COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION
REGULATION NO. 31
THE BASIC STANDARDS AND METHODOLOGIES FOR SURFACE WATER
(5 CCR 1002-31)
. . . 
31.5	DEFINITIONS
. . . 
 (7)	“CHRONIC STANDARD” means the level not to be exceeded by the concentration for either a single representative sample or calculated as an average of all samples collected during a thirty-day period, except for temperature, which shall be based on the WAT (see WAT definition). As used in tables II and III, chronic represents the level that protects 95 percent of the genera from chronic toxic effects. Chronic toxic effects include, but are not limited to, demonstrable abnormalities and adverse effects on survival, growth, or reproduction. The chronic standard is implemented in combination with a selected duration and frequency of recurrence (section 31.9(1)).  In determining attainment of the applicable chronic standard, the representative nature of the data must be considered.
. . . 
 (20)	“EXISTING QUALITY” means the 85th percentile of the data for total ammonia, nitrate, and the dissolved metals, the 50th percentile for total recoverable metals, the 15th percentile of such data for dissolved oxygen, the geometric mean of such data for E. coli, and the range between the 15th and 85th percentiles for pH.  For temperature, for the purposes of implementing the chronic standard, “existing quality” means the maximum WAT in a three year period.
. . . 
 (25)	“MAXIMUM WEEKLY AVERAGE TEMPERATURE (MWAT)” means an implementation statistic that is calculated from field monitoring data.  The MWAT is calculated as the largest mathematical mean of multiple, equally spaced temperatures over a seven-day consecutive period, with a minimum of three data points spaced equally through the day.   For lakes and reservoirs, the summertime MWAT is assumed to be equivalent to the maximum WAT from at least three profiles distributed throughout the growing season (generally July-September).
. . . 
31.7	PROCESS FOR ASSIGNING STANDARDS AND GRANTING, EXTENDING, OR REMOVING TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS AND VARIANCES
Overview:  Assigning or changing a standard or granting, removing before its expiration, or extending a temporary modification or variance shall be accomplished by a rule after a rulemaking hearing. The procedures for taking such action shall be the same as the procedures for assigning or changing classifications.  See section 31.6(3)(a)(i).
(1)	Assigning Standards
. . . 
(b)	Numeric Standards
. . . 
 (ii)	Ambient Quality-Based Standards
For state surface waters where evidence has been presented that the natural or irreversible man-induced ambient water quality levels are higher than specific numeric levels contained in tables I, II, and III, but are determined adequate to protect classified uses, the Commission may adopt site-specific chronic standards equal to the existing quality of the available representative data.  Site-specific acute standards for parameters in Table III shall be based on the 95th percentile value of the available representative data. 
. . . 
(3)	Granting, Extending, and Removing Temporary Modifications to Numeric Standards
Where non-attainment of underlying standards has been demonstrated or predicted the Commission may grant a temporary modification to a numeric standard upon a showing that the conditions in subsection (a), below, exist..  The presence of a modification will be indicated by adding the words  “Temporary Modification” in the Temporary Modifications and Qualifiers column, and listing the parameter, the operative value and the expiration date.  A temporary modification may be granted to an entire stream or water body or to any portion thereof.  It may be granted at the time a numeric standard is assigned or at any later time.  When the temporary modification expires or is removed by the Commission, the underlying numeric standard will be in full effect.  In every case, the modification to the numeric standard shall be temporary.  All temporary modifications must be re‑examined not less than once every three (3) years.
In general, requests for a temporary modification are preferred over a more permanent downgrading of a present classification where it appears that the conditions causing the lower water quality might be temporary within a twenty (20) year time frame.  The adoption of a temporary modification recognizes current conditions while providing an opportunity to resolve the uncertainty.  Retaining a classification higher than the present usage will serve as a reminder that the conditions are correctable and may increase the priority for funding to attain the classified use.
(a)	Conditions Justifying a Temporary Modification
The Commission may grant a temporary modification if:
(i)	an existing permitted discharge has a demonstrated or predicted water quality-based effluent limit compliance problem, and 
(ii)	one of the following is shown to exist:
(A)	there is significant uncertainty regarding the water quality standard necessary to protect current and/or future uses. 
(B)	there is significant uncertainty regarding the extent to which existing quality is the result of natural or irreversible human-induced conditions. 
(C)	there is significant uncertainty regarding the timing of implementing attainable source controls or treatment (this subsection C is repealed effective 1/1/2013).
(b)	Adequate Supporting Information
Adequate supporting information must be submitted including a justification for the interim narrative or numeric value, wherever possible raw data describing effluent and ambient quality, a plan for eliminating the need for the temporary modification, and a justification for the proposed expiration date.
(c)	Eliminating the Need for A Temporary Modification
Regional wastewater management plans (208 plans) and plan updates, discharge permits, wasteload allocations, planning, design, and construction of new enlarged, or improved facilities, management practices, and other water quality controls and actions shall be geared toward fully attaining the classified use and underlying numeric standard and assist in eliminating the need for the temporary modification, in a manner consistent with the provisions of subsection 31.14.
(d)	Duration of a Temporary Modification
When a temporary modification is granted, the duration of the temporary modification will be set by the Commission.  The duration of a temporary modification shall be determined on a case‑by‑case basis, based upon all relevant factors, including how soon resolving the issues that necessitated adoption of the temporary modification is deemed feasible.  In making a decision as to whether a temporary modification should be removed or extended, the Commission will consider the existence of an implementation plan for eliminating the need for the temporary modification, the progress being made in trying to implement such a plan, the impact of the temporary modification on the uses of the stream in the area of the temporary modification and upstream and downstream of that area, and all other relevant factors.
(e)	Frequency of Commission Review 
The Commission will hold an annual public hearing to review temporary modifications which expire within approximately two years of the hearing date.  As a result of the hearing, the Commission may:
(i)	Delete the temporary modification and allow the existing underlying standards to go into effect;
(ii)	Delete the temporary modification and adopt a revised underlying standard;
(iii)	Extend the expiration date of the current temporary modification, with or without a revised underlying standard; or
(iv)	Adopt a revised temporary modification with an appropriate expiration date.
(4)	Granting, Extending and Removing Variances to Numeric Standards (effective January 1, 2013)
A variance to a water quality standard may be granted by the Water Quality Control Commission when the criteria of this subsection are met.  The presence of the variance will be indicated in the appropriate water quality standards regulation.  When the variance expires or is removed by the Commission, the underlying standard will be in full effect.  In every case, the variance to the standard shall be temporary and must be re-examined not less than once every three years.
(a)	Criteria for Granting a Discharger-Specific Variance  
Variances to numeric standards are authorized only where a comprehensive alternatives analysis demonstrates that there are no feasible alternatives that would allow for the regulated activity to proceed without a discharge that exceeds water quality-based effluent limits. In addition, an applicant for a variance must satisfy both of the following criteria. 
(i)	Tests to Determine the Need for a Variance
(A)	Limits of Technology:  Demonstration that attaining the water quality standard is not feasible because, as applied to the point source discharge, pollutant removal techniques are not available or it is technologically infeasible to meet the standard; 
 (B)	Economics:  Demonstration that attaining the water quality standard is not feasible because meeting the standard, as applied to the point source discharge, will cause substantial and widespread adverse social and economic impacts in the area where the discharge is located.  Considerations include such factors as the cost and affordability of pollutant removal techniques; or 
(C)	Other Consequences: Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct than to leave in place.
(ii)	Demonstration that the conditions for granting a temporary modification are not met; or, if those conditions are met, determination by the Commission, after considering the site-specific circumstances, that granting a variance under this subsection is preferable as a matter of policy.
(b)	Selection of Alternative Effluent Limits
An applicant for a variance shall submit a comprehensive alternatives analysis regarding pollutant removal techniques.  Variances approved by the Commission shall be incorporated into the relevant standards tables as  “alternative effluent limits.”  The Commission shall select such limits based upon an evaluation of the alternatives analysis and consideration of the impact of the variance on the uses of the water body in the area of the variance and downstream of that area.  Alternative effluent limits represent the highest degree of protection of the classified use that is feasible within 20 years, taking into consideration the factors in subsection (4)(a)(i)(C), as appropriate, and must maintain and protect existing uses in a manner consistent with federal requirements.
(c)	Duration of a Variance
When a variance is granted, the duration of the variance will be set by the Commission.  The duration of a variance shall be determined on a case-by-case basis, based upon all relevant factors, including the potential for achieving more protective effluent levels. 
(d)	Considerations for Extending a Variance
A variance shall not be extended if the permittee did not submit the reports required under section 31.14(17)(c) and substantially comply with all other conditions of the variance.
31.8	ANTIDEGRADATION
. . . 
(2)	Water Quality-Based Designations
. . . 
 (b)	Use-Protected Designation
. . . 
(i)	Waters shall be designated . . . 
 (C)	The water body was an effluent-dominated or effluent-dependent stream during the period 2000-2009, except that the Commission may determine that the water body should be undesignated, and subject to the protection provided by the antidegradation review process, based on the water body's public resource value and ecological significance.
. . . 
31.11	BASIC STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO SURFACE WATERS OF THE STATE
. . . 
 (3)	The interim organic pollutant standards contained in the following Basic Standards for Organic Chemicals Table are applicable to all surface waters of the state for which the corresponding use classifications have been adopted, unless alternative site-specific standards have been adopted pursuant to sub-section (4) below.
Note that all standards in the Basic Standards for Organic Chemicals Table are being adopted as “interim standards.”  These interim standards will remain in effect until alternative permanent standards are adopted by the Commission in revisions to this regulation or site-specific standards determinations.  Although fully effective with respect to current regulatory applications, these interim standards shall not be considered final or permanent standards subject to antibacksliding or downgrading restrictions.
. . . 
1 	All standards are chronic or 30-day standards.  They are based on information contained in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and/or EPA lifetime health advisories for drinking water using a 10-6 incremental risk factor unless otherwise noted.
2	Only applicable to segments classified for water supply.
3 	Applicable to all Class 1 aquatic life segments which also have a water supply classification or Class 2 aquatic life segments which also have a water supply classification designated by the Commission after rulemaking hearing.  These class 2 segments will generally be those where fish of a catchable size and which are normally consumed are present, and where there is evidence that fishing takes place on a recurring basis.  The Commission may also consider additional evidence that may be relevant to a determination whether the conditions applicable to a particular segment are similar enough to the assumptions underlying the water plus fish ingestion criteria to warrant the adoption of water plus fish ingestion standards for the segment in question.
4 	Applicable to all aquatic life segments.
5	PQL's for the constituents listed above can be found at section 61.8((2)(I) of the Regulations for the State Discharge Permit System.
6	Standards are pH dependent.  Those listed are calculated for pH = 7.8.
	     Acute = e[1.005(pH)-4.869];  Chronic = e[1.005(pH)-5.134].
7	Total trihalomethanes are considered the sum of the concentrations of bromodichloromethane (CAS No. 75-27-4), dibromochloromethane (Chlorodibromomethane(HM), CAS No. 124-48-1), tribromomethane (bromoform, CAS No. 75-25-2) and trichloromethane (chloroform, CAS No. 67-66-3).
8	Applicable to the following segments which do not have a water supply classification: all Class 1 aquatic life segments or Class 2 aquatic life segments designated by the Commission after rulemaking hearing.  These class 2 segments will generally be those where fish of a catchable size and which are normally consumed are present, and where there is evidence that fishing takes place on a recurring basis.  The Commission may also consider additional evidence that may be relevant to a determination whether the conditions applicable to a particular segment are similar enough to the assumptions underlying the fish ingestion criteria to warrant the adoption of fish ingestion standards for the segment in question.
9	PCBs are a class of chemicals which include aroclors, 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248,1260 and 1016, CAS numbers 53469-21-9, 11097-69-1, 11104-28-2, 11141-16-5, 12672-29-6, 11096-82-5, and 12674-11-2 respectively.  The aquatic life criteria apply to this set of PCBs.  The human health criteria apply to total PCBs, i.e. the sum of all congenor or all isomer analyses.
10	The chronic aquatic life standard is more stringent than the associated Water+Fish or Fish Ingestion standard, and therefore no Water+Fish or Fish Ingestion standard has been adopted.
11	The Water+Fish and Fish Ingestions standards for these compounds have been calculated using a relative source contribution (RSC).
12	Whenever a range of standards is listed and referenced to this footnote, the first number in the range is a strictly health-based value, based on the Commission’s established methodology for human health-based standards.  The second number in the range is a maximum contaminant level, established under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act that has been determined to be an acceptable level of this chemical in public water supplies, taking treatability and laboratory detection limits into account.  Control requirements, such as discharge permit effluent limitations, shall be established using the first number in the range as the ambient water quality target, provided that no effluent limitation shall require an “end-of-pipe” discharge level more restrictive than the second number in the range.  Water bodies will be considered in attainment of this standard, and not included on the Section 303(d) List, so long as the existing ambient quality does not exceed the second number in the range.
C	Carcinogens classified by the EPA as A, B1, or B2.
M	Drinking water MCL.
CAS No. - Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number.
(HM) – Halomethanes
(PAH) - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons. 
-------------------------
(4)	Site-Specific Radioactive Materials and Organic Pollutants Standards.
. . . 
31.14	INTEGRATION INTO DISCHARGE PERMITS
. . . 
(15)	Except as provided below, where a temporary modification is adopted pursuant to sections 31.7(3)(a)(ii)(A) and (B) permits for existing and new discharges to the segment in question:
(a)	Will not include a compliance schedule to meet limits based on the underlying standard during the period that the temporary modification is in effect.  The Division, where necessary and within a reasonable period of the expiration of a temporary modification, shall reopen any permit for a discharge to that segment and include a compliance schedule to attain limits based on the underlying standard in accordance with section 31.14(4), above.
(b)	May include a compliance schedule requiring actions intended to eliminate the uncertainty regarding the appropriate underlying standard.
(16)	Subsection (15)(a) and (b) notwithstanding, the Division, based on its best professional judgment, may: 
(a)	Where an existing permit is reissued while a temporary modification is in effect, determine limitations or other conditions for the parameter(s) in question based on an assessment of the level of effluent quality reasonably achievable without requiring significant investment in facility infrastructure (e.g. - based on past facility performance).  Such limit (numerical or otherwise) may be at or below the level of the temporary modification where such a requirement would not cause an undue economic burden, but not more restrictive than necessary to achieve the underlying standard. 
(b)	set effluent limits in permits for new or expanding facilities at a level that does not pose an unreasonable risk to downstream uses. 
(17)	Conditions on Discharger-Specific Variances:  A discharger-specific variance applies only to the point source specified in the variance and to the pollutant specified in the variance.  A permit action issued to implement a discharger-specific variance shall require: 
(a)	For existing discharges, compliance with an initial effluent limitation which, at the time the variance is approved, at a minimum represents the level currently achieved.  At the time a variance is approved, unless the alternative limit is currently achieved, a compliance schedule will be specified which requires progress toward the alternative effluent limitation as quickly as feasible.  
(b)	For new discharges, compliance with an initial effluent limitation which, at the time the variance is approved, represents the highest degree of protection of the classified use that is currently feasible, taking into consideration the factors in subsection 31.7(4)(a)(i)(C), as appropriate.  
(c)	Ongoing investigation of treatment technologies, process changes, wastewater reuse, or other controls that may result in improvement in effluent quality, and submission of reports on the investigations to allow for timely consideration of the information during the scheduled review of the variance by the Commission.  
(d)	Conditions in the permit as necessary to administer the variance including, but not limited to, additional monitoring requirements. 
. . . 
31.16	TABLES
. . . 
 3)	REFERENCES
. . . 
(O)	Raisbeck, M.F., S. L. Riker, C. M. Tate, R. Jackson, M. A. Smith, K. J. Reddy and J. R. Zygmunt.  2008.  Water quality for Wyoming livestock and wildlife. University of Wyoming AES Bulletin B-1183. 

TABLE I PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS	
Parameter	Recreational	Aquatic Life	Agriculture	Domestic Water Supply	
 	CLASS E (Existing Primary Contact)
and CLASS U (Undetermined Use)	CLASS P (Potential Primary Contact Use)	CLASS N 
(Not Primary Contact Use)	CLASS 1 COLD WATER BIOTA
	CLASS 1 WARM WATER BIOTA
	CLASS 2
	 	 	
PHYSICAL	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
D.O. (mg/l)(1)(9)	3.0(A)	3.0(A)	3.0(A)	6.0(2)(G) 7.0(spawning)	5.0(2)(G) 	5.0(A)	3.0(A)	3.0(A)	
pH (Std. Units)(3)	6.5–9.0 (Bm)	6.5–9.0 (Bm)	6.5–9.0 (Bm)	6.5–9.0(A)	6.5–9.0(A)	6.5–9.0(A)		5.0–9.0(A)	
Suspended Solids(4)									
Temperature (C)  (5)				Rivers & Streams: 
Tier Ia:
June-Sept = 17.0 (ch),  21.7(ac)

Oct –May = 9.0 (ch), 13.0 (ac)

Tier IIb:
Apr-Oct =18.3 (ch), 23.9 (ac)

Nov-Mar =9.0 (ch), 13.0 (ac)

Lakes & Res: 
Apr-Dec =  17.0 (ch), 21.2 (ac)

Jan-Mar =  9.0 (ch), 13.0 (ac)

Large Lakes & Resc: 
Apr-Dec =  18.3(ch), 23.8 (ac)

Jan-Mar =  9.0(ch), 13.0 (ac)
	Rivers & Streams:
Tier Id:
Mar-Nov = 24.2(ch), 29.0 (ac)

Dec-Feb= 12.1(ch), 14.5(ac)

Tier IIe:
Mar-Nov= 27.5(ch), 28.6(ac)

Dec-Feb=13.8 (ch), 14.3 (ac)

Tier IIIf:
Mar-Nov = 28.7 (ch), 31.8 (ac)

Dec-Feb = 14.3 (ch), 15.9 (ac)

Lakes & Res: 
Apr-Dec =  26.3 (ch), 29.5 (ac)

Jan-Mar =  13.2 (ch), 14.8 (ac)  	Same as Class 1			
BIOLOGICAL:									
E. coli per 100 ml	126(7)	205(7)	630(7)					630	
  Note: Capital letters In parentheses refer to references listed in section 31.16(3); Numbers in parentheses refer to Table 1 footnotes.	
Temperature Definitions
a Cold Stream Tier I temperature criteria apply where cutthroat trout and brook trout are expected to occur.
b Cold Stream Tier II temperature criteria apply where cold-water aquatic species, excluding cutthroat trout or brook trout, are expected to occur.
c Large Cold Lakes temperature criteria apply to lakes and reservoirs with a surface area equal to or greater than 100 acres surface area.
d Warm Stream Tier I temperature criteria apply where common shiner, Johnny darter, or orangethroat darter are expected to occur.
e Warm Stream Tier II temperature criteria apply where brook stickleback, central stoneroller, creek chub, finescale dace, longnose dace, Northern redbelly dace, razorback sucker, or white sucker are expected occur, and none of the more thermally sensitive species in Tier I are expected to occur.
f Warm Stream Tier III temperature criteria apply where warm-water aquatic species are expected to occur, and none of the more thermally sensitive species in Tiers I and II are expected to occur.	

Table I – Footnotes
(1)	Standards for dissolved oxygen are minima, unless specified otherwise.  For the purposes of permitting, dissolved oxygen may be modeled for average conditions of temperature and flow for the worst case time period.  Where dissolved oxygen levels less than these levels occur naturally, a discharge shall not cause a further reduction in dissolved oxygen in receiving water. (For lakes, also see footnote 9.)
. . . 
 (5)	Temperature shall maintain a normal pattern of diel and seasonal fluctuations and spatial diversity with no abrupt changes and shall have no increase in temperature of a magnitude, rate, and duration deleterious to the resident aquatic life.  These criteria shall not be interpreted or applied in a manner inconsistent with section 25-8-104, C.R.S.  
a.	The MWAT of a waterbody shall not exceed the chronic temperature criterion more than once in three years, except as described in c, below.
b.	The DM of a waterbody shall not exceed the acute temperature criterion more than once in three years, except as described in c, below
c.	The following shall not be considered an exceedance of the criteria:
i.	Air temperature excursion:  ambient water temperature may exceed the criteria in Table 1 or the applicable site-specific standard when the daily maximum air temperature exceeds the 90th percentile value of the monthly maximum air temperatures calculated using at least 10 years of air temperature data. 
ii.	Low-flow excursion:  ambient water temperature may exceed the criteria in Table 1 or the applicable site-specific standard when the daily stream flow falls below the acute critical low flow or monthly average stream flow falls below the chronic critical low flow, calculated pursuant to Regulation 31.9(1)
iii	Lakes and reservoirs:  When a lake or reservoir is stratified, the mixed layer may exceed the criteria in Table 1 provided that an adequate refuge exists in water below the mixed layer.  Adequate refuge depends on concurrent attainment of applicable dissolved oxygen standards.  If the refuge is not adequate because of dissolved oxygen levels, the lake or reservoir may be included on the 303(d) List as “impaired” for dissolved oxygen, rather than for temperature.
iv.	Winter shoulder-season excursion:  For the purposes of assessment, ambient water temperatures in cold streams may exceed the winter criteria in Table 1 or applicable site-specific winter standard for 30-days before the winter/summer transition, and 30-days after the summer/winter transition, provided that the natural seasonal progression of temperature is maintained and that temperature exceedances during these periods are not the result of anthropogenic activities in the watershed.
(6)	Deleted
(7)	E.coli criteria and resulting standards for individual water segments, are established as indicators of the potential presence of pathogenic organisms.  Standards for E. coli  are expressed as a two-month geometric mean.  Site-specific or seasonal standards are also two-month geometric means unless otherwise specified.
(8)	Deleted
(9)	The dissolved oxygen standard applies to lakes and reservoirs as follows.  
a.	Recreation: In the upper portion of a lake or reservoir, dissolved oxygen shall not be less than the criteria in Table 1 or the applicable site-specific standard.  In the lower portion of a lake or reservoir, dissolved oxygen may be less than the applicable standard except where a site-specific standard has been adopted.  A site-specific dissolved oxygen standard will be established for the lower portion of a lake or reservoir where there is evidence that primary contact occurs within the lower portion.  
b.	Agriculture:  In the upper portion of a lake or reservoir, dissolved oxygen shall not be less than the criteria in Table 1 or the applicable site-specific standard.   In the lower portion of a lake or reservoir, dissolved oxygen may be less than the applicable standard except where a site-specific standard has been adopted.  A site-specific dissolved oxygen standard will be established for the lower portion of a lake or reservoir where there is evidence that livestock watering or irrigation water is pumped from the lower portion.  
c.	Aquatic Life:  In the upper portion of a lake or reservoir, dissolved oxygen shall not be less than the criteria in Table 1 or the applicable site-specific standard.  In the lower portion of a lake or reservoir, dissolved oxygen may be less than the applicable standard except where footnote 5(c)(iii) applies or a site-specific standard has been adopted.  A site-specific dissolved oxygen standard will be established for the lower portion of a lake or reservoir where the expected aquatic community has habitat requirements within the lower portion.
i.	Fall turnover exclusion: Dissolved oxygen may drop 1 mg/l below the criteria in Table 1 in the upper portion of a lake or reservoir for up to seven consecutive days during fall turnover provided that profile measurements are taken at a consistent location within the lake or reservoir 7-days before, and 7-days after the profile with low dissolved oxygen.  The profile measurements taken before and after the profile with low dissolved oxygen must attain the criteria in Table 1 in the upper portion of the lake or reservoir.  The fall turnover exclusion does not apply to lakes or reservoirs with fish species that spawn in the fall unless there are data to show that adequate dissolved oxygen is maintained in all spawning areas, for the entire duration of fall turnover.  
d. 	Water Supply: The dissolved oxygen criteria is intended to apply to the epilmnion and metalimnion strata of lakes and reservoirs.  Dissolved oxygen in the hypolimnion may, due to the natural conditions, be less than the table criteria.  No reductions in dissolved oxygen levels due to controllable sources is allowed.

TABLE II INORGANIC PARAMETERS	
PARAMETER	AQUATIC LIFE	AGRICULTURE	DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY	
 	CLASS 1 Cold Water Biota	CLASS 1 Warm Water Biota	CLASS 2	 	 	
INORGANICS:	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Ammonia (mg/l as N) Total	chronic = elsp or elsa (1)  
acute = sp (1) (N)	chronic = Apr 1-Aug 31=elsp(1) Sept 1-Mar 29=elsa(1)
acute = sa(1) (N)	Class 2 Cold/Warm have the same standards as Class 1 Cold/Warm (N)			
Total residual Chlorine (mg/l)	0.019 (L) (1-day)	0.011 (L) (30-day)	0.019 (L) (1-day)	0.011 (L) (30-day)	0.011 (L) (30-day)			
Cyanide - Free (mg/l)	0.005(H) (1-day)		0.005(H) (1-day)		0.005(H) (1-day)	0.2(G) (1-day)	0.2(B,Dm) (1-day)	
Fluoride (mg/l)							2.0(3)(E) (1-day)	
Nitrate (mg/l as N)						100(2)(B)	10(4)(K) (1-day)	
Nitrite (mg/l as N)	TO BE ESTABLISHED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS (3)	A CASE BY CASE BASIS (3)	10(2)(B) (1-day)	1.0(2)(4)(K) (1-day)	
Sulfide as H2S (mg/l)	0.002 undissociated(A) 
(30-day)	0.002 undissociated(A) (30-day)	0.002 undissociated(A)
 (30-day)		0.05(F) (30-day)	
Boron (mg/l)						0.75(A,B) (30-day)		
Chloride (mg/l)							250(F) (30-day)	
Sulfate (mg/l)							250(F) (30-day)	
Asbestos							7,000,000 fibers/L(5)	
 NOTE: Capital letters in parentheses refer to references listed 31.16(3); numbers in parentheses refer to table II footnotes.	

Table II – Footnotes
. . . 
 (4)	The nitrate limit shall be calculated to meet the relevant standard in accordance with the provisions of Section 31.10 of this regulation, unless; 
a.	The permittee provides documentation that a reasonable level of inquiry demonstrates that there is no actual domestic water supply use of the waters in question or of hydrologically connected ground water, or
b.	The combined total of nitrate plus nitrite at the point of intake to the domestic water supply will not exceed 10 mg/l as demonstrated through modeling or other scientifically supportable analysis
(5)	Asbestos standard applies to fibers 10 micrometers or longer.

TABLE III METAL PARAMETERS (Concentration in ug/l)	
METAL(1)	AQUATIC LIFE(1)(3)(4)(J)	AGRICULTURE(2)	DOMESTIC WATER-SUPPLY(2)	WATER + FISH(7)	FISH INGESTION(10)	
 	ACUTE	CHRONIC	 	 	 	 	
Aluminum	e(1.3695[In(hardness)]+1.8308) (tot.rec.)	87 or e(1.3695[In(hardness)]-0.1158 (tot.rec.)(11)			---	---	
Antimony				6.0 (30-day)	5.6	640	
Arsenic	340	150	100(A) (30-day)	0.02 – 10(13) (30-day)(14)	0.02	7.6	
Barium				1,000(E)(1-day) 490 (30-day)	---	---	
Beryllium			100(A,B) (30-day)	4.0 (30-day)	---	---	
Cadmium	(1.136672-[ln(hardness) x (0.041838)] )x e0.9151[ln(hardness)]-3.1485

(Trout)=(1.136672-[ln(hardness)x (0.041838)] )x e0.9151[ln(hardness)]-3.6236
	(1.101672-[ln(hardness) x(0.041838)]) x e0.7998[ln(hardness)]-4.4451 
	10(B) (30-day)	5.0(E) (1-day)	---	---	
Chromium III(5)	e(0.819[ln(hardness)]+2.5736)	e(0.819[ln(hardness)]+0.5340)	100(B) (30-day)	50(E) (1-day)	---	---	
Chromium VI(5)	16	11	100(B) (30-day)	50(E) (1-day)	100(30-day)	---	
Copper	e(0.9422[ln(hardness)]-1.7408)	e(0.8545[ln(hardness)]-1.7428)	200(B)	1,000(F) (30-day)	1,300	---	
Iron		1,000(tot.rec.)(A,C)		300(dis)(F) (30-day)	---	---	
Lead	(1.46203-[(ln(hardness)* (0.145712)])*e(1.273[ln(hardness)]-1.46)	(1.46203-[(ln(hardness)* (0.145712)])*e(1.273[ln(hardness)]-4.705)	100(B) (30-day)	50(E) (1-day)	—	---	
Manganese	e(0.3331[ln(hardness)]+6.4676)	e(0.3331[ln(hardness)]+5.8743)	200(B) (30-day)(12)	50(dis)(F) (30-day)	—	---	
Mercury		FRV(fish)(6) = 0.01 (Total)		2.0(E) (1-day)	—	---	
Molybdenum			300(O) (30-day)(16)	210 (30-day)			
Nickel	e(0.846[ln(hardness)]+2.253)	e(0.846[ln(hardness)]+0.0554)	200(B) (30-day)	100(E) (30-day)	610	4,600	
Selenium(9)	18.4	4.6	20(B,D) (30-day)	50(E) (30-day)	170	4,200	
Silver	½e(1.72[ln(hardness)]-6.52)	e(1.72[ln(hardness)]-9.06) 
(Trout) = e(1.72[ln(hardness)]-10.51)		100(F) (1-day)	—	---	
Thallium		15(C)		0.5 (30-day)	0.24	0.47	
Uranium(17)	e(1.1021[ln(hardness)]+2.7088)	e(1.1021[ln(hardness)]+2.2382)		16.8 – 30(13) (30-day) 	---	---	
Zinc	0.978*e(0.9094[ln(hardness)]+0.9095)	0.986*e(0.9094[ln(hardness)]+0.6235)
(sculpin)(15) = e(2.140[ln(hardness)]-5.084)	2000(B) (30-day)	5,000(F) (30-day)	7,400	26,000	
      NOTE:  Capital letters in parentheses refer to references listed in section 31.16(3); Numbers in parentheses refer to Table III footnote	

Table III – Footnotes
. . . 
(3)	Hardness values to be used in equations are in mg/l as calcium carbonate and shall be no greater than 400 mg/l.  The exception is for Al, where the upper cap on calculations is a hardness of 220 mg/l.  For permit effluent limit calculations, the hardness values used in calculating the appropriate metal standard should be based on the lower 95 per cent confidence limit of the mean hardness value at the periodic low flow criteria as determined from a regression analysis of site‑specific data.  Where insufficient site‑specific data exists to define the mean hardness value at the periodic low flow criteria, representative regional data shall be used to perform the regression analysis.  Where a regression analysis is not possible, a site‑specific method should be used, e.g., where hardness data exists without paired flow data, the mean of the hardness during the low flow season established in the permit shall be used.  In calculating a hardness value, regression analyses should not be extrapolated past the point that data exist.  For determination of standards attainment, where paired metal/hardness data is available, attainment will be determined for individual sampling events.  Where paired data is not available, the mean hardness will be used.
. . . 
(11) 	Where the pH is equal to or greater than 7.0 in the receiving water after mixing, the chronic hardness-dependent equation will apply.  Where pH is less than 7.0 in the receiving water after mixing, either the 87 μg/l chronic total recoverable aluminum criterion or the criterion resulting from the chronic hardness-dependent equation will apply, whichever is more stringent.
(12)	This standard is only appropriate where irrigation water is applied to soils with pH values lower than 6.0.
(13)	Whenever a range of standards is listed and referenced to this footnote, the first number in the range is a strictly health-based value, based on the Commission’s established methodology for human health-based standards.  The second number in the range is a maximum contaminant level, established under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act that has been determined to be an acceptable level of this chemical in public water supplies, taking treatability and laboratory detection limits into account.  Control requirements, such as discharge permit effluent limitations, shall be established using the first number in the range as the ambient water quality target, provided that no effluent limitation shall require an “end-of-pipe” discharge level more restrictive than the second number in the range.  Water bodies will be considered in attainment of this standard, and not included on the Section 303(d) List, so long as the existing ambient quality does not exceed the second number in the range.
 (14)	The arsenic limit shall be calculated to meet the relevant standard in accordance with the provisions of Section 31.10 of this regulation unless:
a.	The permittee provides documentation that a reasonable level of inquiry demonstrates that there is no actual domestic water supply use of the waters in question or of hydrologically connected ground water, or
b.	The arsenic concentration at the point of intake to the domestic water supply will not exceed the standard as demonstrated through modeling or other scientifically supportable analysis.
(15)	The chronic zinc equation for sculpin applies in areas where mottled sculpin are expected to occur and hardness is less than 102 ppm CaCO3.  The regular chronic zinc equation applies in areas where mottled sculpin are expected to occur, but the hardness is greater than 102 ppm CaCO3.
(16)	In determining whether adoption of a molybdenum standard is appropriate for a segment, the Commission will consider whether livestock or irrigated forage is present or expected to be present.  The table value assumes that copper and molybdenum concentrations in forage are 7 mg/kg and 0.5 mg/kg respectively, forage intake is 6.8 kg/day, copper concentration in water is 0.008 mg/l, water intake is 54.6 l/day, copper supplementation is 48 mg/day, and that a Cu:Mo ratio of 4:1 is appropriate with a 0.075 mg/l molybdenum margin of safety.  Numeric standards different than the table-value may be adopted on a site-specific basis where appropriate justification is presented to the Commission.  In evaluating site-specific standards, the relevant factors that should be considered include the presence of livestock or irrigated forage, and the total intake of copper, molybdenum, and sulfur from all sources (i.e., food, water, and dietary supplements).  In general, site-specific standards should be based on achieving a safe copper:molybdenum total exposure ratio, with due consideration given to the sulfur exposure.  A higher Cu:Mo ratio may be necessary where livestock exposure to sulfur is also high.  Species specific information shall be considered where cattle are not the most sensitive species.
(17)	When applying the table value standards for uranium to individual segments, the Commission shall consider the need to maintain radioactive materials at the lowest practical level as required by Section 31.11(2) of the Basic Standards regulation.

Table IV
Table Value Standards for Selected Hardnesses
(concentration in ug/L, dissolved)	
	Mean Hardness in mg/L calcium carbonate	
		25	50	75	100	150	200	250	300	350	400	
Aluminum	Acute	512	1324	2307	3421	5960	8838	10071	10071	10071	10071	
	Chronic	73	189	329	488	851	1262	1438	1438	1438	1438	
Cadmium	Acute trout	0.5	0.9	1.3	1.7	2.4	3.1	3.8	4.4	5.1	5.7	
	Acute	0.8	1.5	2.1	2.7	3.9	5.0	6.1	7.1	8.1	9.2	
	Chronic	.15	.25	0.34	0.42	0.58	0.72	0.85	0.97	1.1	1.2	
Chromium III	Acute	183	323	450	570	794	1005	1207	1401	1590	1773	
	Chronic	24	42	59	74	103	131	157	182	207	231	
Copper	Acute	3.6	7.0	10	13	20	26	32	38	44	50	
	Chronic	2.7	5.0	7.0	9.0	13	16	20	23	26	29	
Lead	Acute	14	30	47	65	100	136	172	209	245	281	
	Chronic	0.5	1.2	1.8	2.5	3.9	5.3	6.7	8.1	9.5	11	
Manganese	Acute	1881	2370	2713	2986	3417	3761	4051	4305	4532	4738	
	Chronic	1040	1310	1499	1650	1888	2078	2238	2379	2504	2618	
Nickel	Acute	145	260	367	468	660	842	1017	1186	1351	1513	
	Chronic	16	29	41	52	72	94	113	132	150	168	
Silver	Acute	0.19	0.62	1.2	2.0	4.1	6.7	9.8	13	18	22	
	Chronic Trout	0.01	0.02	0.05	0.08	0.15	0.25	0.36	0.50	0.65	0.81	
	Chronic	0.03	0.10	0.20	0.32	0.64	1.0	1.6	2.1	2.8	3.5	
Uranium	Acute	521	1119	1750	2402	3756	5157	6595	8062	9555	11070	
	Chronic	326	699	1093	1501	2346	3221	4119	5036	5968	6915	
Zinc	Acute	45	85	123	160	231	301	368	435	500	565	
	Chronic
sculpin	6.1	27	64	118	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	
	Chronic	34	65	93	121	175	228	279	329	379	428	
Shaded values exceed drinking water supply standards.	

. . . . 
31.48	STATEMENT OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE; JUNE 7-8, 2010 RULEMAKING; FINAL ACTION AUGUST 9, 2010; EFFECTIVE DATE JANUARY 1, 2011
The provisions of sections 25-8-202(1)(b), 25-8-204; and 25-8-402, C.R.S., provide the specific statutory authority for adoption. The Commission also adopted, in compliance with section 24-4-103(4) C.R.S., the following statement of basis and purpose.
BASIS AND PURPOSE:
I.	WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION PROPOSALS
A.	Temporary Modifications
Background:  In 2000, the Commission added “type iii” temporary modifications to section 31.7(3) to recognize that uncertainty regarding the underlying standard was an appropriate use of temporary modifications (see Statement of Basis, Regulation #31, at section 31.37, IV C,).  In 2005, the Commission further revised section 31.7 to remove the distinction between the types of temporary modifications, clarify the durations of temporary modifications, and institute an annual review of temporary modifications.  One of the primary purposes of these revisions was to focus attention on ending the need for the temporary modification as soon as possible (see Statement of Basis, Regulation #31, 31.44, I. D).  These revisions resulted in a significant change in the Division’s approach to temporary modifications, primarily in limiting the use of temporary modifications to situations where there are point source discharges that face unreasonable outcomes.  
During the time that Colorado’s temporary modifications regulatory provisions have been changing, EPA has also revised its policy regarding permit compliance schedules.  Previously, it was thought that compliance schedules could be no longer than the term of the permit.  This meant that attainment of underlying water quality standards had to occur by the end of the five-year permit term.  EPA has recently revisited the issue and now says that compliance schedules can extend past the end of the permit term.
In the last few years, the Division has implemented the revised provisions both in the regularly scheduled basin hearings and in the new annual temporary modification review hearings.  Various parties have expressed concern about the new practices.  The current changes are the result of Standards Framework Work Group dialogue.
Organizational Revision of Section 31.7:  The current 31.7(4) was deleted and the contents moved to other sections in 31.7.  Overview language that was previously at subsection 31.7(4)(a) was moved to the beginning of 31.7 as an introductory paragraph, because it speaks to the process for all of the following subsections.  31.7(4) (b) was moved to the end of subsection (3) which addresses temporary modifications.  
Commission Intent: The Commission continues to believe that temporary modifications are an important and useful water quality standards tool. The benefits of recognizing a short-term need for flexibility in the standards system is evident specifically where there are permitted dischargers on the segment. 
The practical result of a temporary modification is to provide relief for permitted discharges until the time the uncertainty is resolved. The Commission continues to believe that it is more appropriate to focus resources on resolving the uncertainty rather than to focus on compliance with underlying standards that may not be appropriate. 
Since temporary modifications have no impact on other aspects of Colorado’s water quality management program such as the 303(d) list, the Non-point Source Program or the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program, it is fitting that temporary modifications only be used where there are permitted discharges that would face unreasonable consequences in the absence of a temporary modification (e.g., a permit compliance schedule to meet a standard that is significantly uncertain).  
Changes to the Regulation: The Commission revised the conditions for granting a temporary modification to specifically address the types of situations that warrant adoption of a temporary modification. Temporary modifications now explicitly provide time to resolve three types of uncertainty: 1) to determine what criteria is necessary to protect the use; 2) to determine whether the sources causing the impairment are correctable; and 3) determine how additional treatment will be provided. 
The third condition, significant uncertainty regarding the timing of implementing attainable source controls or treatment, will be repealed on 1/1/2013.  The Commission believes that that this type of uncertainty is better addressed through the discharger-specific variance provisions which will become effective on that date.
In addition to requiring one of the three types of significant uncertainty, the Commission revised section 31.7(3)(a) to establish that temporary modifications are authorized only if there is a demonstrated or predicted water quality-based effluent limit noncompliance problem.  This requirement is intended to limit adoption of temporary modifications to situations where there is evidence that a discharger would face unreasonable consequences in the absence of a temporary modification.
The Commission also added section 31.7(3)(b) to provide additional detail on the factual information that must be submitted in support of temporary modification proposals. The Commission notes that Division has developed an initial checklist and expects that while it may be refined over time as necessary, the Division will begin to use it to document the information that justifies temporary modifications. It will help clarify the expectations for meeting the requirement that we are adding to the regulation. While it will help assure that there is a consistent approach to documenting the need for temporary modifications, the Commission recognizes that the level of effort will vary considerably with the site-specific situation. 
The Commission modified section 31.7(3)(d) to clarify that the duration of a temporary modification is to be based on relevant factors including how soon resolving the issues that necessitated adoption of the temporary modification is deemed feasible.  The Commission’s intent is that it is important to consider site-specific information, e.g., the plan for resolving the uncertainty, in identifying an appropriate expiration date.
B.	Discharger Specific Variance Provisions
In this rulemaking, the Commission adopted a new subsection in section 31.7 with a delayed effective date of January 1, 2013, establishing an option for the adoption of a discharger-specific variance in certain circumstances.  Subsection (4) was added to section 31.7 to describe the process and criteria for granting, extending or removing variances.  Subsection (17) was added to section 31.14 to explain how discharger-specific variances are to be integrated into discharge permits.
Overview:  A discharger-specific variance establishes an alternative water-quality based effluent limit value that takes the place of a standards-based effluent limit for a specific point source discharge.  Since technology-based effluent limits apply independently of water quality-based requirements, discharger-specific variances do not apply to technology-based effluent limits.  Technology-based effluent limits must still be met, even where a discharger-specific variance has been established.
During the term of the variance, all other water quality standards not specifically modified remain applicable.  Variances ensure that the highest attainable level of water quality is achieved.  At the time of the periodic basin review, the basis for the discharger-specific variance must be reviewed to determine if there has been any change in the factors upon which the variance was granted.
Variances may be granted only where there are no feasible alternatives (e.g. pollutant reduction or elimination, seasonal retention, or land application) that would allow the regulated activity to proceed without a discharge that exceeds water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs),  In addition, the Commission intends that the effluent limits included with the variance require the highest degree of protection for the use classification that is feasible to achieve. 
In most instances, variances are not appropriate for new discharges.  This is because a broader range of alternatives are typically feasible for a new discharge than for an existing discharge.  However, the Commission believes that there are a limited number of situations where variances for new discharges should be considered.
It is the Commission’s intent that discharger-specific variances are to be used after other avenues (such as temporary modifications) have been shown to be inappropriate.  As specified in subsection (4)(b)(ii), temporary modifications of standards must be considered before moving forward with a request for a discharger specific variance.  Temporary modifications have been an effective tool in a variety of circumstances where standards are not net.  The Commission is adding the discharger-specific variance option at this time because there is a limited set of circumstances where temporary modifications are not available or may not be the most effective water quality management tool.
Delayed Effective Date:  The discharger-specific variance provisions will become effective on January 1, 2013.  In the intervening time, it is anticipated that the Division, with input from interested stakeholders, will develop guidance to provide additional detail regarding the implementation of the discharger-specific variance provisions adopted by the Commission.  The intent of the guidance is to make the discharger-specific variance adoption and implementation process more transparent and understandable to all interested parties, while providing appropriate flexibility.
Periodic Review Requirement:  A discharger-specific variance acts as a revised water quality standard for a particular discharge and will be considered by the Commission in the context of water quality standards rulemaking proceedings.  The variance will be reviewed in conjunction with the water quality standards review cycle that fulfills the triennial review requirements.  If, at the Issues Scoping Hearing or Issues Formulation Hearing, it is determined that action is appropriate before the next scheduled basin-wide standards rulemaking hearing, a special hearing will be held.  
Expiration Dates:  Discharger-specific variances are temporary and will include an expiration date.  In determining the appropriate duration for a variance, the Commission’s primary consideration will be the site-specific basis for the variance and the potential for achieving more protective effluent concentration or load.  Additional considerations will be the timing of the discharge permit renewal and basin review cycle.  
Criteria for Granting a Variance: The Commission established three independent tests for determining whether a variance is warranted.  One addresses situations where achieving a specific water quality-based effluent limit is not feasible because such treatment is beyond the limits of current technology.  In these cases, the technology does not exist, or if it does exist, cannot treat to the levels that are required to meet water quality standards.  
The second test relates to situations where achieving water quality-based effluent limits is not feasible because the costs of required treatment would cause substantial and widespread adverse economic and social impact.  Facility-specific cost, affordability, and treatment information is necessary to support a decision that a discharger-specific variance is appropriate under this test.
The third test relates to the non-economic consequences of increased treatment, including the effects on other media such as air or land.  The language of this test is the same as the 40 CFR 131.10(g)(3) downgrading factor. The Commission understands this test as weighing and balancing the tradeoffs between the environmental damage caused by (in this case) exceedance of effluent limits with the environmental damage caused by meeting those effluent limits. For consideration of this factor, the Commission expects to see discussion of considerations such as the fate and transport of the pollutant if the treatment works were not present, including the effect of the point source on the timing, concentrations and location of the pollutant’s delivery to the receiving water.
The second element of the “other consequences” test relates to an assessment of the wider environmental impacts of increased treatment on other media as well as on water quality.  For this element, there would need to be a demonstration that the increased treatment would cause more environmental damage than the benefits of meeting the standard warrant.  The entity advocating this reason for a variance would need to demonstrate the basis for such a policy decision.
In addition to meeting one of these three tests to demonstrate need for the variance, the applicant for a variance must demonstrate that the conditions for granting a temporary modification are not met.  Alternatively, if that demonstration cannot be made, in order to grant the variance, the Commission must make an affirmative determination that the variance is the most appropriate water quality management tool to address the site-specific circumstances.  As noted above, temporary modifications have been an effective tool for many years.  The Commission’s intent is that, by adding the discharger-specific variance option at this time, progress can be made on the limited set of circumstances where temporary modifications are not available or may not be the most effective tool.
Selection of the Alternative Effluent Limits:  A discharger-specific variance will be selected after an evaluation of the alternative pollutant removal techniques and consideration of the impact of the variance on the uses of the stream in the area of the variance and downstream of that area.  Alternative techniques should include such options as pollutant reduction or elimination (for instance in industrial manufacturing processes or the pretreatment context), seasonal retention, land application and treatment process alternatives.  The chosen option must provide the highest degree of protection of the classified use that is feasible in 20 years, taking into considerations the factors in subsection (4)(a)(i)(C), where appropriate.
Permits are to include “alternative effluent limitations” which represent the limits that can be achieved at full implementation of the chosen option.  The alternative effluent limits may be adjusted as new information becomes available.  In some cases, for instance where current pollution removal techniques represent the limits of technology, alternative effluent limits may correspond to the level currently attained.
In most cases, acute and chronic alternative effluent limits will be specified.  However, on a case-by-case basis, it may be more appropriate to establish other duration-based limits.
During the term of the variance, it is the Commission’s intent that the permit require progress towards meeting the alternative limit as quickly as feasible.  Steps necessary to document that progress will depend on the facts of a specific situation and the basis for the variance.  In some cases, investigation of treatment technologies should continue; in others, it may require long-range planning for wastewater reuse where allowed, or process modification.
Relationship with other regulatory provisions 
Antidegradation:  In situations where a discharger-specific variance would authorize water quality degradation and trigger the requirement for an antidegradation review, the alternatives analysis upon which the selection of the interim limit was based can also be used for the antidegradation review.  Since a demonstration that a current water quality standard is not attainable (required when a variance is considered) is a higher bar than demonstrating that protection of assimilative capacity beyond the standard is not required, it is likely that no additional analysis will be required.  
Impaired Waters:  As stated above, adoption of a discharger-specific variance constitutes a policy decision that, according to the terms of the variance, during the life of the variance the underlying standard does not need to be met.  When a discharger-specific variance is adopted for an impaired water segment that is impaired by multiple sources, development of a TMDL would be required.  The Commission intends that alternative effluent limits would establish the extent of regulatory requirements for the discharger in question, in accordance with the terms of the discharger-specific variance.  Any impairments that are solely attributable to a duly authorized variance, are not to be included on the section 303(d) List.  The section 303(d) List is the list of waters that still require a TMDL.  In the case of impairments solely attributable to (and authorized by) a variance, a TMDL is not required since it is apparent why the water quality is impaired, and thus a TMDL is not necessary to identify the remedy for these waters.  Cases where multiple sources contribute to an impairment would need to be examined on a case-by-case basis, and section 303(d) Listing may be appropriate. 
Regulation #61:  The Discharge Permit Regulations (at section 61.12(a)) specify the conditions under which the Division can grant variances.  In the context of permitting, the Division may grant variances to non-federal standards (i.e. ground water quality standards).  The next time that Regulation #61 is revised, the Commission intends that the word “ground water” will be inserted before the word “standard” in the first line of 61.12(a).
C.	Antidegradation
The Commission refined one aspect of the Use Protected designation provisions of section 31.8.  The period 2000-2009 was inserted in the considerations for designating a water as Use Protected (see 31.8(2)(b)(i)(C)); i.e., a waterbody would need to have been effluent dependent or effluent dominated during the period 2000 – 2009.  The purpose of this change is to avoid a situation where, over time, more and more waters become effluent dominated and therefore use-protected without the protection of antidegradation review regarding proposed new or increased water quality impacts.
The Commission declined to adopt the Division proposal to modify the definition of “Effluent Dominated”.  The Commission chose to retain the “eight out of ten” years required instead of changing it to “six out of ten” years.
D.	Dissolved Oxygen in Lakes
The Commission clarified the application of dissolved oxygen criteria in lakes and reservoirs in footnote 9 of Table 1 in 31.16. The Commission determined that standards for dissolved oxygen apply as minima against which an individual profile will be assessed.  Therefore, dissolved oxygen data collected from multiple locations in a single lake or reservoir on the same date will be assessed independently, and not averaged together.
Recreation: For the recreation use classification, the dissolved oxygen standard should apply to the upper portion of a lake or reservoir, which is typically where primary contact occurs.  The dissolved oxygen standard within a single profile will generally be assessed as the average of all measurements from 0.5 meter to 2.0 meters, or to the bottom, whichever is less.  Dissolved oxygen standards may be applied to deeper portions of a lake or reservoir on a site-specific basis if there is evidence that primary contact occurs in deeper portions of a lake or reservoir.  
Agriculture: For the agriculture use classification, the dissolved oxygen standard should apply to the upper portion of a lake or reservoir, which is typically where livestock drink, and/or where water is diverted for irrigation.  The dissolved oxygen standard within a single profile will generally be assessed as the average of all measurements from 0.5 meter to 2.0 meters, or to the bottom, whichever is less.  Dissolved oxygen standards may be applied to deeper portions of a lake or reservoir on a site-specific basis if there is evidence that water for livestock or irrigation is drawn from deeper portions of a lake or reservoir.  
Aquatic Life: For the aquatic life use classification, the numeric dissolved oxygen standards should apply to the upper portion of a lake or reservoir.  The dissolved oxygen in the upper portion of a lake or reservoir will generally be characterized within a single profile as follows:
1.	Where a lake or reservoir is equal to or greater than 5 meters deep, the dissolved oxygen within a single profile will generally be assessed as the average of all measurements from 0.5 meters to 2.0 meters.
2.	Where a lake or reservoir is less than 5 meters deep, but more than 1.25 meters deep, the dissolved oxygen within a single profile will generally be assessed as the average of all measurements from 0.5 meters to a depth equal to 40% of the total depth.
3.	Where a lake or reservoir is 1.25 meters deep or less, the dissolved oxygen within a single profile will generally be assessed as the median of all measurements.
The Commission decided that dissolved oxygen may be less than the applicable standard in the lower portion of a lake or reservoir except where footnote 5(c)(iii) applies or a site-specific standard has been adopted. The Commission expects that the need for a site-specific standard will be determined at a standards hearing. Interested parties should work together to develop site-specific standard proposals that will protect species expected to occur based on sound scientific rationale and evidence.
Fall Turnover Exclusion:  The Commission created additional flexibility with respect to the dissolved oxygen standard during fall turnover when oxygen-depleted bottom water may be mixed throughout a lake or reservoir. The fall turnover exclusion allows the dissolved oxygen to drop one milligram per liter below the table value standard for up to 7 days during fall turnover.  However, a dissolved oxygen profile must be measured 7 days before and again 7 days after the profile with low dissolved oxygen is measured at a consistent location to ensure that the depressed oxygen condition does not persist for more than the allowed 7-day period.   The Commission recognizes that fish grow more slowly when oxygen levels are slightly depressed, but also recognizes that low dissolved oxygen during fall turnover is a natural phenomenon, and that fish and other aquatic species can withstand this event without long-term negative consequences.  Lakes with fish species that spawn in the fall do not qualify for the fall turnover exclusion since eggs and larvae are more sensitive to the negative effects of low dissolved oxygen.  An exception to this is allowed if data show that adequate dissolved oxygen is maintained in all spawning areas for the duration of fall turnover.  
Water Supply: The Commission left the existing Footnote 9 in place for the water supply use classification, but expects to consider revisions of the numeric criterion of 3.0 mg/l, and its application to lakes and reservoirs at the next basic standards rulemaking hearing in 2016.
E.	Temperature Criteria
The Commission reformatted the temperature criteria in 31.16 Table 1, and updated the values based on new data included in the Colorado Temperature Database.  The Commission also deleted the razorback sucker tier (warm stream tier III), and included the razorback sucker in warm stream tier II because the expected range of the razorback sucker is also habitat for the more thermally sensitive white sucker.  Since the temperature tier applied to a segment is based on the most thermally sensitive species, the razorback sucker tier was never applied.  However, this action does not preclude the adoption of a site-specific temperature standard based on the expected occurrence of the razorback sucker.  
Several corrections were made to the temperature criteria.  Both the Arctic grayling and golden shiner were moved from stream tiers to the cold and warm lake tiers respectively because both species are found only in lakes.  Additionally, a typographical error in the chronic temperature criterion for cold stream tier II, and large lakes and reservoirs was corrected.  
The Commission also adopted a provision in footnote 5(c)(iv) of Table 1 to exclude certain exceedances of the temperature criteria in the shoulder-seasons from being considered an impairment of the aquatic life use.  The footnote excludes exceedances of the winter temperature criteria in cold streams for 30 days before the transition from winter to summer, and 30 days after the transition from summer to winter provided that the natural seasonal progression of temperature is maintained.  The Commission adopted this exclusion to account for year-to-year variation in the timing of the natural seasonal fluctuation of temperature.  The Commission does not intend for this footnote to change the underlying table value during the winter shoulder season.  The Commission did not apply this exclusion to lakes or warm-water streams because there was no evidence that spring and fall temperature fluctuations occur naturally outside of the regulatory “summer” season in these systems.  The Commission believes that this issue should be reevaluated as more data becomes available.
The Commission also changed the air temperature exclusion in footnote 5(c)(i), so that sites must exceed the monthly maximum air temperature instead of the annual maximum air temperature.  This change makes it possible to exclude data from any extraordinarily warm day for any time of year, and not just in summer when the maximum annual temperature occurs.
The Commission also clarified the definition of “maximum weekly average temperature” in 31.5 by deleting the word “daily” and adding the word “summertime”.
F.	E. coli averaging period
The Commission adopted an averaging period of two months for the existing E. coli standards in Footnote 7 to Table 1.  Without an averaging period, assessments have masked seasonal trends in E. coli at impairment concentrations.  An averaging period of two months was selected to closely approximate the duration of the eight-week epidemiological studies, which are the basis for the table value criteria.  Site-specific or seasonal standards will be assessed with intervals as close as possible to two months.
G.	Point of Water Supply Intake-Implementation
The Commission clarified how the domestic water supply standards for arsenic and nitrate would be implemented in permits by expanding on the Table II footnote 4 (nitrate) and Table III footnote 14 (arsenic).  These two standards apply at the point of water supply intake.  In order to provide a consistent level of protection and simplify implementation in the CDPS permitting process, the default assumption will be that the standard is applied at the end of the applicable regulatory mixing zone.  This presumption can be overcome if the permittee provides information demonstrating 1) that there is no actual domestic water supply use; or 2) that the standard will not be exceeded at the point of intake
H.	Metals Tables Values
Aluminum:  With regard to aluminum, information was presented at the hearing indicating that the total recoverable aluminum water quality standard of 750 μg/L acute and 87 μg/L chronic, including the relevant footnote, should be revised. The technical basis for the existing aluminum standards was the 1988 United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") Aluminum Document subsequent to which additional relevant data and information has become available. The revisions to the acute and chronic aluminum standards used the EPA criteria derivation and recalculation procedures. The revisions also considered the results from more recent studies such as the Arid West Water Quality Research Project (2006), which analyzed potential updates to aluminum standards based on more complete literature reviews. The Arid West work was primarily based on an overall evaluation of the EPA recalculation procedure for Arid West effluent-dependent water users and provided information that was unavailable when the 1988 Aluminum Document was prepared. Specifically, the Arid West recalculation procedure analysis discovered an inverse aluminum toxicity and hardness relationship. A hardness-based aluminum standard is more representative of the concentration levels that harm aquatic life and so provides a better measurement of potential toxicity. The total recoverable aluminum acute criteria range from 512 μg/L to 10,071 μg/L at hardness concentrations of 25 mg/L and 220 mg/L, respectively. Following discussions with the Parties, the Commission has adopted a modified version of the original chronic criteria proposal to reflect certain species’ chronic sensitivity, specifically Daphnia magna. Using the modified criteria equation, the total recoverable aluminum chronic criteria range from 73 μg/L to 1,438 μg/L at hardness concentrations of 25 mg/L to 220 mg/L. Given the available data, it was recommended that the upper bound of hardness calculations be 220 mg/L, rather than the standard 400 mg/L for other metals equations. In addition, it was noted by the Commission that some evidence indicates that rainbow trout may exhibit increased sensitivity to aluminum within the upper range of the pH standard.  The Commission intends to revisit the standard if new data and information become available indicating that the current standard is not protective of rainbow trout.
Iron:  The Commission declined to adopt the proposal submitted by the Colorado Mining Association.  The evidence did not support the assertion that the proposed dissolved iron criterion would be protective of aquatic life. 
Mercury:  The Commission deleted the acute mercury table value of 1.4, and the chronic mercury table value of 0.77.  These values were based on toxicological studies that included water as the sole pathway of exposure.  The remaining table value for aquatic life is based on toxicological studies that included both water and food as pathways for mercury exposure.  The food pathway is particularly important for mercury since it is bioaccumulative, and biomagnifies up the food chain. 
Molybdenum:  The Commission adopted total recoverable molybdenum table-values for the drinking water supply and agriculture use classifications.  The molybdenum criterion of 210 ug/l for water supply is based on an RfD-like value that the Institute of Medicine derived from the Fungwe et. al. (1990) study and was calculated in accordance with Policy 96-2.   The Commission urges the Division to review this standard and consider EPA’s expected health reference level and the work underway in Europe.
The molybdenum criterion of 300 ug/l for agriculture is intended to protect livestock from the effects of molybdenosis.  The agriculture table value assumes that the safe copper:molybdenum ratio is 4:1.  Total copper and molybdenum intakes are calculated from the following equations:
Cu intake mg/day = [([Cu] forage, mg/kg) x (forage intake, kg/day)] + [([Cu] water, mg/l) x (water intake, L/day)] + (Cu supplementation, mg/day)
Mo intake mg/day = [([Mo] forage, mg/kg) x (forage intake, kg/day)] + [([Mo] water, mg/l) x (water intake, L/day)] + (Mo supplementation, mg/day)
The assumed values for these equations are as follows:
[Cu] forage = 7 mg/kg, [Mo] forage = 0.5 mg/kg, forage intake = 6.8 kg/day, [Cu] water = 0.008 mg/L, [Mo] water = 0.375 mg/L, water intake = 54.6 L/day, Cu supplementation = 48 mg/day, Mo supplementation = 0 mg/day.
Food and water intake is based on a 273 kg (600 lb) feeder steer consuming 6.8 kg/day of dry matter and 20% of its body weight in water per day.  Site-specific water intake rates should be based on estimates of actual water consumption rates based on maximum air temperatures rather than need since cattle typically consume more water than strictly necessary.  In general, assumptions about copper, molybdenum, and sulfur exposure for the purpose of deriving site-specific molybdenum standards should reflect current or potential exposure levels that are reasonable for the area, including dietary supplements.  When calculating site-specific standards, copper supplementation should be as low as possible and not higher than 400 mg/day.  
Uranium:  The Commission revised the table value for uranium to be a hyphenated value.  The Commission retained the 30 µg/L value, the maximum contaminant level (MCL) from EPA’s 2000 radionuclides rule, and added a value of 16.8 µg/L.  The 16.8 µg/L value is derived from use of the reference dose and relative source contribution from the 2000 radionuclides rule in Equation 1-1 of Policy 96-2.  This equation and the resulting value are based purely upon the protection of human-health and do not take treatment or economic considerations into account as does the MCL.  Footnote 13 to Table III will be applied to the revised uranium table value.  The human-health value of16.8 µg/L is based upon protection against the chemical toxicity effects of uranium.  The Commission also added footnote 17 to reference 31.11(2) which establishes the need to maintain radioactive materials at the lowest practical level. 
Zinc:  Since the 2005 Regulation No. 31 Basic Standards Hearing, the zinc criteria have undergone an additional technical review and update as part of the Arid West Water Quality Research Project. These revisions involved extensive literature searches and evaluation of a considerable amount of usable data for the acute and chronic zinc toxicity databases. Using these latest updates to the acute and chronic zinc toxicity databases, the zinc criteria equations were updated.
Zinc (sculpin):  The Commission added a chronic zinc equation for sculpin with modifications based upon new data and information available since adoption of the equation in 2005 (31.44).  Although the equation was not captured in Table III of Regulation 31 at that time, it has been adopted and applied in some of the basin regulations, Regulations 33, 34, 35, & 37.  The equation applies where mottled sculpin are expected to occur and hardness is less than 102 ppm CaCO3.  It does not apply where mottled sculpin are expected to occur if the hardness is greater than 102 ppm CaCO3.  Footnote 15 was added to Table III to clarify the Commission’s intent for application.
The equation is based upon data and information characterizing the chronic toxicity of zinc to Colorado sculpin as zinc varies with hardness.  Chronic data from sculpin outside of Colorado were not used because their toxicity exhibits a different relationship with hardness.  The equation is a linear regression of chronic toxicity values and hardness.
I.	Nonylphenol
The Commission declined to adopt the proposal submitted by the Wastewater Utility Council that the effective date of the nonylphenol standard be delayed until January 1, 2017, because the standard is not in dispute and is needed to protect aquatic life.  However, the Commission recognizes the concerns about implementation of the standard expressed by several dischargers.  These concerns relate to the potential difficulty of testing, measuring and controlling nonylphenol and its precursors.  The Commission is retaining the effective date of January 1, 2011, based on its understanding that the normal permitting process would be followed.  Effluent limits would not normally be imposed during the initial round of permit renewals, but monitoring would be required as a first step.
J.	Other Changes
The Commission added clarification to a number of items and corrected minor typographical errors:
o	The definition of “chronic standard” (at 31.5(7)) was revised to remove the reference to unionized ammonia.
o	The definition of “existing quality” (at 31.5(20)) was revised to reference total ammonia instead of unionized ammonia and to clarify the time period used for determining existing quality for temperature.
o	The subsection on ambient quality-based standards (at 31.7(1)(b)(ii)) was revised.  The reference to the 85th percentile was changed to “existing quality” which is defined at 31.5(20) and includes the 85th percentile for dissolved metals, the 50th percentile for total recoverable metals and the appropriate statistics for pH, DO and temperature.  The sentence regarding ambient temperature standards was deleted because it is covered in the definition of “existing quality.”  Acute standards for parameters in Tables I and II will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
o	A solid line was added at the end of the footnotes to the Basic Standards for Organic Chemicals in subsection 31.11(3) to distinguish the end of the footnotes from the beginning of subsection 31.11(4)
o	Punctuation was corrected in subsection 31.14 (16).
o	A reference was added at subsection 31.16(3)(O).
o	In Table I, the typographical error for the dissolved oxygen table value for warm water aquatic life was corrected to reflect the correct value of 5.0 mg/l.  The coldwater values of 6.0 mg/l and 7.0 mg/l (spawning) had been incorrectly copied into the warm water column. 
o	For clarification, “1-day” was deleted from Footnote 1 to Table I.
o	Language describing the transition from fecal coliforms to E. coli was deleted from Footnote 7 to Table I because this transition is complete.
o	A reference to Footnote 9 was added to Footnote 1 to Table I.
o	Footnote 8 to Table I was deleted because it is not used.
o	The Table III column heading “Drinking Water Supply”  was changed to “Domestic Water Supply” to match the name of the classification at subsection 31.1.3(1)(d).
o	A missing parenthesis was replaced in the cadmium aquatic life chronic equation in Table III.
o	Table IV was reformatted, the acute and chronic zinc values were updated to reflect changes adopted in this hearing, a row was added for chronic zinc numbers for the protection of mottled sculpin and the acute cadmium value at hardness 400 was corrected.
PARTIES TO THE RULEMAKING
1.	Colorado Wastewater Utility Council
2.	Colorado Mining Association
3.	City of Grand Junction
4.	South Platte Coalition for Urban River Evaluation
5.	Colorado Division of Wildlife
6.	City of Boulder
7.	City of Westminster
8.	City of Colorado Springs and Colorado Springs Utilities
9.	Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant
10.	Metro Wastewater Reclamation District
11.	Denver Water
12.	Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
13.	City of Black Hawk and Black Hawk/Central City Sanitation District
14.	Suncor Energy (U.S.A.)
15.	Bill Thiebaut, District Attorney for the 10th Judicial District
16.	Western Colorado Water Network (San Juan Citizens’ Alliance, High Country Citizens’ Alliance, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Colorado Trout Unlimited)
17.	Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority
18.	Colorado River Water Conservation District
19.	U.S. Energy Corp. and Mount Emmons Moly Corp.
20.	Climax Molybdenum Company
21.	City of Pueblo
22.	Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association
23.	Xcel Energy
24.	Paint Brush Hills Metropolitan District
25.	Pueblo West  Metropolitan District
26.	Colorado Stone, Sand and Gravel Association
27.	Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
28.	Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District
29.	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
30.	Lori Brusnwig
31.	City of Aurora
32.	Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company
33.	U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management
34.	Board of Water Works of Pueblo, Colorado
35.	Rocky Mountain Environmental Labor Coalition