[ Up ] [ Clean Water Act ] [ Credible Data Law ] [ Summary of Designated Use ]

Summary of Designated use support based on “Credible Data”

2002 Draft 303(d) List, 305(b) Report, and document “Wyoming’s Method for Determining Water Quality Condition of Surface Waters” (Methodology) are being presented for review and comment.

Comments will be received by WY DEQ until March 15, 2002.

Upper Belle Fourche Watershed (HUC 10120201)

Two reaches of the Belle Fourche River were placed on Table A of the 1998 303(d) List due to exceedences of the standard for fecal coliform bacteria. Subsequent monitoring by WQD in 1998 and 1999 better identified the extent of those reaches as between Keyhole Reservoir to above Rush Creek, and between Hulett and Arch Creek. Results of this monitoring also determined that Donkey Creek below Stonepile Creek is impaired by fecal colifrom. Donkey Creek has been added to Table A. Crook County Conservation District has started a project to determine the sources of fecal contamination in these watersheds, within their county, and to begin locally led efforts to mitigate those sources.

The Belle Fourche River below the Hulett Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) was listed on Table B of the 1998 303(d) list but has been delisted (table d) in 2000 because TMDLs have been approved for ammonia, fecal coliform and total residual chlorine (TRC).

Assessment of Gillette Fishing Lake, conducted under a 205j grant, indicated impairments due to high amounts of sediment and phosphate coming from the city. Gillette Fishing Lake is listed on Table A. Campbell County Conservation District is currently using 319 funds to educate the public about non point source pollution in the watershed, and to develop a water quality improvement plan with the city of Gillette.

Table A:

303(d) Water bodies with the Water Quality Impairments. These are water bodies requiring watershed plans or TMDLs , for which there is credible data that indicates that the reach does not support all its designated uses.

“BF” – Belle Fourche River Basin

“HUC” – Hydrologic Unit Code identifying the watershed (cataloging unit) containing the water body. Wyoming has 83 of these watersheds.

“2WW” – Warm Water game fishery (DEQ Stream Classification)

"N" - Non-point source pollution {Source of pollutants}

“U”- Unknown source of contaminants {Source of pollutants}

Date – indicates the year, since 1996 the water body was first listed on the 303(d) List (note that all water bodies on the 1996 303(d) list have a 1996 date.)

Priority- indicates priority for TMDL development for water bodies on the 303(d) lists.

“M” – Medium priority

“L”- Low priority

Section 303(d) List Criteria

For Prioritizing Impaired Water bodies

For development of TMDLs

2000-2002 Biennium

These criteria have been developed to provide a general guideline for prioritizing TMDL establishment in Wyoming. The actual schedule for establishing TMDLs is contained in the Wyoming TMDL work plan. These criteria will be used to implement the specifics of that schedule. While the priorities established using these criteria would be generally followed, circumstances may dictate adjustments based on petitions from other entities, efficiency and geographic practicality of addressing high and low priorities at the same time. Water bodies for which the stat has jurisdiction within the exterior boundaries of the Wind River Indian Reservation, water bodies whose uses are “threatened,” and water bodies which cross political boundaries are prioritized using these criteria. However, these special conditions may results in some adjustment in the schedule for development of the TMDLs.

Targeted Waters

Targeted waters shall be those waters for which a TMDL will be established during the next biennium.

High priority

1. High priority for development of TMDLs shall be based on the potential ecologic and human health hazards associated with specific pollutants. Such pollutants are generally toxic pollutants and pathogens associated with point source discharges since toxics are usually the ecologic concern and pathogens the human health concern.

2. Waters receiving loadings from point source discharges with an NPDES permit due to b issued/reissued in the next biennium will receive highest priority where TMDLs need to be established to maintain beneficial uses of the receiving waters.

3. Major point source dischargers shall receive higher priority than minor dischargers due to potential ecological and human health risks associated with the volume of pollutant load.

4. Highest quality waters (Classes 1and 2) will receive highest priority, regardless of pollutant source, in establishing TMDLs, except where local stakeholder groups have established a water quality management plan as provided for in LOW PRIORITY option 5.

5. TMDL development shall be a high priority for those water bodies where a locally sponsored stakeholder group has established or will establish over the biennium a water quality management plan which has all the components of a TMDL and where such group is seeking approval of the plan as a TMDL. Upon approval, such water bodies shall be delisted.

6. If there are threatened or endangered aquatic species present and possibly affected by the pollutant(s) of concern, the water body is ranked as a high priority water body needing a TMDL.

Medium Priority

1. Medium priority water bodies shall be those receiving loadings from point source discharge permits to Class 1,2 and 3 waters are not due for reissuance until after April, 2002, unless there is an identified problem site which would not be on the list and therefore should be prioritized based on degree of impairment or uses.

2. TMDLs which address controls on nonpoint sources shall be developed as medium priorities where adequate data exists to establish load allocations and where no locally sponsored stakeholder group has quality assessment or through DEQ verification of the 1996 303(d) list, and subsequent intensive monitoring sufficient to establish TMDLs which address nonpoint source controls.

3. If there are candidate aquatic (T&E) species present and possibly affected by the pollutants of concern, the water body will be ranked as a medium priority water body needing a TMDL.

Low Priority

1. TMDL development shall be a low priority for those water bodies impacted by pollutants, which pose a lower ecological and human health risk (i.e., non- toxic pollutants such as a clean sediment.)

2. TMDL development shall be a low priority for those water bodies on which insufficient water quality data exists to reasonably determine the source (s) of the pollutant load.

3. TMDL development shall be a low priority for those water bodies, which have been determined to be naturally of very low quality (i.e.., Class 4 waters).

4. TMDL development shall be a low priority for those water bodies where locally sponsored stakeholder groups have established a water quality management plan which is being implemented by landowners/users within the watershed. Water Quality Management plans must identify the problems, solutions, and implementation strategy to assure that beneficial uses will be achieved in a reasonable amount of time.

5. TMDL development shall be a low priority for water bodies petitioned for stream reclassification, when the petition includes credible data. ( Petitions which are not based upon credible data will not be considered.) Upon promulgation of the reclassification, the water body will be moved to the “monitoring list” to determine if it is able to meet the beneficial uses associated with the new classification. Upon determination of impairment status, the water body will be listed and prioritized or delisted as appropriate.