSFCAgIAgLCMLakeHavasu34°18'15"/114°08'15"A&WwFBCDWSFCAgIAgLCMCGLake Mead 36°01'00"/114°44'15"DeepA&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLCMLake Mohave35°11'45"/114°34'00"A&WcFBCDWSFCAgIAgL353Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLCMCGLake Powell 36°57'00"/111°29'15"DeepA&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLCMCGLonetree CanyonCreekGrand Canyon; tributaryHeadwatersto theColorado River at 36°04'48"/112°01'52"A&Ww FBC FCCMMartinez Lake32°58'52"/114°28'23"A&WwFBCFCAgIAgLCMCGMatkatamibaCreekBelow Havasupai Indian Reservation; tributarytoconfluence withthe Colorado River at36°20'38"/112°40'19"A&Ww FBC FCCMMittry Lake32°49'11"/114°27'41"A&WwFBCFCCMMohave WashTributary to Lake Havasu at 33°28'55"/114°35'56"A&WePBCCMCGMonument Creek Grand Canyon; tributaryHeadwatersto theColorado River at 36°05'53"/112°10'55"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGNankoweapCreekGrand Canyon; headwatersHeadwaterstoconfluence with unnamed tributary at36°15'30"/111°57'23"A&Wc FBC FCCMCGNankoweapCreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary toColorado River at 36°18'25"/111°51'28.8"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGNational CanyonCreekGrand Canyon; those reachesPortion of the creekthat flows into the Colorado River at36°15'25"/112°53'34.8" that isnot located on theHualapai Indian ReservationA&Ww FBC FCCMCGNorth CanyonCreekGrand Canyon; headwatersHeadwaterstoconfluence with unnamed tributary at36°33'57"/111°55'39"A&Wc FBC FCCMCGNorth CanyonCreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary toColorado River at 36°37'48"/111°45'46.8"A&Ww FBC FCCMNortons Lake33°02'35"/114°37'58"A&WwFBCFC354Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLCMCGOlo Creek Grand Canyon; tributaryHeadwatersto theColorado River at 36°22'16"/112°38'56"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGParashant Canyon Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 36°21'26"/113°28'10"A&Wc FBC FCCMCGParashant Canyon Below confluence with unnamed tributary to theColorado RiverA&Ww FBC FCCMCGParia River Paria Plateau; tributaryUtah borderto theColorado River at 36°51'29"/111°36'04"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGPhantom Creek Grand Canyon; headwatersHeadwaterstoconfluence with unnamed tributary at36°10'04"/112°07'50"A&Wc FBC FCCMCGPhantom Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary toColorado River at 36°06'58"/112°05'09.6"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGPipe Creek Grand Canyon; tributaryHeadwatersto theColorado River at 36°05'56"/112°06'36"A&Ww FBC FCCMPretty WaterLake33°19'45"/114°42'15"A&WwFBCFCCMQuigley Ponds32°43'00"/113°58'00"A&WwFBCFCCMCGRed CanyonCreekGrand Canyon; tributaryHeadwatersto theColorado River at 36°02'42"/111°55'08"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGRed Lake 35°40'00"/114°03'45"A&Ww FBC FC AgLCMCGRedondo Lake 32°44'32"/114°29'02"ShallowA&Ww FBC FCCMCGRoaring Springs Headwaters of Roaring Springs Creek at 3611'35"/112°01'55.2"A&Wc FBC DWS FCCMRoaring Springs Grand Canyon; tributaryHeadwatersto BrightA&Wc FBC FC355Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLCGCanyon Angel Creek at 36°11'35"/112°01'55"CMCGRock Canyon Tributary to Truxton Wash at35°26'56"/113°36'29"A&We PBCCMCGRoyal Arch Creek Grand Canyon; tributaryTributaryto the ColoradoRiver at 36°11'53"/112°26'56"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGRuby CanyonCreekGrand Canyon; tributaryTributaryto the ColoradoRiver at 36°11'24"/112°18'54"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGRussell Tank 34°52'22"/111°52'44"A&Wc FBC FC AgLCMSacramento WashTributary to Topock Marsh at34°43'48"/114°29'13"A&WePBCCMCGSaddle CanyonCreekMarble Canyon; headwatersHeadwaterstoconfluence with unnamed tributary at36°21'35.5"/112°22'46"A&Wc FBC FCCMCGSaddle CanyonCreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary toColorado River at 36°22'52"/112°23'16.8"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGSanta FeReservoir35°14'26"/112°11'04"IgneousA&Wc FBC DWS FCCMCGSapphire CanyonCreekGrand Canyon; tributaryHeadwatersto theColorado River at 36°08'49"/112°17'28"A&Ww FBC FCCMSawmill CanyonHeadwaters to abandoned gaging station at35°09'46.5"/113°57'51"A&WwFBCFCAgLCMSawmill CanyonBelow abandoned gaging stationA&WePBCAgLCMCGSerpentineCanyon CreekGrand Canyon; tributaryHeadwatersto theColorado River at 36°12'22"/112°19'37"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGShinumo Creek Grand Canyon; headwatersHeadwaterstoconfluence with unnamed tributary atA&Wc FBC FC356Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgL36°18'21"/112°18'03"CMCGShinumo Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary to theColorado River at 36°14'13"/112°20'52.8"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGShort Creek Tributary to the Virgin River at36°58'23"/113°16'08"A&We PBCCMCGSlate Creek Grand Canyon; tributaryHeadwatersto theColorado River at 36°08'06"/112°14'42"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGSpring CanyonCreekGrand Canyon; tributaryHeadwatersto theColorado River at 36°01'08"/113°21'00"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGStone Creek Grand Canyon; tributaryHeadwatersto theColorado River at 36°20'49"/112°27'14"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGTapeats Creek Grand Canyon; tributaryHeadwatersto theColorado River at 36°22'16"/112°28'05"A&Wc FBC FCCMCGThunder River Tributary to Tapeats Creek at36°23'31"/112°27'00"A&Wc FBC FCCMTopock Marsh34°47'30"/114°31'00"A&WwFBCDWSFCAgIAgLCMCGTrail CanyonCreekGrand Canyon; tributaryHeadwatersto theColorado River at 35°50'20"/113°19'37"A&Ww FBC FCCGTransept CanyonHeadwaters to North Rim WWTP outfall at36°12'20"/112°03'35"A&WePBCCMCGTransept Canyon(EDW)North Rim WWTP outfall to 1 km downstreamA&Wedw PBCCGTransept Canyon1 km downstream of the North Rim WWTP outfallto Bright Angel CreekA&WePBCCMCGTravertineCanyon CreekGrand Canyon; tributaryTributaryto the ColoradoRiver at 36°06'11"/112°13'05"A&Ww FBC FCCMTruxton Wash Tributary to Red Lake PlayaatA&We PBC357Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLCG35°37'23"/114°03'00"CMCGTurquoiseCanyon CreekGrand Canyon; tributaryTributaryto the ColoradoRiver at 36°09'14"/112°18'07"A&Ww FBC FCCGUnkar CreekGrand Canyon; headwaters to confluence withunnamed tributary at 36°07'54"/111°54'03"A&WcFBCFCCMCGUnkar Creek Below confconfluencewith unnamed tributary toconfluence with Colorado River at36°04'48"/111°52'22.8"A&Ww FBC FCCGUnnamed wash(EDW)Grand Canyon NP DesertView WWTP outfall toCedar CanyonA&WedwPBCCGUnnamed wash(EDW)Valle Airpark WRF outfall at35°38'34"/112°09'22" to confluence with SpringValley Wash at 35°38'29"/112°10'47"A&WedwPBCCMCGVasey's Paradise Grand Canyon;A spring at36°26'49"/111°50'46"A&Wc FBC FCCMCGVirgin River Tributary to the Colorado River at36°47'28"/114°06'11"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLCMCGVishnu Creek Grand Canyon; tributaryTributaryto the ColoradoRiver at 36°03'18"/111°59'42"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGWarm SpringsCreekGrand Canyon; tributaryTributaryto the ColoradoRiver at 36°11'49"/113°04'55"A&Ww FBC FCCMWellton CanalYuma Canal SystemDWSAgIAgLCMWellton Ponds32°42'15"/114°06'15"A&WwFBCFCCMCGWest CataractCreekTributary to Cataract Creek at35°15'40"/112°11'38"A&Wc FBC FC AgLCMCGWhite Creek Grand Canyon; headwatersHeadwaterstoconfluence with unnamed tributary atA&Wc FBC FC358Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgL36°18'42"/112°21'03"CMCGWhite Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary to theColorado River at 36°15'22"/112°19'30"A&Ww FBC FCCMCGWright CanyonCreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 35°20'54"/113°30'35"A&Wc FBC FC AgLCMCGWright CanyonCreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary toconfluence with Truxton WashA&Ww FBC FC AgLCMYPG Pond32°50'22"/114°26'25"A&WwFBCFCCMYuma AreaCanalsAbove municipal water treatment plant intakesDWSAgIAgLCMYuma AreaCanalsBelow municipal water treatment plant intakes andall drainsAgIAgLCLA-10 Backwater33°31'38"/114°33'19"ShallowA&WwFBCFCCLA-7 Backwater33°34'39"/114°39'42"ShallowA&WwFBCFCCLAdobe Lake33°02'39"/114°39'19"ShallowA&WwFBCFCCLCibola Lake33°31'38"/114°33'19"ShallowA&WwFBCFCCLClear Lake33°01'57"/114°31'26"ShallowA&WwFBCFCCLColumbus WashTributary to the Gila River at33°00'25"/113°16'08"A&WePBCCLColorado RiverLake Mead to Topock MarshA&WcFBCDWSFCAgIAgLCLColorado RiverTopock Marsh to Morelos DamA&WwFBCDWSFCAgIAgLCLGila RiverPainted Rock Dam to the Colorado River at32°43'12"/114°33'14"A&WwFBCFCAgIAgLCLHoly MosesWashHeadwaters to Kingman WWTP outfall at35°10'30"/114°03'43"A&WePBCCLHoly MosesWash (EDW)Kingman WWTP outfall to 3 km downstreamA&WedwPBC359Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLCLHoly MosesWash3 km downstream of Kingman WWTP outfall toconfluence with Sawmill Wash at35°09'43"/114°04'20"A&WePBCCLHunter's HoleBackwater32°31'15"/114°48'03"ShallowA&WwFBCFCAgLCLImperialReservoir32°53'04"/114°27'40"ShallowA&WwFBCDWSFCAgIAgLCLIsland Lake33°01'52/114°35'07"ShallowA&WwFBCFCCLLaguna Reservoir32°51'15"/114°28'38"ShallowA&WwFBCDWSFCAgIAgLCLLake Havasu34°18'15"/114°08'15"DeepA&WwFBCDWSFCAgIAgLCLLake Mohave35°11'45"/114°34'00"DeepA&WcFBCDWSFCAgIAgLCLMartinez Lake32°58'52"/114°28'23"ShallowA&WwFBCFCAgIAgLCLMittry Lake32°49'11"/114°27'41"ShallowA&WwFBCFCCLMohave WashHeadwaters to Lake Havasu at33°28'55"/114°35'56"A&WePBCCLNortons Lake33°02'35"/114°37'58"ShallowA&WwFBCFCCLPainted Rock(Borrow Pit)Lake33°05'00"/113°01'20"SedimentaryA&WwFBCFCAgIAgLCLPretty WaterLake33°19'45"/114°42'15"ShallowA&WwFBCFCCLQuigley Ponds32°43'00"/113°58'00"ShallowA&WwFBCFCCLSacramento WashTributary to Topock Marsh at34°43'48"/114°29'13"A&WePBCCLSawmill CanyonHeadwaters to abandoned gaging station at35°09'46.5"/113°57'51"A&WwFBCFCAgLCLSawmill CanyonBelow abandoned gaging station to confluenceA&WePBCAgL360Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLwith Sacramento Washat 35°09'43"/113°58'01.2"CLTopock Marsh34°47'30"/114°31'00"ShallowA&WwFBCDWSFCAgIAgLCLTyson Wash(EDW)Town of Quartzsite WWTP outfall at33°42'30"/114°13'14" to1 km downstream at33°42'30"/114°13'45"A&WedwPBCCLWellton CanalWellton-Mohawk Irrigation DistrictDWSAgIAgLCLWellton Ponds32°42'15"/114°06'15"A&WwFBCFCCLYPG Pond32°50'22"/114°26'25"A&WwFBCFCCLYuma AreaCanalsAbove municipal water treatment plant intakesDWSAgIAgLCLYuma AreaCanalsBelow municipal water treatment plant intakes andall drainsAgIAgLLCAls Lake 35°02'17"/111°25'13"IgneousA&Ww FBC FC AgLLCAshurst Lake 35°01'10"/111°24'09"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCAtchesonReservoir34°00'00"/109°20'41"IgneousA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLLCAuger Creek Tributary to Nutrioso Creek at33°57'22"/109°12'58"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCBarbershopCanyon CreekTributary to East Clear Creek at34°33'00"/111°09'43"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCBear CanyonCreekTributary to General Springs Canyon at34°32'18"/111°12'15"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCBear CanyonCreekTributary to Willow Creek at 34°27'29"/111°00'00"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCBear CanyonLake34°24'10"/111°00'09"SedimentaryA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCBecker Lake 34°09'16"/109°18'18"ShallowA&Wc FBC FC AgL361Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLLCBilly Creek Tributary to Show Low Creek at34°12'25"/110°00'00"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCBlack CanyonCreekTributary to Chevelon Creek at34°47'38"/110°36'22"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCBlack CanyonLake34°19'50"/110°41'59"SedimentaryA&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLLCBlue RidgeReservoir34°33'15"/111°11'01"DeepA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCBoot Lake 34°58'53"/111°20'00"IgneousA&WcA&WwFBC FC AgLLCBow and ArrowWash (EDW)Estates at Pine Canyon WWTP outfall #1 at35°09'31"/111°38'24" to confluence with Rio deFlag at 35°10'35"/111°36'42"A&WedwPBCLCBuck SpringsCanyon CreekTributary to Leonard Canyon Creek at34°28'52"/111°05'24"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCBunch Reservoir 34°02'12"/109°26'45"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCCamillo Tank 34°55'03"/111°22'41"IgneousA&Ww FBC FC AgLLCCarnero Lake 34°06'57"/109°31'39"ShallowA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCChevelon CanyonLake34°30'39"/110°49'28"SedimentaryA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCChevelon Creek Tributary to the Little Colorado River at34°57'04"/110°31'30"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCChevelon Creek,West ForkTributary to Chevelon Creek at34°36'58"/110°46'05"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCChilson Tank 34°51'46"/111°22'52"IgneousA&Ww FBC FC AgLLCCholla Lake34°56'00"/110°17'12"A&WwFBCFCLCClear Creek Tributary to the Little Colorado River at34°59'13"/110°38'17"A&Wc FBC DWS FC AgL362Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLLCClear CreekReservoir34°58'10"/110°38'33"ShallowA&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLLCCoconinoReservoir35°00'16"/111°23'52"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCColter Creek Tributary to Nutrioso Creek at33°58'19"/109°12'29"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCColter Reservoir 33°56'40"/109°28'50"ShallowA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCConcho Creek Tributary to Carrizo Wash at 34°36'25"/109°33'54"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCConcho Lake 34°26'36"/109°37'40"ShallowA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCCow Lake 34°53'19"/111°18'49"IgneousA&Ww FBC FC AgLLCCoyote Creek Tributary to the Little Colorado River at34°18'22"/109°20'53"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCCrisis Lake(Snake Tank #2)34°47'51"/111°17'01"A&Ww FBC FC AgLLCDane CanyonCreekTributary to Barbershop Canyon Creek at34°30'29"/111°09'07"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCDaves Tank 34°44'23"/111°17'08"A&Ww FBC FC AgLLCDeep Lake 35°03'30"/111°24'55"IgneousA&Ww FBC FC AgLLCDry Lake (EDW) 34°37'52"/110°23'40"IgneousA&Wedw PBCLCDucksnest Lake 34°59'15"/111°23'53"A&Ww FBC FC AgLLCEast Clear Creek Tributary to Clear Creek at 34°38'31"/110°59'49"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCEllis WiltbankReservoir34°05'25"/109°28'24"IgneousA&WcFBC FC AgI AgLLCFish Creek Tributary to the Little Colorado River at34°04'05"/109°26'49"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCFool's HollowLake34°16'14"/110°04'15"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgL363Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLLCGeneral SpringsCanyon CreekTributary to East Clear Creek at34°32'17"/111°12'18"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCGeneva Reservoir 34°01'44"/109°31'44"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCHall Creek Tributary to the Little Colorado River at34°03'58"/109°27'07"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCHart CanyonCreekTributary to Willow Creek at 34°30'40"/110°59'28"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCHay Lake 34°00'11"/109°25'55"IgneousA&WcA&WwFBC FC AgLLCHog WallowLake33°58'57"/109°25'38"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCHorse Lake 35°03'53"/111°27'51"A&Ww FBC FC AgLLCHuffer Tank 34°27'45"/111°23'09"A&Ww FBC FC AgLLCHulsey Creek Tributary to Nutrioso Creek at33°56'28"/109°11'28"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCHulsey Lake 33°55'57"/109°09'33"SedimentaryA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCIndian Lake 35°00'38"/111°22'37"A&Ww FBC FC AgLLCJack's CanyonCreekTributary to the Little Colorado River at35°00'07"/110°39'07"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCJarvis Lake 33°58'59"/109°12'33"SedimentaryA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCKinnikinick Lake 34°53'52"/111°18'20"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCKnoll Lake 34°25'38"/111°05'10"SedimentaryA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCLake Humphreys(EDW)35°11'51"/111°35'16"A&Wedw PBCLCLake Mary,Lower35°06'22"/111°34'20"IgneousA&Wc FBC DWSFC AgLLCLake Mary,Upper35°04'45"/111°31'56"IgneousA&Wc FBC DWS FC AgL364Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLLCLake of theWoods34°09'39"/109°58'45"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCLee Valley Creek(UW)(OAW)Headwaters to Lee Valley ReservoirA&Wc FBC FCLCLee Valley Creek From Lee Valley Reservoir to the East Fork of theLittle Colorado River at 33°56'35"/109°29'06"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCLee ValleyReservoir33°56'30"/109°30'00"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCLeonard CanyonCreekTributary to Clear Creek at 34°37'26"/111°02'20"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCLeonard CanyonCreek, East ForkTributary to Leonard Canyon Creek at34°25'52"/111°05'06"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCLeonard CanyonCreek, MiddleForkTributary to Leonard Canyon, West Fork at34°26'17"/111°06'47"A&WcFBCFCAgLLCLeonard CanyonCreek, West ForkTributary to Leonard Canyon, East Fork at34°28'01"/111°05'28"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCLily Creek Tributary to Coyote Creek at 33°59'46"/109°03'58"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCLittle ColoradoRiverHeadwaters to Lyman ReservoirA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCLittle ColoradoRiverBelow Lyman Reservoir, to confluence with thePuerco River at 34°53'20"/110°07'41"A&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLLCLittle ColoradoRiverBelow confluence with Puerco River to theboundary of the Navajo NationA&Ww FBC DWS FC AgI AgLLCLittle ColoradoRiver, East ForkTributary to the Little Colorado River at34°00'14"/109°27'22"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCLittle Colorado Tributary to the Little Colorado River atA&Wc FBC FC AgL365Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLRiver, South Fork 34°05'20"/109°24'58"LCLittle ColoradoRiver, West Fork(Unique Water)(OAW)Headwaters to Government Springs at33°59'33"/109°27'52"A&Wc FBC FCLCLittle ColoradoRiver, West ForkBelow Government Springs to the Little ColoradoRiver at 34°00'14"/109°27'21.6"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCLittle GeorgeReservoir34°00'37"/109°19'15"IgneousA&Ww FBC FC AgILCLittle MormonLake34°17'00"/109°58'03"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCLittle OrtegaLake34°22'45"/109°40'00"IgneousA&Wc FBC FCLCLong Lake,Lower34°46'45"/111°12'00"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCLong Lake,Upper35°00'00"/111°21'00"IgneousA&WcA&WwFBC FC AgLLCLong Tom Tank 34°20'37"/110°49'20"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCLower WalnutCanyon Lake(EDW)35°12'04"/111°34'07"A&Wedw PBCLCLyman Reservoir 34°21'30"/109°21'30"DeepA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCMamie Creek Tributary to Coyote Creek at 33°59'24"/109°03'50"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCMarshall Lake 35°07'10"/111°32'01"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCMcKay Reservoir 34°01'27"/110°29'07"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCMerritt DrawCreekTributary to Barbershop Canyon Creek at34°29'38"/111°09'54"A&Wc FBC FC AgL366Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLLCMexican HayLake34°01'57"/109°21'25"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCMilk Creek Tributary to Hulsey Creek at 33°56'31"/109°11'17"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCMiller CanyonCreekTributary to East Clear Creek at34°33'00"/111°14'17"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCMiller CanyonCreek, East ForkTributary to Miller Canyon Creek at34°30'18"/111°14'53"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCMineral Creek Tributary toLittle Ortega Lake at34°22'52"/109°39'50"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCMormon Lake 34°56'40"/111°27'10"ShallowA&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLLCMorton Lake 34°53'36"/111°17'39"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCMud Lake 34°55'24"/111°21'18"ShallowA&Ww FBC FC AgLLCNed Lake (EDW) 32°17'18"/110°03'20"EDWA&Wedw PBCLCNelson Reservoir 34°03'12"/109°11'18"SedimentaryA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCNorton Reservoir 34°03'57"/109°31'21"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCNutrioso Creek Tributary to the Little Colorado River at34°09'04"/109°17'35"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCPaddy Creek Tributary to Nutrioso Creek at33°54'47"/109°10'16"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCPhoenix ParkWashTributary to Dry Lake at 34°37'30"/110°22'12"A&We PBCLCPierce Seep34°23'35"/110°31'22"A&WcPBCLCPine Tank 34°46'49"/111°17'17"IgneousA&Ww FBC FC AgLLCPintail Lake(EDW)34°18'06"/110°01'17"EDWA&Wedw PBCLCPool Corral Lake 33°58'16"/109°24'53"IgneousA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLLCPorter Creek Tributary to Show Low Creek atA&Wc FBC FC AgL367Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgL34°10'16"/109°58'48"LCPotato Lake 34°27'44"/111°20'42"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCPratt Lake 34°01'31"/109°04'16"SedimentaryA&Wc FBC FCLCPuerco River Tributary to the Little Colorado River at34°53'20"/110°07'41"A&Ww FBC DWS FC AgI AgLLCPuerco River(EDW)Sanders Unified School District WWTP outfall at35°12'52"/109°19'40" to 0.5 km downstream at35°12'39"/109°19'52"A&WedwPBCLCRainbow Lake 34°09'03"/109°59'01"ShallowIgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCReagan Reservoir 34°02'09"/109°08'43"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCRio de FlagHeadwaters to Flagstaff WWTP outfall at35°12'21"/111°39'17A&WePBCLCRio de Flag(EDW)Flagstaff WWTP outfallat 35°12'21"/111°39'17tothe confluence with San Francisco Wash at35°14'04"/111°28'02.5"A&Wedw PBCLCRiver Reservoir 34°02'01"/109°26'07"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCRogers Reservoir 33°58'30"/109°16'18"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCRudd Creek Tributary to Nutrioso Creek at34°04'12"/109°11'56"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCRussel Reservoir 33°59'29"/109°20'00"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCSan SalvadorReservoir33°58'51"/109°19'51"A&WcFBCFCAgIAgLLCSalt House Lake 33°57'06"/109°20'12"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCSan SalvadorReservoir33°58'51"/109°19'51"IgneousA&WcFBCFCAgIAgLLCScott Reservoir 34°10'27"/109°57'27"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgL368Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLLCShow Low Creek Tributary to Silver Creek at 34°25'26"/110°04'05"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCShow Low Lake 34°11'25"/109°59'55"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCSilver Creek Tributary to the Little Colorado River at34°44'24"/110°02'17"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCSlade Reservoir 33°59'50"/109°20'00"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCSoldiers AnnexLake34°47'13"/111°13'48"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCSoldiers Lake 34°47'49"/110°13'59"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCSpaulding Tank 34°30'17"/111°02'03"A&Ww FBC FC AgLLCSponseller Lake 34°14'10"/109°50'42"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCSt JohnsReservoir (LittleReservoir)34°29'14"/109°21'57"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCTelephone Lake(EDW)34°17'35"/110°02'39"EDWA&Wedw PBCLCTremaine Lake 34°46'00"/111°14'10"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCTunnel Reservoir 34°01'51"/109°26'32"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCTurkey Draw(EDW)High Country Pines II WWTP outfall at34°25'35"/110°38'13" to confluence of TurkeyDraw with Black Canyon Creek at34°25'20"/110°36'36"A&WedwPBCLCUnnamed wash(EDW)Bison Ranch WWTP outfall at34°23'31"/110°31'41" to Pierce Seep at34°23'35"/110°31'22"A&WedwPBCLCUnnamed wash(EDW)Black Mesa Ranger Station WWTP outfall at34°23'32"/110°53'32" to confluence of OklahomaFlat Draw with Pierce Wash atA&WedwPBC369Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgL34°26'47"/110°29'25"LCUnnamed wash(EDW)Estates at Pine Canyon WWTP outfall at35°09'17"/111°38'22" to confluence of unnamedwash with Bow Wash and Arrow Wash at35°09'51"/111°37'29"A&WedwPBCLCUnnamed Wash(EDW)Estates at Pine Canyon WWTP outfall #3 at35°09'45"/111°38'48" to confluence with Rio deFlag at 35°10'05"/111°38'37"A&WedwPBCLCVail Lake 35°05'24"/111°30'42"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCWalnut Creek Tributary to Billy Creek at 34°09'50"/109°58'48"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCWater CanyonCreekTributary to the Little Colorado River at34°06'47"/109°18'43"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCWater CanyonReservoir34°00'15"/109°20'05"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCWhale Lake(EDW)35°12'32"/111°34'42"EDWA&Wedw PBCLCWhipple Lake 34°16'47"/109°58'28"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgLLCWhite MountainLake34°21'54"/109°59'38"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCWhite MountainReservoir34°00'15"/109°30'48"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCWillow Creek Tributary to Clear Creek at 34°38'31"/110°59'49"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCWillow SpringsCanyon CreekTributary to Chevelon Creek at34°21'32"/110°53'20"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCWillow SpringsLake34°18'45"/110°52'34"SedimentaryA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLCWoodland 34°07'36"/109°57'06"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgL370Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLReservoirLCWoods CanyonCreekTributary to Chevelon Creek at34°21'32"/110°53'20"A&Wc FBC FC AgLLCWoods CanyonLake34°20'05"/110°56'35"SedimentaryA&Wc FBC DWSFC AgI AgLLCZuni River Tributary to the Little Colorado River at34°38'42"/109°40'26"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLLGColumbus WashTributary to the Gila River at33°00'25"/113°16'08"A&WePBCLGGila RiverPainted Rock Dam to the Colorado River at32°43'12"/114°33'14"A&WwFBCFCAgIAgLLGPainted Rock(Borrow Pit)Lake33°05'00"/113°01'20"A&WwFBCFCAgIAgLMGAgua Fria River Headwaters toconfluence with unnamed EDWwash at 34°35'43"/112°16'29", receiving treatedwastewater from the Prescott Valley WWTPA&We PBC AgLMGAgua Fria River(EDW)Below confluence with unnamed wash receivingtreated wastewater from the Prescott ValleyWWTP to State Route 169 at34°31'43"/112°14'7.5"A&Wedw PBC AgLMGAgua Fria River State Route 169 to Lake Pleasant at34°54'54.7"/112°14'7.5"A&Ww FBC DWS FC AgI AgLMGAgua Fria River Below Lake Pleasant to the El Mirage WWTP at33°34'36"/112°48'45"A&We PBC AgLMGAgua Fria River(EDW)El Mirage WWTP to 2 km downstreamA&Wedw PBC371Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLMGAgua Fria River Below 2 km downstream of the El Mirage WWTPto State Highway 85Avondale WWTP outfallA&We PBCMGAgua Fria RiverBelow State Highway85A&WwFBCFCMGAgua Fria RiverAvondale WWTP outfall at33°23'24"/112°21'50.4" to Gila River at33°23'22"/112°21'48"A&WedwPBCMGAlvord Park Lake Municipal ParkUrbanLake: 35th Avenue &Baseline Road, Phoenix at 33°22'34"/112°08'11"UrbanA&Ww PBC FCMGAndorra Wash(EDW)Town of Cave Creek WWTP outfall #1 at33°50'00"/111°56'32" to confluence with CaveCreek Wash at 33°49'54"/111°57'57.4"A&W edwPBCMGAntelope Creek Tributary to Martinez Creek at34°16'37"/112°08'46"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGArlington Canal Above Wilson AvenueFrom Gila River at33°20'54"/112°35'39" to Gila River at33°13'44"/112°46'15"AgLMGAsh Creek Headwaters to confluence with Tex Canyon at34°34'44"/112°07'18"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLMGAsh Creek Below confluence with Tex Canyon to Agua Friaat 34°19'34"/112°04'30"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLMGBeehive Tank 32°52'36"/111°02'19"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGBig Bug Creek Headwaters to confluence with Eugene Gulch at34°27'11"/112°18'28.5"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLMGBig Bug Creek Below confluence with Eugene Gulch toconfluence with Agua Fria River at34°18'54"/112°03'58"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLMGBlack Canyon Tributary to the Agua Fria River atA&Ww FBC FC AgL372Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLCreek 34°04'12"/112°09'29"MGBlind IndianCreekTributary to the Hassayampa River at34°12'40"/112°32'17"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGBonsall ParkLakeMunicipal ParkUrbanLake; 59th Avenue &Bethany Home Road, Phoenix at33°31'23"/112°11'05"UrbanA&Ww PBC FCMGCanal Park LakeMunicipal ParkUrbanLake; College Avenue &Curry Road, Tempe at 33°26'57"/111°56'14"UrbanA&Ww PBC FCMGCave Creek Headwaters to the Cave Creek DamA&Ww FBC FC AgLMGCave Creek Cave Creek Dam to the Arizona Canal at33°34'24"/112°06'25"A&We PBCMGCentennial Wash Tributary to the Gila River at33°13'44"/112°46'16"A&We PBC AgLMGCentennial WashPonds33°55'10"/113°23'05"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGChaparral ParkLakeMunicipal ParkUrbanLake; Hayden Road &Chaparral Road, Scottsdale at33°30'41"/111°54'25"UrbanA&Ww PBC FC AgIMGCortez Park Lake Municipal ParkUrbanLake; 35th Avenue &Dunlap, Glendale at 33°34'13"/112°07'51"UrbanA&Ww PBC FC AgIMGDesert BreezeLakeMunicipal ParkUrbanLake; Galaxy Drive, WestChandler at 33°18'47.5"/111°55'08"UrbanA&Ww PBC FCMGDevils Canyon Tributary to Mineral Creek at33°12'58"/110°59'42"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGDobson Lake Municipal ParkUrbanLake; Dobson Road & LosLagos Vista Avenue, Mesa at33°22'17"/111°53'12"UrbanA&Ww PBC FC373Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLMGEldorado ParkLakeMunicipal ParkUrbanLake; Miller Road & OakStreet, Tempe at 33°28'25"/111°54'51"UrbanA&Ww PBC FCMGEncanto ParkLakeMunicipal ParkUrbanLake; 15th Avenue &Encanto Blvd., Phoenix at 33°28'36"/112°05'17"UrbanA&Ww PBC FC AgIMGFain Lake Park Lake, cityCityof Prescott Valley Park Lake34°34'29"/112°21'03"UrbanA&Ww PBC FCMGFrench GulchHeadwaters to confluence with Hassayampa RiverA&WwPBCAgLMGGalena Gulch Tributary to the Agua Fria River at34°28'37"/112°15'14"A&We PBC AgLMGGallaway Wash(EDW)Town of Cave Creek WWTP outfall #2 at33°49'58"/111°57'30"to confluence with AndorraWash at 33°49'59"/111°57'41"A&WedwPBCMGGila River San Carlos Indian Reservation to the AshurstHayden Dam at 33°06'01"/111°14'46"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLMGGila River Ashurst-Hayden Dam to the Florence WWTPoutfall at 33°02'30"/111°24'16"A&We PBC AgLMGGila River(EDW)Florence WWTP outfall to Felix Road at33°01'49"/111°17'16"A&Wedw PBCMGGila River Felix Road to the Gila River Indian ReservationA&We PBC AgLMGGila River(EDW)From the confluence with theSalt River to theGillespie Dam at 33°13'45"/112°46'07"A&Wedw PBC FC AgI AgLMGGila River Gillespie Dam to Painted Rock Dam at33°04'23"/113°00'40"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLMGGranada ParkLakeMunicipal ParkUrbanLake; 6505 North 20thStreet, Phoenix at 33°31'58.6"/112°02'06"UrbanA&Ww PBC FCMGGroom Creek Tributary to the Hassayampa River at34°27'14"/112°29'24"A&Wc FBC DWS FC AgL374Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLMGHank RaymondLake33°50'18"/112°16'07"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLMGHassayampaLake34°25'45"/112°25'29"IgneousA&Wc FBC DWS FCMGHassayampaRiverHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 34°26'09"/112°30'32"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLMGHassayampaRiverBelow confluence with unnamed tributary to 8miles south of WickenbergA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLMGHassayampaRiver8 miles south of Wickenburg to the BuckeyeIrrigation Company Canal at33°23'38"/112°22'22.8"A&We PBC AgLMGHassayampaRiverBuckeye Irrigation Company Canal to the GilaRiver at 33°19'34"/112°42'39.6"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGHorsethief Lake 34°09'42"/112°17'56"IgneousA&Wc FBC DWS FC AgLMGIndian BendWashTributary to the Salt River at 33°26'13"/111°54'58"A&We PBCMGIndian BendWash LakesMunicipal ParkUrbanLakes; Scottsdale at33°30'31"/111°54'24"UrbanA&Ww PBC FCMGIndian SchoolPark LakeMunicipal ParkUrbanLake; Indian School Road& Hayden Road, Scottsdale at33°29'45"/111°54'33"UrbanA&Ww PBC FCMGKiwanis ParkLakeMunicipal ParkUrbanLake; 6000 South MillAvenue, Tempe at 33°22'27"/111°56'21"UrbanA&Ww PBC FC AgIMGLake Pleasant 33°51'15"/112°16'15"DeepA&Ww FBC DWS FC AgI AgLMGLion Canyon Tributary to Weaver Creek at34°10'12"/112°41'49"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGLittle Ash Creek Tributary toAsh Creek at 34°20'46"/112°04'16"A&Ww FBC FC AgL375Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLMGLynx Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 34°34'29"/112°21'05"A&Wc FBC FC AgLMGLynx Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary to AguaFria River at 34°37'49"/112°14'42"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGLynx Lake 34°31'08"/112°23'05"DeepA&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLMGMaricopa ParkLake33°35'30"/112°18'16"UrbanA&Ww PBC FCMGMartinez Canyon Tributary to Box Canyon at 33°06'33"/111°12'48"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGMartinez Creek Tributary to the Hassayampa River at33°59'56"/112°44'38"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLMGMcKellips ParkLakeMunicipal ParkUrbanLake; Miller Road &McKellips Road, Scottsdale at33°27'14"/111°54'45"UrbanA&Ww PBC FC AgIMGMcMicken Wash(EDW)Jomax WWTP outfall at 33°43'30"/112°20'11"toconfluence of McMicken Wash with Agua FriaRiver at 33°39'39"/112°18'56"A&WedwPBCMGMineral Creek Tributary to the Gila River at34°17'42"/112°13'34"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGMinnehaha Creek Tributary to the Hassayampa River at34°11'49"/112°32'24"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGMountain ValleyPark Ponds(EDW)Town of Prescott Valley WWTP outfall 002 at34°26'07"/112°18'48" to Navajo WashA&WedwPBCMGNew River Headwaters to I-17 at 33°54'19.5"/112°08'46"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLMGNew River Below I-17 to Agua Fria River at33°30'47"/112°18'14"A&We PBC AgLMGPainted Rock 33°04'15"/113°00'30"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgL376Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLReservoirMGPapago ParkPondsMunicipal ParkUrbanLake; Galvin Parkway,Phoenix at 33°26'56"/111°56'50"UrbanA&Ww PBC FCMGPapago ParkSouth PondMunicipal ParkUrbanLake; Curry Road, TempeUrbanA&WwPBCFCMGPerry Mesa Tank 34°11'03"/112°01'59"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGPhoenix AreaCanalsGranite Reef Dam to all municipal WTP intakesDWS AgI AgLMGPhoenix AreaCanalsBelow municipal WTP intakes and all otherlocationsAgI AgLMGPicachoReservoir32°51'17"/111°28'49"ShallowA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLMGPoland Creek Headwaters to confluence with Lorena Gulch at34°12'32"/112°19'07"A&Wc FBC FC AgLMGPoland Creek Below confluence with Lorena Gulch to BlackCanyon Creek at 34°14'20"/112°12'54"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGQueen Creek Headwaters to the Town of Superior WWTPoutfall at 33°16'45"/111°17'25"A&WwA&WePBC AgLMGQueen Creek(EDW)Town of Superior WWTP outfall to confluencewith Potts Canyon at 33°17'17"/111°11'36"A&Wedw PBCMGQueen Creek Potts Canyon to Queen Valley golf course at33°17'55"/111°17'17"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGQueen Creek Below Queen Valley golf course to Gila River at33°09'50"/111°53'16.8"A&We PBCMGRiverview ParkLakeMunicipal ParkUrbanLake; Dobson Road & 8thStreet, Mesa at 33°25'50"/111°52'29"UrbanA&Ww PBC FCMGRoadrunner Park Municipal ParkUrbanLake; 36th Street & Cactus,UrbanA&Ww PBC FC377Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLLakePhoenix at 33°35'57"/112°00'18"MGSalt RiverVerde River to 2 km below Granite Reef Dam(Granite Reef Dam isat 31°26'23"/111°12'40")A&WwFBCDWSFCAgIAgLMGSalt River2 km below Granite Reef Dam to City of MesaNW WRF outfall at 33°26'45"/111°56'35"A&WePBCMGSalt River (EDW)City of Mesa NW WRF outfall at33°26'45"/111°56'35" to Tempe Town Lake at33°26'01"/111°54'55"A&WedwPBCMGSalt RiverBelow Tempe Town Lake to I-10 bridgeA&WePBCMGSalt RiverI-10 bridge to the 23rd Ave WWTP at33°25'03"/112°06'41.6"A&WwPBCFCMGSalt River (EDW)23rd Ave WWTP to confluence with Gila River at33°22'55"/112°18'21.6"A&WedwPBCFCAgIAgLMGSiphon Draw(EDW)Superstition Mountains WWTP outfall at33°21'40"/111°33'30" to6 km downstream at32°21'01"/111°36'59"A&WedwPBCMGSycamore Creek Headwaters to confluence with Tank Canyon at34°19'32"/111°50'12"A&Wc FBC FC AgLMGSycamore Creek Below confluence with Tank Canyon to the AguaFria River 34°19'30"/112°04'12"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGTempe TownLakeAt Mill Avenue Bridge at 33°26'30"/111°53'30"UrbanA&WwFBCFCMGTule Creek Tributary to the Agua Fria River at33°57'25"/112°14'13"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGTurkey Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 34°19'28"/112°21'28"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLMGTurkey Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary toA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgL378Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLPoland Creek at 34°14'20"/112°12'54"MGUnnamed Wash(EDW)City of Phoenix Cave Creek WRF outfall at33°45'20"/112°00'59" to unnamed wash to 0.5 kmdownstream at 33°35'07"/112°01'12"A&WedwPBCMGUnnamed Wash(EDW)Gila Bend WWTP outfall to the Gila River at32°58'13"/112°43'46"A&Wedw PBCMGUnnamed Wash(EDW)Luke Air Force Base WWTP outfall to the AguaFria River at 33°32'21"/112°19'15"A&Wedw PBCMGUnnamed Wash(EDW)Florence Gardens WWTP outfall at33°03'49.54"/111°23'13.28" to confluence withGila River at 33°02'59"/111°23'15"A&WedwPBCMGUnnamed Wash(EDW)Prescott Valley WWTP outfall to the Agua FriaRiver 34°35'16"/112°16'18"A&Wedw PBCMGUnnamed Wash(EDW)Queen Valley Sanitary District WWTP outfall at33°17'38"/111°18'31"to the confluence withQueen CreekA&Wedw PBCMGWagner Wash(EDW)Buckeye Festival Ranch WRF outfall at33°39'14"/112°40'18" to 2 km downstreamA&WedwPBCMGVista Del CaminoPark NorthMunicipal ParkUrbanLake; 7700 East RooseveltStreet, Scottsdale at 33°27'33"/111°54'49.3"A&Ww PBC FCMGVista Del CaminoPark SouthMunicipal Park Lake; 7700East Roosevelt Street,ScottsdaleA&WwPBCFCMGWalnut CanyonCreekTributary to the Gila River at33°06'47"/111°05'20"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGWeaver Creek Tributary to Martinez Creek at34°03'18"/112°46'48"A&Ww FBC FC AgLMGWhite Canyon Tributary to Walnut Canyon Creek atA&Ww FBC FC AgL379Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLCreek 33°09'25"/111°04'48"RMAbbot CanyonMule MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLRMAsh CreekChiricahua MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgIAgLRMBear CreekHeadwaters to U.S./Mexico border at31°19'59"/110°22'58.5"A&WwFBCFCAgLRMBlackwater DrawSan Bernardino ValleyA&WwFBCFCAgLRMBuck CanyonHeadwaters to Buck Creek Tank at31°33'06"/109°52'43"A&WwFBCFCAgLRMBuck CanyonBelow Buck Creek TankA&WePBCAgLRMCalifornia GulchSouth of RubyA&WwFBCFCAgLRMDixie CanyonMule MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLRMDry CanyonMule MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLRMGadwell CanyonMule MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLRMGlance CreekMule MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLRMGold GulchMule MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLRMHolden CanyonCreekCoronado National ForestA&WwFBCFCRMJohnson CanyonChiricahua MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLRMLeslie CanyonCreekChiricahua MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLRMMexican CanyonMule MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLRMMule GulchHeadwaters to just above the Lavender PitA&WwPBCFCRMMule GulchJust above the LavenderPit to the Bisbee WWTPoutfallA&WePBCRMMule Gulch(EDW)Below the Bisbee WWTP outfall, to theHighway80 bridge at 31°26'30"/109°49'28"A&WedwPBC380Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLRMMule GulchBelow the Highway 80 bridgeA&WePBCAgLRMQuitobaquitoSpring(Pond and Springs) 31°56'39"/113°01'06"A&WwFBCFCAgLRMRuby LakesNear the town of RubyA&WwFBCFCAgLRMRucker CanyonCreekChiricahua Mtns; tributary to Whitewater Draw at31°44'46"/109°26'06"A&WcFBCFCAgLRMRucker CanyonLake31°46'46"/109°18'30"A&WcFBCFCAgLRMSoto CanyonMule MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLRMSycamoreCanyon CreekHeadwaters to the U.S./Mexico border at31°22'48"/111°13'19"A&WwFBCFCAgLRMUnnamed Wash(EDW)Bisbee-Douglas International Airport WWTPoutfall to Whitewater DrawA&WedwPBCRMWhitewater DrawHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 31°20'36"/109°34'46"A&WePBCAgLRMWhitewater DrawBelow confluence with unnamed tributaryA&WwFBCFCAgLSCAgua CalienteLakeMunicipal ParkUrbanLake; 12325 East RogerRoad, TucsonUrbanA&Ww PBC FCSCAgua CalienteWashHeadwaters to Soldier Trail at32°17'48"/110°42'58.5"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCAgua CalienteWashBelow Soldier Trail to Tanque Verde Creek at32°14'35"/110°47'17"A&We PBC AgLSCAguirre Wash Those reaches not located on the Tohono O'odhamIndian ReservationA&We PBCSCAlambre Wash Tributary to Brawley Wash at31°57'47"/111°23'28"A&We PBCSCAlamo Wash Tributary to RillitoCreek at 32°16'23"/110°54'18"A&We PBC381Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLSCAltar Wash Tributary to Brawley Wash at31°57'47"/111°23'28"A&We PBCSCAlum Gulch Headwaters to 31°28'20"/110°43'51"A&We PBC AgLSCAlum Gulch From 31°28'20"/110°43'51" to31°29'17"/110°44'25"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCAlum Gulch Below 31°29'17"/110°44'25" to Sonoita Creek at31°30'58"/110°47'06"A&We PBC AgLSCArivaca Creek Tributary to Altar Wash at 31°43'01"/111°25'41"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCArivaca Lake 31°31'50"/111°15'05"IgneousA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLSCAtterbury Wash Tributary to Pantano Wash at32°10'52"/110°48'50"A&We PBC AgLSCBear Grass Tank 31°33'01"/111°11'32"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCBig Wash Tributary to Cañada del Oro at32°24'47"/110°56'28"A&We PBCSCBlack Wash(EDW)Pima County WWMD AvraValley WWTP at32°09'50"/111°10'49" to confluence with BrawleyWash at 32°15'00"/111°14'34"A&WedwPBCSCBog Hole Tank 31°28'34"/110°37'07"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCBrawley Wash Tributary to Los Robles Wash at32°21'54"/111°17'31"A&We PBCSCCalifornia GulchSouth of RubyA&WwFBCFCAgLSCCañada del Oro Headwaters to Highway 89 at32°24'48"/110°56'14"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLSCCañada del Oro Below Highway 89to the Santa Cruz River at32°19'30"/111°03'47"A&We PBC AgLSCCienega Creek Headwaters to confluence with Gardner Canyonand Spring Water Canyon at R18E, T17S.A&Ww FBC FC AgL382Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgL31°47'38"/110°35'17"SCCienega Creek(Unique Water)(OAW)From confluence with Gardner Canyon and SpringWater Canyon at R18E, T17Sto USGS gagingstation at 32°02'09"/110°40'34" (becomes PantanoWash below this point)A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCDavidson Canyon Headwaters to unnamed spring at31°59'00"/110°38'46"A&We PBC AgLSCDavidson Canyon(OAW)Unnamed Spring to confluence with unnamedtributary at 31°59'32.5"/110°38'43.5"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCDavidson Canyon(OAW)From confluence with unnamed tributary tounnamed spring at 32°00'54"/110°38'54"A&We PBC AgLSCDavidson Canyon(OAW)From unnamed spring at 32°00'54"/110°38'54" toconfluence with Cienega Creek at32°01'05"/110°38'32"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCEmpire Gulch Headwaters to unnamed spring at31°47'14"/110°38'13"A&We PBCSCEmpire Gulch From 31°47'14"/110°38'13"to31°47'11"/110°00'39"A&Ww FBC FCSCEmpire Gulch Below 31°47'11"/110°00'39" to31°47'18"/110°36'57"A&We PBC AgLSCEmpire Gulch From 31°47'18"/110°36'57" to confluence withCienega Creek at 31°48'32"/110°35'20"A&Ww FBC FCSCFlux Canyon Tributary to Alum Canyon at 31°30'22"/110°46'41"A&We PBC AgLSCGardner CanyonCreekHeadwaters to confluence with Sawmill Canyon at31°42'51"/110°44'43"A&Wc FBC FCSCGardner CanyonCreekBelow Sawmill Canyon To Cienega Creek at31°47'38"/110°35'17"A&Ww FBC FC383Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLSCGreene Wash Tributary to the Santa Cruz River at33°00'54"/111°59'46"A&We PBCSCHarshaw Creek Tributary to Sonoita Creek at31°32'35"/110°44'42"A&We PBC AgLSCHit Tank 32°43'57"/111°03'18"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCHolden CanyonCreekHeadwaters to Mexico border at31°23'38"/111°15'54" in the Coronado NationalForestA&WwFBCFCSCHuachuca Tank 31°21'11"/110°30'12"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCJulian Wash Tributary to the Santa Cruz River at32°11'20"/110°59'13"A&We PBCSCKennedy Lake Municipal ParkUrbanLake; Mission Road & AjoRoad, Tucson at 32°10'48.5"/111°00'27"UrbanA&Ww PBC FCSCLakeside Lake Municipal ParkUrbanLake; 8300 East StellaRoad, Tucson at 32°11'10.5"/110°49'00"UrbanA&Ww PBC FCSCLemmon CanyonCreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 32°23'47"/110°47'46"A&Wc FBC FCSCLemmon CanyonCreekBelow unnamed tributary to Sabino Canyon Creekat 32°23'02"/110°47'28"A&Ww FBC FCSCLos Robles Wash Tributary to the Santa Cruz River at32°32'13"/111°23'53"A&We PBCSCMadera CanyonCreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 31°43'42"/110°52'50"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSCMadera CanyonCreekBelow unnamed tributary to the Santa Cruz Riverat 31°46'55"/111°00'58"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCMattie Canyon Tributary to Cienega Creek at31°51'31"/110°34'25"A&Ww FBC FC AgL384Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLSCNogales Wash Tributary to Potrero Creek at 31°24'07"/110°57'11"A&Ww PBCSCOak Tree Canyon Tributary to Cienega Creek at31°48'43"/110°35'24"A&We PBCSCPalisade CanyonCreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 32°22'34"/110°45'35"A&Wc FBC FCSCPalisade CanyonCreekBelow unnamed tributary to Sabino Canyon Creekat 32°21'54"/110°46'23"A&Ww FBC FCSCPantano Wash Tributary to Tanque Verde Creek at32°16'23"/110°54'18"A&We PBCSCParadise Lake 32°44'18"/111°40'42"UrbanA&Ww FBCPBCAgISCParker CanyonCreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 31°24'17"/110°28'44.5"A&Wc FBC FCSCParker CanyonCreekBelow unnamed tributary to Mexico border at31°19'59"/110°33'58"A&Ww FBC FCSCParker CanyonLake31°25'35"/110°27'15"DeepA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSCPatagonia Lake 31°29'30"/110°52'00"DeepA&WcA&WwFBC DWSFC AgI AgLSCPeña Blanca Lake 31°24'12"/111°05'04"IgneousA&WcA&WwFBC FC AgI AgLSCPotrero Creek Headwaters to Interstate 19 at31°23'24"/110°57'30"A&We PBC AgLSCPotrero Creek Below Interstate 19 to Santa Cruz River at31°27'07"/110°57'40"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCPuertocito Wash Tributary to Altar Wash at 31°43'01"/111°25'41"A&We PBCSCQuitobaquitoSpring(Pond and Springs) 31°56'39"/113°01'06"A&WwFBCFCAgLSCRedrock CanyonCreekTributary to Harshaw Creek at31°32'35"/110°44'13"A&Ww FBC FC385Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLSCRillito Creek Tributary to the Santa Cruz River at32°18'50"/111°03'18"A&We PBC AgLSCRomero CanyonCreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 32°24'30"/110°50'35"A&Wc FBC FCSCRomero CanyonCreekBelow unnamed tributary to Sutherland Wash at32°25'52"/110°53'56"A&Ww FBC FCSCRose CanyonCreekTributary to Rose Canyon Lake at32°23'10"/110°43'01"A&Wc FBC FCSCRose CanyonLake32°23'13"/110°42'38"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgLSCRuby LakesNear the town of Ruby at 31°26'28.5"/111°14'19"IgneousA&WwfbcFCAgLSCSabino CanyonCreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 32°23'28"/110°47'00"A&Wc FBC DWS FC AgISCSabino CanyonCreekBelow unnamed tributary toTanque Verde River at32°15'40"/110°49'30"A&Ww FBC DWS FC AgISCSalero RanchTank31°35'42"/110°53'22"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCSanta Cruz River Headwaters to the International Boundary at31°19'58"/110°35'48"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLSCSanta Cruz River International Boundary to the NogalesInternational WWTP outfall at31°27'24"/110°58'05"A&Ww FBC DWSFC AgI AgLSCSanta Cruz River(EDW)Nogales International WWTP outfall to the TubacBridge at 31°36'25"/111°02'00"A&WedwPBCAgLSCSanta Cruz River The Tubac Bridge to Roger RdRoadWWTPoutfallA&We PBC AgLSCSanta Cruz River Roger Road WWTP outfall to Baumgartner RoadA&Wedw PBC386Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgL(EDW) at 32°35'37"/111°28'08"SCSanta Cruz River(Wash)Baumgartner Road to the Gila RiverAk ChinIndian ReservationA&We PBC AgLSCSanta Cruz RiverWash, WestBranchTributary to the Santa Cruz RiverWashat32°12'07"/110°59'20"A&We PBC AgLSCSanta Cruz RiverWash, N. ForkNorth BranchTributary to the Santa Cruz RiverWashat32°55'55"/111°53'10"A&We PBCSCSanta Cruz Wash,North Branch(EDW)City of Casa Grande WRF outfall at32°54'57"/111°47'13" to1 km downstream at32°54'49"/111°47'48"A&WedwPBCSCSanta Rosa Wash Below Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation to theSanta Cruz Wash at 32°53'49"/111°56'46"Ak ChinIndian ReservationA&We PBCSCSanta Rosa Wash(EDW)Palo Verde Utilities WWTP outfall at33°04'20"/112°01'47" to the Gila River IndianReservationA&WedwPBCSCSoldier Lake 32°25'34"/110°44'41"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSCSonoita Creek Headwaters to the Town of Patagonia WWTPoutfall at 31°32'15"/110°45'30"A&We PBC AgLSCSonoita Creek(EDW)Town of Patagonia WWTP outfall to 750permanent groundwater upwelling pointapproximately 1600feet downstream of outfallA&Wedw PBC AgLSCSonoita Creek Below 7501600feet downstream of Town ofPatagonia WWTP outfall to the Santa Cruz Riverat 31°29'43"/110°58'37"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgL387Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLSCSplit Tank 31°28'15"/111°05'15"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCSutherland Wash Tributary to Cañada del Oro at32°25'05"/110°55'26"A&Ww FBC FCSCSycamoreCanyonFrom 32°21'36"/110°45'21"to Sycamore ReservoirA&Ww FBC FCSCSycamoreCanyon CreekHeadwaters to the U.S / Mexico border at31°22'48"/111°13'19"A&WwFBCFCAgLSCSycamoreReservoir32°20'57"/110°44'52"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSCTanque VerdeCreekHeadwaters to Houghton Road at32°14'13"/110°46'04"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCTanque VerdeCreekBelow Houghton Road to Rillito Creek at32°16'08"/110°52'30"A&We PBC AgLSCThe Lake Tank 32°54'14"/111°04'14"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCThree R Canyon Headwaters to Lat/Long:31°28'35"/110°46'19"A&We PBC AgLSCThree R Canyon From Lat/Long:31°28'35"/110°46'19" toLat/Long:31°28'27"/110°47'12"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCThree R Canyon From Lat/Long:31°28'27"/110°47'12" to SonoitaCreek at 31°29'56"/110°48'54"A&We PBC AgLSCTinaja Wash Eastern foothills, Sierrita MountainsHeadwaters tothe Santa Cruz River at 31°32'58.4"/111°02'45.7"A&We PBC AgLSCUnnamed Wash(EDW)Oracle Sanitary District WWTP outfall at32°36'54"/110°48'02"to 5 km downstreamA&Wedw PBCSCUnnamed Wash5 km downstream of the Oracle Sanitary DistrictWWTP outfallA&WePBCSCUnnamed Wash(EDW)Arizona City Sanitary District WWTP outfall at32°45'47"/111°44'20" to confluence with SantaA&WedwPBC388Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLCruz Wash at 35°45'45"/111°46'43"SCUnnamed Wash(EDW)Saddlebrooke WWTP outfall at32°32'00"/110°52'59"to confluence with Canadadel Oro at 32°30'20"/110°52'27"A&WedwPBCSCVekol Wash Those reaches not located on the Ak-Chin, TohonoO'odham and Gila River Indian ReservationsA&We PBCSCWakefieldCanyonHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributary31°52'47"/110°26'25"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSCWakefieldCanyonBelow confluence with unnamed tributary toCienega Creek at 31°52'47.5"/110°26'25"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCWild BurroCanyonHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 32°28'36"/111°05'18"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSCWild BurroCanyonBelow confluence with unnamed tributary to SantaCruz River at 32°28'34"/111°05'15.5"A&We PBC AgLSCWilliams RanchTanks31°55'15"/110°25'30"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPAbbot CanyonHeadwaters to confluence with Whitewater Drawat 31°33'32"/109°48'39.6"A&WwFBCFCAgLSPAravaipa Creek Headwaters to confluence with Stowe Gulch at32°52'10"/110°22'00"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPAravaipa Creek(Unique Water)(OAW)Stowe Gulch confluence to downstream boundaryof Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Area at32°54'23"/110°33'40"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPAravaipa Creek Below downstream boundary of Aravaipa CanyonWilderness Area to the San Pedro River at32°50'20"/110°42'50"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPAsh CreekChiricahua Mountains, near Whitewater Draw atA&WwFBCFCAgIAgL389Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgL31°50'28"/109°40'01.2"SPBabocomariCreekRiverTributary to the San Pedro River at31°43'19"/110°11'35"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPBass CanyonCreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 32°26'06"/110°13'18"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSPBass CanyonCreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary to HotSprings Canyon Creek at 32°20'53"/110°15'14"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPBass CanyonTank32°24'00"/110°13'00"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPBear CreekHeadwaters to U.S. / Mexico border at31°19'59"/110°22'58.5"A&WwFBCFCAgLSPBig CreekTributary to Pitchfork Canyon at32°35'24"/109°57'07"A&WcFBCFCAgLSPBlacktail Pond Fort Huachuca Military Reservation at31°24'13"/110°17'21"A&Ww FBC FCSPBlackwater DrawHeadwaters to the U.S. / Mexico border at31°20'02"/109°15'36" in the San Bernardino ValleyA&WwFBCFCAgLSPBooger CanyonCreekTributary to Aravaipa Creek at32°54'54"/110°29'35"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPBuck CanyonHeadwaters to Buck Creek Tank at31°33'06"/109°52'43"A&WwFBCFCAgLSPBuck CanyonBelow Buck Creek Tank to Dry Creek at31°31'08"/109°18'25"A&WePBCAgLSPBuehman CanyonCreek (UniqueWater)(OAW)Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 32°24'31.5"/110°32'08"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPBuehman Canyon Below confluence with unnamed tributary atA&Ww FBC FC AgL390Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLCreek 32°25'41"/110°29'53"SPBull Tank 32°31'15"/110°12'45"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPBullock Canyon Tributary to Buehman Canyon at32°23'00"/110°33'04"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPCarr CanyonCreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 31°27'00"/110°15'45"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSPCarr CanyonCreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary to theSan Pedro River at 31°30'32"/110°07'37"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPCopper Creek Headwaters to confluence with Prospect Canyon at32°44'48"/110°30'18"A&WwFBC FC AgLSPCopper Creek Below confluence with Prospect Canyon to the SanPedro River at 32°41'17"/110°36'43"A&We PBC AgLSPDeer Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 32°59'56"/110°20'09"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSPDeer Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary toAravaipa Creek at 32°54'25"/110°28'01"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPDixie CanyonHeradwaters to Mexican Canyon at31°29'02"/109°45'04" in the Mule MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLSPDouble R CanyonCreekTributary to Bass Canyon at 32°21'06"/110°14'23"A&Ww FBC FCSPDry CanyonHeadwaters to Abbott Canyon at31°33'25"/109°43'23" in the Mule MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLSPEast Gravel PitPondFort Huachuca Military Reservation at31°30'54"/110°19'42"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FCSPEspiritu CanyonCreekTributary to Soza Wash at 32°18'52"/110°28'35"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPFly Pond Fort Huachuca Military Reservation atA&Ww FBC FC391Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgL31°32'53"/110°21'14"SPFourmile CanyonCreekTributary to Aravaipa Creek at32°50'14"/110°20'08"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPFourmile Canyon,Left ProngHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 32°43'14"/110°23'43"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSPFourmile Canyon,Left ProngBelow confluence with unnamed tributary toFourmile Canyon Creek at 32°47'33"/110°22'36"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPFourmile Canyon,Right ProngTributary to Fourmile Canyon at32°47'33"/110°22'36"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPGadwell CanyonHeadwaters to Whitewater Draw at31°36'50"/109°43'41" in the Mule MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLSPGarden CanyonCreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 31°29'00"/110°19'42"A&Wc FBC DWS FC AgISPGarden CanyonCreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary to theSan Pedro River at 31°41'46"/110°12'40"A&Ww FBC DWS FC AgISPGlance CreekHeadwaters to Whitewater Draw at31°27'04"/109°42'29" in the Mule MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLSPGold GulchHeadwaters to U.S. / Mexico border at31°20'10"/109°50'06" in the Mule MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLSPGolf Course Pond Fort Huachuca Military Reservation at31°32'14"/110°18'49"SedimentaryA&Ww FBCPBCFCSPGoudy CanyonCreekHeadwaters to Grant Creek at32°35'13"/109°58'37" in the Pinaleno MountainsA&WcFBCFCAgLSPGrant CreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 32°38'09.5"/109°56'35"A&WcFBCDWSFCAgLSPGrant CreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary toterminus near Willcox Playa atA&WwFBCFCAgL392Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgL32°33'43"/109°58'55"SPGravel Pit Pond Fort Huachuca Military Reservation at31°30'51"/110°19'47.6"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FCSPGreenbrush DrawFrom Mexican border to confluence with SanPedro RiverA&WePBCSPHidden Pond Fort Huachuca Military Reservation at32°30'30"/109°22'17"A&Ww FBC FCSPHigh CreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 32°33'07"/110°14'40"A&WcFBCFCAgLSPHigh CreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary toterminus near Willcox Playa at32°31'41"/109°02'38"A&WwFBCFCAgLSPHorse CampCanyon CreekTributary to Aravaipa Creek at32°55'07"/110°30'56"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPHot SpringsCanyon CreekTributary to the San Pedro River at32°17'24"/110°22'55"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPJohnson CanyonHeadwaters to Whitewater Draw at31°32'56"/109°46'19" in the Chiricahua MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLSPLake Cochise(EDW)South of Twin Lakes Municipal Golf Course at32°13'58"/109°49'25"A&WedwPBCSPLeslie CanyonCreekHeadwaters to Whitewater Draw at31°32'10"/109°40'12" in the Chiricahua MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLSPLower GardenCanyon PondFort Huachuca Military ReservationA&Ww FBC FCSPMexican CanyonHeadwaters to Whitewater Draw at31°29'13"/109°46'30" in the Mule MountainsA&WwFBCFCAgLSPMiller Canyon Headwaters to Broken Arrow Ranch Road atA&Wc FBC DWS FC AgL393Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLCreek 31°25'33"/110°15'08"SPMiller CanyonCreekBelow Broken Arrow Ranch Road to the San PedroRiver at 31°29'56"/110°07'37"A&Ww FBC DWS FC AgLSPMoonshine CreekTributary to Post Creek at 32°40'52"/109°54'25"A&WcFBCFCAgLSPMule GulchHeadwaters to just above the Lavender Pit at31°26'23.7"/109°45'36.7"A&WwPBCFCSPMule GulchJust above the LavenderPit to the Bisbee WWTPoutfall at 31°25'30"/109°52'40"A&WePBCSPMule Gulch(EDW)Below the Bisbee WWTP outfall to the Highway80 bridge at 31°26'30"/109°49'28"A&WedwPBCSPMule GulchBelow the Highway 80 bridge to Whitewater Drawat 31°28'03"/109°42'21"A&WePBCAgLSPOak Grove Creek Tributary to Turkey Creek at 32°45'32"/110°14'06"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPOfficers ClubPondFort Huachuca Military Reservation at31°32'51"/110°21'35"SedimentaryA&Ww FBCPBCFCSPPaige CanyonCreekTributary to the San Pedro River at32°17'10"/110°22'48"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPParsons CanyonCreekTributary to Aravaipa Creek at32°54'11"/110°27'40"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPPinery CreekHeadwaters to State Highway 181 at32°00'24"/109°25'16"A&WcFBCDWSFCAgLSPPinery CreekBelow State Highway 181 to terminus nearWillcox Playa at 32°01'05"/109°34'23"A&WwFBCDWSFCAgLSPPost CreekTributary to Grant Creek at 32°40'05"/109°54'58"A&WcFBCFCAgIAgLSPRamsey CanyonCreekHeadwaters to Forest Service Road #110 at31°27'44"/110°17'27"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSPRamsey Canyon Below Forest Service Road #110 to Carr Wash atA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgL394Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLCreek 31°30'04"/110°09'11"SPRattlesnakeCanyonHeadwaters to confluence with Brush Canyon at32°38'27"/110°21'24"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSPRattlesnakeCanyonBelow confluence with Brush Canyon to AravaipaCreek at 32°48'00"/110°17'32"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPRedfield CanyonCreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 32°33'39"/110°18'41"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSPRedfield CanyonCreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary to theSan Pedro River at 32°09'32"/110°17'56"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPRiggs Flat Lake32°42'27"/109°57'51"IgneousA&WcFBCFCAgIAgLSPRock CreekTributary to Turkey Creek at31°53'20"/109°30'00"AlcFBCFCAgLSPRucker CanyonCreekHeadwaters to Whitewater Draw at31°44'46"/109°26'06"IgneousA&WcFBCFCAgLSPRucker CanyonLake31°46'46"/109°18'30"ShallowA&WcFBCFCAgLSPSan Pedro River U.S. / Mexico Border to Redington at32°25'39"/110°29'33"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLSPSan Pedro River Redington to the Gila River at32°59'02"/110°46'55"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPSnow Flat Lake32°39'09"/109°51'52"IgneousA&WcFBCFCAgIAgLSPSoldier CreekTributary to Post Creek at 32°40'52"/109°54'40"A&WcFBCFCAgLSPSoldier Creek(EDW)Fort Huachuca WWTP outfall to unnamed wash at31°34'48"/110°18'35"to confluence with SoldierCreek to confluence with Babocomari River at31°39'46"/110°17'24"A&WedwPBCSPSoto CanyonHeadwaters to Dixie Canyon atA&WwFBCFCAgL395Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgL31°29'46"/109°55'37" in the Mule MountainsSPSwamp SpringsCanyon CreekTributary to Redfield Canyon at32°26'10"/110°19'30"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPSycamore Pond I Fort Huachuca Military Reservation at31°35'12"/110°26'09"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FCSPSycamore Pond II Fort Huachuca Military Reservation at31°34'38.6"/110°26'07"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FCSPTurkey Creek Tributary to Aravaipa Creek at32°53'49"/110°26'35"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPTurkey CreekHeadwaters to confluence with Rock Creek at31°53'20"/109°30'00"A&WcFBCFCAgIAglSPTurkey CreekBelow confluence with Rock Creek to terminusnear Willcox Playa at 31°59'56"/109°49'01"A&WwFBCFCAgIAgLSPUnnamed Wash(EDW)Mt. Lemmon WWTP outfall to 0.25 kmdownstreamA&WedwPBCSPVirgus CanyonCreekTributary to Aravaipa Creek at32°54'58"/110°31'16"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSPWalnut GulchHeadwaters to Tombstone WWTP outfall at31°43'47"/110°04'06"A&WePBCSPWalnut Gulch(EDW)Tombstone WWTP outfall to the confluence ofTombstone Wash at 31°44'02"/110°05'58"A&Wedw PBCSPWalnut GulchTombstone Wash to San Pedro River at31°43'19"/110°11'35"A&WePBCSPWard CanyonCreekTributary to Turkey Creek at 31°51'47"/109°20'13"A&WcFBCFCAgLSPWhitewater DrawHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 31°20'36"/109°34'46"A&WePBCAgL396Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLSPWhitewater DrawBelow confluence with unnamed tributary to U.S. /Mexico border at 31°20'02"/109°34'44"A&WwFBCFCAgLSPWillcox Playa32°08'19"/109°50'59" in the Sulphur SpringsValleySedimentaryA&WwFBCFCAgLSPWoodcuttersPondFort Huachuca Military Reservation at31°31'11.5"/110°20'15"IgneousA&Ww FBC FCSRAckre (Judge)Lake33°37'00"/109°20'37"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRApache Lake 33°35'30"/111°20'30"DeepA&WcA&WwFBC DWS FC AgI AgLSRBarnhardt Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 34°05'36"/111°26'38"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRBarnhardt Creek Below confluencewith unnamed tributary to RyeCreek at 34°06'58"/111°21'32"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSRBasin Lake 33°55'00"/109°26'05"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgLSRBear Creek Tributary to the Black River at33°43'26"/109°22'30"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRBear WallowCreek (UW)(OAW)Tributary to the Black River at33°37'44"/109°31'23"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRBear WallowCreek, NorthFork (UW)(OAW)Tributary to Bear Wallow Creek at33°35'53"/109°26'49"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRBear WallowCreek, SouthFork (UW)(OAW)Tributary to Bear Wallow Creek at33°35'53"/109°26'49"A&Wc FBC FC AgL397Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLSRBeaver Creek Tributary to the Black River at33°43'44"/109°21'07"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRBig Lake 33°52'45"/109°25'00"IgneousA&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLSRBlack River Tributary to the Salt River at 33°44'20"/110°13'30"A&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLSRBlack River, EastForkTributary to the Black River at33°45'07"/109°21'43"A&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLSRBlack River, NNorthFork of EEastForkTributary to Black River, East Fork at33°56'17"/109°24'11"A&WcFBCDWSFCAgIAgLSRBlack River,West ForkTributary to the Black River at33°45'07"/109°21'43"A&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLSRBloody TanksWashHeadwaters to Schultze Ranch at33°22'29"/110°54'39"A&We PBC AgLSRBloody TanksWashSchultze Ranch to Miami Wash at33°25'05"/110°50'02"A&We PBCSRBoggy Creek Tributary to the Black River at33°44'31"/109°26'20"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRBoneyard Creek Tributary toBlack River, East Fork at33°51'22"/109°18'50"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRBoulder Creek Tributary to LaBarge Creek at33°30'54"/111°24'40"A&Ww FBC FCSRCampaign Creek Tributary to Roosevelt Lake at33°37'30"/111°00'04"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSRCanyon Creek Headwaters to the White Mountain ApacheReservation at 33°57'53"/110°47'00"A&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLSRCanyon Lake 33°33'15"/111°26'30"DeepA&WcA&WwFBC DWS FC AgI AgLSRCenterfire Creek Tributary to the Black River atA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgL398Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgL33°42'47"/109°26'17"SRChambers DrawCreekTributary to North Fork of the East Fork ofBlackRiver, N Fork of E Forkat 33°53'03"/109°20'13"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRCherry Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 34°05'09"/110°56'04"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRCherry Creek Below unnamed tributary to the Salt River at33°40'16"/110°48'03.6"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLSRChristopherCreekTributary to Tonto Creek at 34°18'36"/111°04'23"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRCold SpringCanyon CreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 33°49'50"/110°52'55"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRCold SpringCanyon CreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary toCherry Creek at 33°50'06/110°51'28.8"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSRConklin Creek Tributary to the Black River at33°41'49"/109°27'36"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRCoon Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 33°46'42"/110°54'25"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRCoon Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary to SaltRiver at 33°39'47"/110°50'24"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSRCorduroy Creek Tributary to Fish Creek at 33°59'46"/110°17'31"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRCoyote Creek Tributary to the Black River, East Fork at33°50'53"/109°18'18"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRCrescent Lake 33°54'36"/109°25'08"ShallowA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRDeer Creek Tributary to the Black River, East Fork at33°48'07"/109°19'26"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRDel Shay Creek Tributary to Gun Creek at 34°00'22"/111°15'43"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSRDevils Chasm Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryA&Wc FBC FC AgL399Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLCreek at 33°48'46"/110°52'33"SRDevils ChasmCreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary toCherry Creek at 33°49'34"/110°54'18"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSRDipping VatReservoir33°55'54"/109°25'15"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgLSRDouble CienegaCreekTributary to Fish Creek at 33°38'35"/109°22'08"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRFish Creek Tributary to the Black River at33°42'40"/109°26'31"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRFish Creek Tributary to the Salt River at 33°34'37"/111°21'11"A&Ww FBC FCSRGold Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 33°59'47"/111°25'07"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRGold Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary to TontoCreek at 33°58'55"/111°18'03.6"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSRGordon CanyonCreekHeadwaters to confluence with Hog Canyon at34°13'49"/111°00'27"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRGordon CanyonCreekBelow confluence with Hog Canyon to HaiglerCreek at 34°11'56"/111°03'21"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSRGreenback Creek Tributary to Tonto Creek at 33°47'38"/111°15'22"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSRHaigler Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 34°12'23.5"/111°00'11"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRHaigler Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary to TontoCreek at 34°12'54"/111°05'45.6"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLSRHannagan Creek Tributary to Beaver Creek at 33°42'07"/109°14'46"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRHay Creek (UW)(OAW)Tributary to the Black River, West Fork at33°48'32"/109°25'16"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRHome Creek Tributary to the Black River, West Fork atA&Wc FBC FC AgL400Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgL33°45'43"/109°22'48"SRHorse Creek Tributary to the Black River, West Fork at33°45'11"/109°21'50"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRHorse CampCreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 33°53'53"/110°50'10"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRHorse CampCreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary toCherry Creek at 33°52'08"/110°52'33.6"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSRHorton Creek Tributary to Tonto Creek at 34°20'24"/111°05'42"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRHouston Creek Tributary to Tonto Creek at 34°07'30"/111°15'25"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSRHunter Creek Tributary to Christopher Creek at34°18'29"/111°01'55"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRLaBarge Creek Superstition Wilderness Area; tributaryHeadwatersto Canyon Lake at33°31'34"/111°25'15.6"A&Ww FBC FCSRLake SierraBlanca33°52'25"/109°16'05"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRMiami Wash Tributary to Pinal Creek at 33°27'04"/110°50'17"A&We PBCSRMule Creek Tributary to Canyon Creek at34°16'34"/110°48'00"A&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLSROpen Draw Creek Tributary to the East Fork ofBlack River, EastForkat 33°49'52"/109°18'18"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRP B Creek Headwaters to Forest Service Road #203 at33°57'08"/110°56'09"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRP B Creek Below Forest Service Road #203 to Cherry Creekat 33°55'34"/110°54'18"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSRPinal Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed EDWwash (Globe WWTP) at 33°25'29"/110°48'18"A&We PBC AgL401Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLSRPinal Creek(EDW)Below unnamed EDW wash to RadiumGlobeWWTP outfall on unnamed wash at33°25'46"/110°47'28" to confluence with PinalCreek to Radium at 33°26'54"/110°49'02"A&Wedw PBCSRPinal Creek Radium to Setka Ranchlower Pinal Creek watertreatment plant discharge at 33°32'05"/110°52'17"A&We PBC AgLSRPinal Creek Setka RanchLower Pinal Creek WTP outfall #1 at33°31'56"/110°52'14" to See Ranch Crossing at33°32'25"/110°52'28"A&WwA&WedwFBCPBCFCAgLSRPinal CreekSee Ranch Crossing to 33°35'33"/110°54'33"A&WwFBCSRPinal CreekFrom 33°35'33"/110°54'33" to Salt RiverA&WwFBCFCSRPine Creek Tributary to the Salt River at 33°36'04"/111°12'36"A&Ww FBC FCSRPinto Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 33°19'27"/110°54'56"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRPinto Creek Below confluencewith unnamed tributary toRoosevelt Lake at 33°39'11"/111°00'43"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLSRPueblo CanyonCreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 33°50'30"/110°53'13"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRPueblo CanyonCreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary toCherry Creek at 33°52'30"/110°52'55"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSRReevis Creek Tributary to Pine Creek at 33°33'07"/111°09'40"A&Ww FBC FCSRReservationCreekTributary to the Black River at33°41'42"/109°28'26"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRReynolds Creek Tributary to Workman Creek at33°52'16"/111°00'14"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRRoosevelt Lake 33°40'45"/111°09'15"DeepA&Ww FBC DWS FC AgI AgLSRRussell GulchFrom headwaters to confluence with Miami WashA&WePBC402Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLSRRye Creek Tributary to Tonto Creek at 34°01'41"/111°17'06"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSRSaguaro Lake 33°34'00"/111°32'06"DeepA&WcA&WwFBC DWS FC AgI AgLSRSalome Creek Tributary to the Salt River at 33°41'56"/111°05'46"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLSRSalt River Above Roosevelt LakeConfluence of White Riverand Black River to Roosevelt LakeA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLSRSalt River Theodore Roosevelt Dam to the Verde River2 kmbelow Granite Reef DamA&WcA&WwFBC DWS FC AgI AgLSRSalt RiverVerde River to 2 km below Granite Reef DamA&WwFBCDWSFCAgIAgLSRSalt River2 km below Granite Reef Dam to I-10 bridgeA&WePBCSRSalt RiverI-10 bridge to the 23rd Ave WWTPA&WePBCSRSalt River (EDW)23rd Ave WWTP to confluence with Gila RiverA&WedwPBCFCAgIAgLSRSlate Creek Tributary to Tonto Creek at 33°56'24"/111°18'25"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSRSnake Creek(UW)(OAW)Tributary to the Black River at33°40'30"/109°28'55"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRSpring Creek Tributary to Tonto Creek at 34°09'54"/111°10'08"A&Ww FBC FC AgLSRStinky Creek(UW)(OAW)Tributary to the Black River, West Fork at33°51'22"/109°27'07"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRTempe TownLakeAt Mill Avenue BridgeA&WwFBCFCSRThomas Creek Tributary to Beaver Creek at 33°42'29"/109°15'11"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRThompson Creek Tributary to the West Fork of theBlack River,West Forkat 33°53'24"/109°28'48"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRTonto Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 34°18'10"/111°04'14"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRTonto Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary toRoosevelt Lake at 33°45'14"/111°14'17"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLSRTurkey Creek Tributary to Rock Creek at 33°58'30"/111°06'47"A&Wc FBC FC403Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLSRUnnamed Wash(EDW)Globe WWTP outfall to Pinal CreekCobre ValleyPlaza WWTP at 33°24'56"/110°49'43" toconfluence with Russell GulchA&Wedw PBCSRWildcat Creek Tributary to Centerfire Creek at33°43'41"/109°26'28"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRWillow Creek Tributary to Beaver Creek at 33°43'52"/109°18'04"A&Wc FBC FC AgLSRWorkman Creek Headwaters to confluence with Reynolds Creek at33°52'17"/111°00'14.5"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLSRWorkman Creek Below confluence with Reynolds Creek to SalomeCreek at 33°52'37"/111°02'20"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLUGApache Creek Tributary to the Gila River at32°52'08"/109°11'53"A&Ww FBC FC AgLUGAsh Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 32°45'37"/109°52'22"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGAsh Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary to GilaRiver at 32°53'35"/109°47'34.8"A&Ww FBC FC AgLUGBennett Wash(EDW)ADOC-Safford WWTP outfall at32°50'20"/109°34'44"to the Gila RiverA&Wedw PBCUGBitter Creek Tributary to the Gila River at32°50'17"/109°10'59"A&Ww FBC FCUGBlue River Headwaters to confluence with Strayhorse Creek at33°29'02"/110°12'12"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLUGBlue River Below confluence with Strayhorse Creek to SanFrancisco River at 33°12'36"/109°11'27.6"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLUGBonita Creek(Unique Water)(OAW)San Carlos Indian Reservation to the Gila River at32°53'35"/109°28'41"A&Ww FBC DWS FC AgL404Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLUGBuckalou Creek Tributary to Castle Creek at 33°43'34"/109°09'07"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGCampbell BlueCreekTributary to the Blue River at33°43'30"/109°02'46"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGCastle Creek Tributary toCampbell Blue Creek at33°44'06"/109°08'10"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGCave Creek(Unique Water)(OAW)Headwaters to confluence with South Fork CaveCreek at 31°53'04"/109°10'27"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLUGCave Creek(Unique Water)(OAW)Below confluence with South Fork Cave Creek toCoronado NF BoundaryNational Forest boundaryA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLUGCave Creek Below Coronado NF Boundary to New Mexicoborder at 31°58'19"/109°03'00"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLUGCave Creek,South ForkTributary to Cave Creek at 31°53'04"/109°10'27"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLUGChase Creek Headwaters to the Phelps-Dodge Morenci MineA&Ww FBC FC AgLUGChase Creek Below the Phelps-Dodge Morenci Mine to SanFrancisco RiverA&We PBCUGChitty CanyonCreekTributary to Salt House Creek at33°30'32"/109°24'04"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGCima Creek Tributary to Cave Creek at 31°52'19"/109°14'02"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGCluff Ranch Pond#132°48'55"/109°49'15"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLUGCluff Ranch Pond#232°49'15"/109°50'33"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLUGCluff Ranch Pond#332°48'20"/109°51'43"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgL405Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLUGColeman Creek Tributary to Campbell Blue Creek at33°44'20"/109°09'32"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGDankworth Ponds 32°43'15"/109°42'15"SedimentaryA&Wc FBC FCUGDeadman CanyonCreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 32°43'50"/109°49'01"A&Wc FBC DWS FC AgLUGDeadman CanyonCreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary toconfluence with Graveyard Wash at32°46'48"/109°44'13"A&Ww FBC DWS FC AgLUGEagle Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 33°23'24"/109°29'35"A&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLUGEagle Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary to EagleCreek at 32°57'36"/109°24'21.6"A&Ww FBC DWS FC AgI AgLUGEast Eagle Creek Tributary to Eagle Creek at 33°29'38"/109°28'05"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGEast TurkeyCreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 31°58'22"/109°12'17"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGEast TurkeyCreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary toterminus near San Simon River at31°59'53"/109°07'37"A&Ww FBC FC AgLUGEast Whitetail Headwaters to terminus near San Simon River at32°08'52"/109°09'25" in theChiricahua MountainsA&Ww FBC FC AgLUGEmigrant Canyon Headwaters to terminus near San Simon River at32°17'02"/109°20'27.6" in theChiricahuaMountainsA&Ww FBC FC AgLUGEvans Pond 32°49'15"/109°51'15"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FCUGFishhook Creek Tributary to the Blue River at33°35'13"/109°10'01"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGFoote Creek Tributary to the Blue River atA&Wc FBC FC AgL406Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgL33°35'24"/109°08'49"UGFrye CanyonCreekHeadwaters to Frye Mesa Reservoir at32°45'09.5"/109°50'02"A&Wc FBC DWS FC AgLUGFrye CanyonCreekBelow Frye Mesa Reservoir to Highline CanalHeadwaters to terminusnear San Simon River at32°50'10"/109°45'43"A&Ww FBC FC AgLUGFrye MesaReservoir32°45'13"/109°50'00"IgneousA&Wc FBC DWS FCUGGibson Creek Tributary to Marijilda Creek at32°41'24"/109°48'11"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGGila River New Mexico border to the San Carlos IndianReservation at 33°05'37"/110°03'21"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLUGGrant Creek Tributary to the Blue River at33°34'16"/109°10'37"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGJudd Lake 33°51'15"/109°09'15"SedimentaryA&Wc FBC FCUGK P Creek (UW)(OAW)Tributary to the Blue River at33°31'44"/109°12'04"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGLanphier CanyonCreekTributary to the Blue River at33°35'42"/109°07'52"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGLittle Blue Creek Headwaters to confluence with Dutch Blue Creekat 33°24'26.5"/109°09'18"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGLittle Blue Creek Below confluence with Dutch Blue Creek to BlueCreek at 32°22'30"/109°10'30"A&Ww FBC FC AgLUGLittle Creek Tributary to the San Francisco River at33°49'41"/109°04'26"A&Wc FBC FCUGLower George'sReservoir33°51'23.5"/109°08'28"SedimentaryA&Wc FBC FC AgL407Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLUGLuna Lake 33°49'45"/109°05'15"SedimentaryA&Wc FBC FC AgLUGMarijilda Creek Headwaters to confluence with Gibson Creek at32°41'23"/109°48'13"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGMarijilda Creek Below confluence with Gibson Creek to StocktonWash at 32°46'30"/109°40'51.6"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLUGMarkham Creek Tributary to the Gila River at32°56'17"/109°53'13"A&Ww FBC FC AgLUGPigeon Creek Tributary to the Blue River at33°16'08"/109°11'42"A&Ww FBC FC AgLUGRaspberry Creek Tributary to the Blue River at33°30'07"/109°12'32"A&Wc FBC FCUGRoper Lake 32°45'20"/109°42'11"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FCUGSan FranciscoRiverHeadwaters to the New Mexico border at33°49'24.5"/109°02'46"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLUGSan FranciscoRiverNew Mexico border to the Gila River at33°14'25"/109°02'49"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLUGSan Simon River Tributaryto the Gila River at32°49'52"/109°38'53"A&We PBC AgLUGSheep Tank 32°46'15"/109°48'08"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FC AgLUGSmith Pond 32°49'09"/109°50'26"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FCUGSquaw Creek Tributary to Thomas Creek at33°23'38"/109°12'22"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGStone Creek Tributary to the San Francisco River at33°50'38"/109°02'46"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLUGStrayhorse Creek Tributary to the Blue River at33°29'02"/109°12'11"A&Wc FBC FCUGThomas Creek Headwaters to confluence with Rousensock CreekA&Wc FBC FC AgL408Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLat 33°23'45"/109°13'13"UGThomas Creek Below confluence with Rousensock Creek to BlueRiver at 33°23'20"/109°11'20"A&Ww FBC FC AgLUGTinny Pond 33°47'49"/109°04'23"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FC AgLUGTurkey Creek Tributary to Campbell Blue Creek at33°44'10"/109°04'05"A&Wc FBC FC AgLUGUnnamed Wash(EDW)ADOC-Globe WWTP outfall at33°24'55"/110°42'35"to the San Carlos IndianReservationA&Wedw PBCVRAmerican Gulch Headwaters to the Northern Gila County SanitaryDistrict WWTP outfall (Payson) at34°14'05"/111°22'18"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLVRAmerican Gulch(EDW)Northern Gila County Sanitary District WWTPoutfall (Payson) to the East Verde River at34°14'42"/111°25'08"A&Wedw PBCVRApache Creek Tributary to Walnut Creek at 34°55'12"/112°50'42"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRAshbrook Wash Headwaters to the Ft McDowell Reservation at33°36'54"/111°42'06"A&We PBCVRAspen Creek Tributary to Granite Creek at 34°31'55"/112°28'19"A&Ww FBCFCVRBar Cross Tank 35°00'40"/112°05'34"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRBarrata Tank 35°02'43"/112°24'17"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRBartlett Lake 33°49'00"/111°37'45"DeepA&Ww FBC DWS FC AgI AgLVRBeaver Creek Tributary to the Verde River at34°34'26"/111°51'14"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRBig Chino Wash Tributary to Sullivan Lake at 34°52'37"/112°28'37"A&We PBC AgLVRBitter Creek Headwaters to the Jerome WWTP outfall at34°45'08"/112°06'25"A&We PBC AgL409Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLVRBitter Creek(EDW)Jerome WWTP outfall to the Yavapai ApacheIndian Reservation at 34°45'45.5"/112°04'44"A&Wedw PBC AgLVRBitter Creek Below the Yavapai Apache Indian Reservation tothe Verde River at 34°46'37"/112°02'53"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLVRBlack CanyonCreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 34°39'20"/112°05'05"A&Wc FBC FC AgLVRBlack CanyonCreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributary to theVerde River at 34°40'59"/111°57'28.8"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRBonita Creek Tributary to Ellison Creek at 34°20'56"/111°14'20"A&Wc FBC FCVRBray Creek Tributary to Webber Creek at34°22'37"/111°20'53"A&Wc FBC FC AgLVRCamp Creek Tributary to the Verde River at33°45'32"/111°30'14"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRCarter Tank 34°52'27"/112°57'28"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRCereus Wash Headwaters tothe Fort McDowell IndianReservation at 33°34'13"/111°42'28"A&We PBCVRChase Creek Tributary to the East Verde River at34°22'48"/111°16'59"A&Wc FBC DWS FCVRClover Creek Tributary to headwaters of West Clear Creek at34°33'04"/111°24'11"A&Wc FBC FC AgLVRCoffeCoffeeCreekTributary to Spring Creek at 34°48'18"/111°55'41"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRColony Wash Headwaters to the Fort McDowell IndianReservation at 33°35'42"/111°42'15"A&We PBCVRDead Horse Lake 34°45'00"/112°00'30"ShallowA&WcA&WwFBC FCVRDeadman Creek Tributary to Horseshoe Reservoir at34°00'00"/111°42'36"A&Ww FBC FC AgL410Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLVRDel Rio DamLake34°48'55"/112°28'00"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FC AgLVRDry Beaver Creek Tributary to Beaver Creek at 34°37'59"/111°49'34"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLVRDry Creek(EDW)Sedona Ventures WWTP outfall at34°50'45"/111°52'15" toconfluence with Dry Creekat 34°50'31"/111°52'39"A&WedwPBCVRDude Creek Tributary to the East Verde River at34°23'06"/111°16'26"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLVREast Verde River Headwaters to confluence with Ellison Creek at34°21'10"/111°16'47.5"A&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLVREast Verde River Below confluence with Ellison Creek to the VerdeRiver at 34°17'02"/111°40'19"A&Ww FBC DWS FC AgI AgLVREllison Creek Tributary to the East Verde River at34°21'11"/111°16'48"A&Wc FBC FC AgLVRFossil Creek(OAW)Tributary to the Verde River at34°18'22"/111°40'30"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRFossil Springs(OAW)34°25'24"/111°34'25"A&Ww FBC DWS FCVRFoxboro Lake 34°53'48"/111°40'00"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRFry Lake 35°03'45"/111°48'02"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRGap Creek Headwaters to Government Spring at34°23'23"/111°50'53.5"A&Wc FBC FC AgLVRGap Creek Below Government Spring to the Verde River at34°24'50"/111°46'51.6"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRGarrett Tank 35°18'57"/112°42'16"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRGoldwater Lake,Lower34°29'55"/112°27'18"SedimentaryA&Wc FBC DWS FC411Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLVRGoldwater Lake,Upper34°29'51"/112°26'55"IgneousA&Wc FBC DWS FCVRGranite BasinLake34°37'01"/112°42'16"IgneousA&WcA&WwFBC FC AgI AgLVRGranite Creek Headwaters to confluence with Willow CreekWatson lakeat 34°36'55"34°35'15"/112°25'05"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLVRGranite Creek Below confluence with WillowCreekWatson laketo the Verde River at 34°52'54"/112°25'05"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLVRHeifer Tank 35°20'28"/112°32'56"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRHell CanyonTank35°05'00"/112°24'06"IgneousA&Ww FBC FC AgLVRHomestead Tank 35°21'23"/112°41'32"IgneousA&Ww FBC FC AgLVRHorse Park Tank 34°58'15"/111°36'29"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRHorseshoeReservoir33°59'00"/111°42'30"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLVRHouston Creek Tributary to the Verde River at34°16'55"/111°41'06"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRJ.D. Dam Lake 35°04'01"/112°01'40"ShallowA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLVRJacks CanyonWashHeadwaters to Big Park WWTP outfall at34°45'32"/111°45'10"A&WePBCVRJacks CanyonWash (EDW)Big Park WWTP outfall to Dry Beaver Creek at34°44'28"/111°46'01"A&Wedw PBCVRLime Creek Tributary to Horseshoe Reservoir at33°59'20"/111°44'13"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRMcLellanReservoir35°13'15"/112°17'05"IgneousA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLVRMeath Dam Tank 35°07'46"/112°27'35"A&Ww FBC FC AgL412Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLVRMullican PlaceTank34°44'16"/111°36'08"IgneousA&Ww FBC FC AgLVROak Creek(Unique Water)(OAW)Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 34°57'08.5"/111°45'13"A&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLVROak Creek(Unique Water)(OAW)Below confluence with unnamed tributary at34°57'08.5"/111°45'13 to Verde River"A&Ww FBC DWS FC AgI AgLVROak Creek, WestFork (UniqueWater)(OAW)Tributary to Oak Creek at 34°59'13"/111°44'46"A&Wc FBC FC AgLVROdell Lake 34°56'02"/111°37'52"IgneousA&Wc FBC FCVRPeck's Lake 34°47'07"/112°02'30"ShallowA&WcA&WwFBC FC AgI AgLVRPerkins Tank 35°06'42"/112°04'08"ShallowA&Wc FBC FC AgLVRPine Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 34°21'51"/111°26'46"A&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLVRPine Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary to EastVerde River at 34°13'19"/111°29'27.6"A&Ww FBC DWS FC AgI AgLVRRed Creek Tributary to the Verde River at34°09'47"/111°43'12"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRRed Lake 35°12'19"/113°03'55"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FC AgLVRReservoir #1 35°13'05"/111°50'07"IgneousA&Ww FBC FCVRReservoir #2 35°13'16"/111°50'36"IgneousA&Ww FBC FCVRRoundtreeCanyon CreekTributary to Tangle Creek at 34°09'04"/111°48'18"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRScholze Lake 35°11'53"/112°00'31"IgneousA&WcA&WwFBC FC AgLVRSpring Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgL413Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgLat 34°57'23.5"/111°57'19"VRSpring Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary at34°44'38"/111°54'19"to Oak CreekA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLVRSteel Dam Lake 35°13'36"/112°24'51"IgneousA&Wc FBC FC AgLVRStehr Lake 34°21'59"/111°40'00"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FC AgLVRStone Dam Lake 35°13'36"/112°24'16"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLVRStoneman Lake 34°46'44"/111°31'05"ShallowA&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLVRSullivan Lake 34°51'46"/112°27'41"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLVRSycamore Creek Headwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 35°03'40"/111°57'28"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLVRSycamore Creek Below confluence with unnamed tributary to VerdeRiver at 34°51'47"/112°04'41"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLVRSycamore Creek Tributary to Verde River at 33°37'55"/111°39'58"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLVRSycamore Creek Tributary to Verde River at 34°04'42"/111°42'14"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRTangle Creek Tributary to theVerde River at34°05'06"/111°42'36"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLVRTrinity Tank 35°27'44"/112°47'56"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRUnnamed WashFlagstaff Meadows WWTP outfall at36°14'17"/111°49'28" to Volunteer Wash at35°11'55"/111°49'42"A&WedwPBCVRVerde River Above Bartlett Dam from confluence of ChinoWash and Granite Creek to Bartlett LakeA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLVRVerde River Below Bartlett LakeDam to Salt RiverA&Ww FBC DWS FC AgI AgLVRWalnut Creek Tributary to Big Chino Wash at34°58'12"/112°34'55"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRWatson Lake 34°35'15"/112°25'05"IgneousA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLVRWebber Creek Tributary to the East Verde River atA&Wc FBC FC AgL414Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgL34°18'50"/111°19'55"VRWest Clear Creek Headwaters to confluence with Meadow Canyon at34°33'40"/111°31'30"A&Wc FBC FC AgLVRWest Clear Creek Below confluence with Meadow Canyon to theVerde River at 34°30'14"/111°49'41"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLVRWet BeaverCreekHeadwaters to unnamed springs at34°41'17"/111°34'34"A&Wc FBC FC AgI AgLVRWet BeaverCreekBelow unnamed springs to Dry Beaver Creek at34°37'59"/111°49'33.6"A&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLVRWhitehorse Lake 35°07'00"/112°00'47"IgneousA&Wc FBC DWS FC AgI AgLVRWilliamsonValley WashHeadwaters to confluence with Mint Wash at34°49'05"/112°37'55"A&We PBC AgLVRWilliamsonValley WashConfluence of Mint Wash to 10.5 km dwnstmdownstream at 34°49'05"/111°37'55"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRWilliamsonValley WashBelow 10.5 km downstream of Mint Washconfluence to Big Chino Wash at32°52'52"/112°28'48"A&We PBC AgLVRWilliscraft Tank 35°11'23"/112°35'38"A&Ww FBC FC AgLVRWillow Creek Tributary to Granite Creek at 34°51'47"/112°25'52"Above Willow Creek ReservoirShallowA&Wc FBC FC AgLVRWillow CreekBelow Willow Creek Reservoir to confluence withGranite CreekA&WwFBCFCAgLVRWillow CreekReservoir34°36'17"/112°26'19"ShallowA&Ww FBC FC AgI AgLVRWillow ValleyLake34°41'08"/111°19'57"SedimentaryA&Ww FBC FC AgLWPBig CreekTributary to Pitchfork Canyon atA&WcFBCFCAgL415Aquatic and WildlifeHumanHealthAgriculturalBASINWatershedSEGMENTSurface WatersLOCATIONSegment Description and Location(Latitude and Longitudes are in NAD 27)Lake CatgoryA&Wc A&Ww A&We A&Wedw FBC PBC DWS FC AgI AgL32°35'24"/109°57'07"WPGoudy CanyonCreekPinaleno MountainsA&WcFBCFCAgLWPGrant CreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 32°38'09.5"/109°56'35"A&WcFBCDWSFCAgLWPGrant CreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributaryA&WwFBCFCAgLWPHigh CreekHeadwaters to confluence with unnamed tributaryat 32°33'07"/110°14'40"A&WcFBCFCAgLWPHigh CreekBelow confluence with unnamed tributaryA&WwFBCFCAgLWPLake CochiseSouth of Twin Lakes Municipal Golf Course at32°14' N/109°11' WA&WedwPBCWPMoonshine CreekTributary to Post Creek at 32°40'52"/109°54'25"A&WcFBCFCAgLWPPinery CreekHeadwaters to State Highway 181 at32°00'24"/109°25'16"A&WcFBCDWSFCAgLWPPinery CreekBelow State Highway 181A&WwFBCDWSFCAgLWPPost CreekTributary to Grant Creek at 32°40'05"/109°54'58"A&WcFBCFCAgIAgLWPRiggs Flat Lake32°42'27"/109°57'51"A&WcFBCFCAgIAgLWPRock CreekTributary to Turkey Creek at 31°53'20"/109°30'00"A&WcFBCFCAgLWPSnow Flat Lake32°39'09"/109°51'52"A&WcFBCFCAgIAgLWPSoldier CreekTributary to Post Creek at 32°40'52"/109°54'40"A&WcFBCFCAgLWPTurkey CreekHeadwaters to confluence with RockCreek at31°53'20"/109°30'00"A&WcFBCFCAgIAgLWPTurkey CreekBelow confluence with Rock CreekA&WwFBCFCAgIAgLWPWard CanyonCreekTributary to Turkey Creek at 31°51'47"/109°20'13"A&WcFBCFCAgLWPWillcox PlayaSulphur Springs ValleyA&WwFBCFCAgL416WatershedsBW = Bill WilliamsCG = Colorado – Grand CanyonCL = Colorado – Lower GilaLC = Little ColoradoMG = Middle GilaSC = Santa Cruz – Rio Magdalena – Rio SonoytaSP = San Pedro – Willcox Playa – Rio YaquiSR = Salt RiverUG = Upper GilaVR = Verde RiverOther AbbreviationsWWTP = Wastewater Treatment PlantKm = kilometers

# 417 Appendix C. APPENDIX C. Repealed SITE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS

Watershed Surface Water Surface Water Description & Location Parameter Site-Specific

Criterion

LC Rio de Flag (EDW) Flagstaff WWTP outfall to the confluence with

San Francisco Wash at 35°14'04"/111°28'02.5" 

# Copper (D) 36 μ g/L

CL Yuma East Wetlands From inlet culvert from Colorado River into

restored channel to Ocean bridge Selenium (T)

Total residual

chlorine 2.2 μ g/L

33 μ g/L

(A&Ww acute)

20 μ g/L

(A&Ww chronic)