10 Csr 20-7.010 - 10 Csr 20-7.050
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. May 7, 2015 Rules of Department of Natural Resources: Division 20- Chapter 7 - 10 CSR 20-7.010 - 10 CSR 20-7.050 Effective January 6, 2015 The attached WQS document is in effect for Clean Water Act purposes with the exception of the following provisions: Disapproved – Removal of Whole Body Contact-Category B Use Designations: WBID Water Body Name Class Miles Explanation EPA Decision 3810 Douger Branch C 4.5 Data indicates WBCR Removal of WBC-B attainable disapproved 2771 Menorkenut Slough C 10.4 Data indicates WBCR Removal of WBC-B attainable disapproved 1156 Deberry Creek C 0.9 No survey conducted Removal of WBC-B disapproved 3707 St. Johns Ditch P 18.7 Data impacted by drought Removal of WBC-B conditions disapproved; designation of SCR disapproved 3821 Modoc Creek C 3.3 No UAA conducted Withholding WBC- B use disapproved 2436 Bee Creek UAA discrepancy Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 0220 Belleau Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 1762 Bloom Creek UAA discrepancy Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 0033 Brushy Fork Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 3449 Cedar Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 0940 Dry Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 0953 Dry Fork Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 1717 Glaize Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 2153 Goose Creek UAA discrepancy Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 2212 Horrel Creek UAA discrepancy Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 1855 Lick Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 1057 Little Bear Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 2063 Little Bourbeuse River Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 1721 Little Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 3115 Main Ditch No UAA submitted Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 0742 Manacle Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 1725 McMullen Branch Insufficient data and UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 1735 Muddy Creek Data discrepancy Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 2873 Musco Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 1780 Nations Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 0887 Otter Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 0741 Owl Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 1127 Rainy Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 3623 Rocky Branch Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 1146 Sellers Hollow Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 0087 Sharpsburg Branch Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 0098 South Spencer Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 0224 Spencer Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 1531 Tick Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 3497 Tributary to Coon Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 3498 Tributary to Coon Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 2065 Tributary to Little Bourbeuse River Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 2439 West Fork Roark Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 3136 Wolf Hole Lateral No UAA submitted Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved 0718 Youngs Creek Insufficient UAA Downgrade from WBC-B to SCR disapproved Disapproved – SCR Use Designations: Coon Creek (WBID 0187) On October 31, 2006, the EPA determined that new or revised WQS were necessary for Coon Creek (WBID 0187). In its submission, Missouri designated Coon Creek for SCR, withholding the designation for WBC-B because “the department did not believe the data were representative of baseflow conditions.”1 EPA relied on data provided in UAAs submitted in 2005, 2006, and 2007, which indicate Coon Creek has adequate depth to support WBCR. The information provided by Missouri in the UAAs and public comment does not sufficiently rebut the presumption that WBCR is attainable in Coon Creek. The EPA disapproved the SCR designated use for Coon Creek. Mississippi River (WBID 1707.02) In 2005, the St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) submitted a UAA to MDNR attempting to address the attainability of recreational uses on the 28.6-mile segment surrounding the City of St. Louis. MDNR did not find MSD's UAA to sufficiently demonstrate that a whole body contact recreation use cannot be attained and proposed to the Missouri Clean Water Commission that the 28.6-mile segment be designated whole body contact recreation. The Missouri Clean Water Commission rejected MDNR's proposal and instead directed 1 Missouri Register. 2009. Order of Rulemaking 10 CSR 20-7.031. September 15, 2009. Vol. 34, No. 18. Page 2008. MDNR to designate the entire 190.5-mile segment of the Mississippi River for secondary contact recreation. MDNR subsequently adopted the secondary contact recreation use designation and formally submitted it and MSD's UAA to the EPA for review on March 28, 2006. On October 29, 2009, the EPA made a determination on the portion of the Mississippi River near St. Louis (WBID 1707.02) that new or revised standards were necessary. This segment, which flows from North Riverfront Park downstream to the confluence with the Meramec River, is designated for SCR. The EPA determined that new or revised standards are necessary because the majority of this 28.3-mile segment has shoreline features that include public parks, boat ramps, bike trails and some sandy areas with gentle sloping banks and the available information does not demonstrate that water quality necessary to support a whole body contact recreation use is not attainable in this segment. Moreover, the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR § 131.10(b) provide that a State "shall ensure that its water quality standards provide for attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream waters." Accordingly, the EPA disapproved the SCR use designation for this segment of the Mississippi River (WBID 1707.02). On December 11, 2012, Missouri resubmitted secondary contact recreation use designation for the Mississippi River WBID 1707.02. EPA action on this submission is pending. On January 6, 2015 the EPA noted that Mississippi River’s recreational use designation will continue to be reviewed. River des Peres (WBID 1710) On October 31, 2006, the EPA determined that new or revised water quality standards were necessary for one segment (WBID 1711) of River des Peres. The EPA also determined that no designated uses for protection of recreation were necessary for another segment (WBID 1710). In its 2009 submission, Missouri resegmented the River des Peres, combining WBIDs 1710 and 1711, and designated the resulting segment (WBID 1710) for SCR. Public comments and a video comment were not considered by the MDNR. The MDNR review committee found the UAA to be inconclusive despite the fact that these public comments provide information indicating previous WBCR use by the public. The EPA believes consideration of relevant public comments to be critically important when considering a designated use change.2 The EPA does not believe that the information provided by Missouri in the UAA and Missouri’s consideration of the public comments sufficiently rebut the presumption that WBCR is attainable in River des Peres. Absent a sufficient showing of why WBCR is not attainable, a designation of only SCR was also disapproved. Wamsley Creek (WBID 505) On October 31, 2006, the EPA determined that new or revised water quality standards were necessary for Wamsley Creek (WBID 505). Missouri submitted a 2007 UAA and designated Wamsley for SCR, withholding the designation for WBC-B because “no WBCR was observed”, “no interviews were conducted during the survey”, and “the stream did not meet the depth criteria at any of the 3 sites evaluated.” However, public comments submitted to the MDNR indicate that Wamsley Creek is used for WBCR in the three-to-four foot pools in the bends if the creek. The information provided by the public comments did not sufficiently rebut the presumption that WBCR is attainable in Wamsley Creek. Dry Hollow (WBID 3163) On September 27, 2013, EPA disapproved SCR use designation for Dry Hollow because no UAA was submitted to EPA for this segment. 2 See EPA’s actions on Iowa’s WQS dated November 24, 2009, June 29, 2010, and November 19, 2010. Fenton Creek (WBID 3335) On September 27, 2013, EPA disapproved SCR use designation for Fenton Creek because the UAA documented a surrounding urban area, city roads/bridges, an unimproved access road, a foot path leading to the segment, a child’s fort in a tree overhanging the stream, and an adjacent public park. Aerial images confirm that homes lie within 15 m of this segment. In urban settings such as this, the Protocol (page 15) stresses the need for an expanded survey effort and the importance of conducting interviews with local residents; however, no expanded survey and no interviews were conducted as part of the UAA. Caution is warranted in this instance, as children likely access the stream for recreational purposes. Overall, the submitted UAA and accompanying informational materials failed to demonstrate that WBC is not an attainable use.