W. Va. Code R. § 60-5-5

Current through Register Vol. XLI, No. 50, December 13, 2024

Section 60-5-5 - Tier 2 Protection (High Quality Waters)

5.1. A water segment shall be considered a Tier 2 high quality water where the level of water quality exceeds levels necessary to support recreation and wildlife and the propagation and maintenance of fish and other aquatic life.

5.2. Tier 2 waters need not exceed the level of quality needed to meet or exceed numeric criteria for every parameter. For example, a water segment listed on the state's 303(d) impaired waters list can qualify for Tier 2 protection, but where the impairment that caused the water segment to be listed results in failure to attain minimum uses, that water segment will be afforded only Tier 1 protection.

5.3. Where a water segment does not meet or exceed applicable water quality criteria for every parameter, the Secretary will determine whether the water segment will be afforded Tier 2 protection as part of the antidegradation review process using best professional judgment. In addition to data available for review, the Secretary may consider factors such as (1) existing aquatic life uses, (2) existing recreational or aesthetic uses, (3) existing water quality data for upstream segments or comparable segments, (4) biological score for the water segment, and (5) the overall value of the segment from an ecological, health and public use perspective.

5.4. Where insufficient information is available to determine which tier should apply, a regulated entity may seek a determination that a water segment should be afforded only Tier 1 protection by submitting water quality data consistent with guidance developed pursuant to subsection 3.9. of this rule showing that there is no remaining assimilative capacity for any parameter to be affected by its activity. In seeking such a determination, the impacts of all of the regulated entity's activities on the water segment must be considered.

5.5. Where there is insufficient information to establish which tier should apply, it is the intent of these procedures to apply Tier 2 protection to such waters until such time as sufficient water quality data is obtained to determine the appropriate level of protection. No presumption shall be made with regard to the actual quality of any waters as a result of such initial application.

5.6. Tier 2 antidegradation review.

5.6.a. Any regulated activity in a Tier 2 water segment is required to go through the Tier 2 antidegradation review process where:

5.6.a.1. The regulated activity is a new or expanded activity that would significantly degrade water quality; or

5.6.a.2. The Secretary determines, upon renewal of a permit or certification, that other individual circumstances warrant a full review such as cumulative degradation resulting from multiple discharges within a watershed, degradation resulting from a single discharge over time, or degradation caused by a regulated facility's historic noncompliance with its permit.

5.6.b. In allowing any degradation, the agency shall assure water quality adequate to protect existing uses fully (i.e., Tier 1 protection).

5.6.c. Degradation for Tier 2 shall be deemed significant if the activity results in a reduction in the water segment's available assimilative capacity (the difference between the baseline water quality and the water quality criteria) of ten percent or more at the appropriate critical flow condition(s) for parameters of concern. Critical flow conditions for non-precipitation induced discharges are the 7Q10 flow of the receiving stream, plus either of the following: maximum permitted flow or maximum flow specified in the application, for industrial activities, or the average design flow, for wastewater treatment activities. Degradation will also be deemed significant if the proposed activity, together with all other activities allowed after the baseline water quality is established, results in a reduction in the water segment's available assimilative capacity of 20% or more at the appropriate critical flow conditions for the parameters of concern, except that discharges affecting dissolved oxygen, pH or fecal coliform will be deemed insignificant provided that:

5.6.c.1. For dissolved oxygen, the maximum DO sag will not be greater than 0.4 ppm based on an approprite wasteload allocation model, unless that reduction is projected to cause a violation of 47 CSR 2-8.12 through 8.12.3, Appendix E, Table 1;

5.6.c.2. pH is maintained within the 6.0 to 9.0 range;

5.6.c.3. For fecal coliform, necessary and appropriate treatment (disinfection) or control is required and the fecal coliform concentrations are established as 200/100 ml monthly average and 400/100 ml daily maximum.

5.6.d. Significant degradation will be determined on a parameter-by-parameter basis for each parameter of concern that might be affected by the regulated activity.

5.6.e. A proposed activity that will result in a new or expanded discharge in a water subject to Tier 2 protection may be allowed where the applicant agrees to implement or finance upstream controls of point or nonpoint sources sufficient to offset the water quality effects of the proposed activity from the same parameters and insure an improvement in water quality as a result of the trade. The basis of the trade will be documented and will be consistent with the trading assessment procedure that has been approved by the Secretary. A trade may be made between more than one stream segment where removing a discharge in one stream segment directly results in improved water quality in another stream segment. In addition, (1) the effluent trade must be for the same parameter; (2) where uncertainty exists regarding the effluent trade, an adequate margin of safety will be required; (3) dischargers cannot claim offsets for water quality improvements that are required or will occur irrespective of the proposed new or expanded discharge; and (4) the trades must be enforceable.

5.6.f. New or expanded activities determined to be significant by the agency shall be subject to the Tier 2 review requirements described in subsections 5.6. through 5.9. herein. If the agency determines that no further Tier 2 review requirements shall apply for an activity, the activity must still achieve the highest established statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to them, or conditions of the permit, or water quality certification, and that determination must be made a part of the public notification, as provided in subsections 8.1 through 8.5.

5.7. Review of alternatives.

5.7.a. If a determination is made that significant degradation will occur, the agency shall determine whether reasonable and cost effective less-degrading or non-degrading alternatives to the proposed activity exist. The agency will evaluate any alternatives analysis submitted by the regulated activity for consistency with the requirements set forth in Subdivision 5.7.b. herein.

5.7.b. A regulated entity proposing any new or expanded regulated activity that would significantly degrade water quality in a high quality water is required to prepare an evaluation of alternatives to the proposed activity. The evaluation must provide substantive information pertaining to the cost and environmental impacts associated with the following alternatives:

5.7.b.1. Pollution prevention measures;

5.7.b.2. Reduction in scale of project;

5.7.b.3. Water recycle or reuse;

5.7.b.4. Process changes;

5.7.b.5. Innovative treatment technology or technologies;

5.7.b.6. Advanced treatment technology or technologies;

5.7.b.7. Seasonal or controlled discharge options to avoid critical water quality periods;

5.7.b.8. Improved operation and maintenance of existing treatment systems; and

5.7.b.9. Alternative discharge locations.

5.7.c. After alternatives to allowing degradation have been adequately evaluated, a determination shall be made regarding whether cost-effective and reasonable non-degrading or less-degrading alternatives to the proposed activity shall be required. This determination will be based primarily on the alternatives analysis developed by the regulated entity, but may be supplemented with other information and data. As a rule of thumb, cost effective and reasonable non-degrading or less-degrading pollution control alternatives with costs that are less than 110% of the costs of the pollution control measures associated with the proposed activity shall be considered reasonable.

5.7.d. If it is determined that reasonable and cost effective less degrading or non-degrading alternatives to the proposed activity do exist, the project design may be revised accordingly. In general, if reasonable alternative(s) exist, the alternative or combination of alternatives that provide the least amount of degradation shall be implemented up to the determined reasonable and cost-effective threshold. If the regulated entity does not agree to adopt such reasonable and cost-effective alternatives, the alternatives analysis findings will be documented and the activity will not be allowed.

5.8. Review of social and economic importance.

5.8.a. If significant degradation would occur, even after application of reasonable less-degrading or non-degrading alternatives, a determination shall be made as to whether the proposed activity is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located.

5.8.b. The regulated activity must document the social and economic importance of the proposed activity.

5.8.c. The factors to be addressed in such documentation may include, but are not limited to, the following:

5.8.c.1. Employment (e.g., increasing, maintaining or avoiding a reduction in employment);

5.8.c.2. Increased production;

5.8.c.3. Improved community tax base;

5.8.c.4. Housing;

5.8.c.5. Ancillary community economic benefit; and

5.8.c.6. Correction of an environmental or public health problem.

5.8.d. In addition to the above, a regulated entity may be required to submit the following:

5.8.d.1. Information pertaining to current aquatic life, recreational, or other water uses;

5.8.d.2. Information necessary to determine the environmental impacts that may result from the proposed activity;

5.8.d.3. Facts pertaining to the current state of economic development in the area (e.g., population, area employment, area income, major employers, types of businesses);

5.8.d.4. Government fiscal base; and

5.8.d.5. Land use in the areas surrounding the proposed activity.

5.8.e. Once the available information pertaining to the socio-economic importance of the proposed activity has been reviewed by the agency, a preliminary determination regarding importance shall be made. In evaluating the regulated activity's demonstration of socio-economic importance, the agency may use EPA's Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook (EPA 823-B-95-002, March, 1995). Where there is a request for a variance from groundwater standards pursuant to 47 CSR 57 for existing sites where activities on those sites have the potential to impact surface water from contaminated groundwater and the activity is otherwise subject to this rule, the socio-economic justification process required under 47 CSR 57 subdivision 6.2.i will satisfy the requirements of this section. If the proposed activity is determined to have social or economic importance in the area in which the affected waters are located, the substance and basis for that preliminary determination shall be documented and the Tier 2 review shall continue.

5.9. Intergovernmental coordination for Tier 2 reviews.

5.9.a. The intergovernmental coordination requirements in 47 CSR 2-4.1.b. will be accomplished by providing notice to those agencies listed in Appendix A that the Secretary believes may have regulatory oversight of the regulated activity of the preliminary determination of the socio-economic review and requesting comments from those agencies regarding that review.

5.9.b. The public notice of the proposed activity will be provided as set forth in subsections 9.1 through 9.5 herein.

5.9.c. Once the intergovernmental coordination and public notice requirements are satisfied, the Secretary shall make a final determination concerning the social or economic importance of the proposed activity. All social and economic importance determinations, including determinations to prohibit the activity, shall be documented and made a part of the public record.

W. Va. Code R. § 60-5-5