Water Quality Standards for Idaho

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

_______________________________________________________________________

40 CFR Part 131

Water Quality Standards for Idaho; Proposed Rule

=======================================================================

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[FRL-5817-8]

Water Quality Standards for Idaho

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing water quality standards that would be

applicable to the waters of the United States in the State of Idaho. If

promulgated as final standards, they will supersede those aspects of

Idaho's water quality standards that EPA disapproved in 1993 and 1996.

EPA is taking this action because it believes those State water quality

standards are inconsistent with the Clean Water Act and EPA's

implementing regulations. The timing of this rulemaking is designed to

comply with a court order directing EPA to propose standards by April

21, 1997 and to promulgate final standards 90 days thereafter. EPA is

proposing new use designations on currently unclassified waters in the

State, and new use designations on 53 specified water body segments

whose use designations do not meet the goals of the Clean Water Act and

which have not been justified by the State. EPA is also proposing new

temperature criteria necessary to protect certain threatened and

endangered species and species being considered for listing as

threatened and endangered. Finally, EPA's proposal addresses the

State's mixing zone and anti-degradation policies as well as its

excluded waters provision.

et the goals of the Clean Water Act and

which have not been justified by the State. EPA is also proposing new

temperature criteria necessary to protect certain threatened and

endangered species and species being considered for listing as

threatened and endangered. Finally, EPA's proposal addresses the

State's mixing zone and anti-degradation policies as well as its

excluded waters provision.

DATES: EPA will accept public comments on this rulemaking until May 28,

1997. Comments postmarked after this date may not be considered. EPA is

sponsoring two public hearings on today's proposed water quality

standards for Idaho on May 12, 1997. The first is scheduled for 2-5:00

pm (MDT), and the second for 6:30-9:30 pm (MDT).

ADDRESSES: An original plus 2 copies, and if possible an electronic

version of comments either in WordPerfect or ASCII format, should be

addressed to Lisa Macchio, U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Water, 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101.

The public hearings will be held in Rooms A and B of the Department

of Environmental Quality Earl Chandler Building, 1410 North Hilton,

Boise, Idaho.

The administrative record for today's proposed rule is available

for public inspection at EPA Region 10, Office of Water, 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101, between 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Macchio at U.S.EPA Region 10,

Office of Water, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101

(telephone: 206-553-1834), or William Morrow in U.S.EPA Headquarters at

202-260-3657.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Outline

r public inspection at EPA Region 10, Office of Water, 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101, between 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Macchio at U.S.EPA Region 10,

Office of Water, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101

(telephone: 206-553-1834), or William Morrow in U.S.EPA Headquarters at

202-260-3657.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Outline

A. Potentially Affected Entities

B. Background

1. Statutory and Regulatory Background

2. Factual Background

C. Unclassified Waters

1. Background

2. Idaho's Unclassified Waters Provision

3. Federal Use Designation for Unclassified Waters in Idaho

D. Stream Segments With Specific Beneficial Use Designations

1. Background

2. EPA Review of Idaho's Use Designations

3. Recent Idaho Actions

4. Federal Beneficial Use Designations for Specific Water Body

Segments

i. Primary Contact Recreation

ii. Cold Water Biota

iii. Salmonid Spawning

5. Request for Comment and Data

E. Temperature Criteria for Threatened and Endangered Species

1. Background

2. Kootenai River White Sturgeon

i. EPA's Review

ii. Idaho's Temperature Criteria

iii. EPA's Proposed Temperature Criteria

3. Freshwater Aquatic Snails

i. EPA's Review

ii. Idaho's Temperature Criteria

iii. EPA's Proposed Temperature Criterion

4. Bull Trout

i. EPA's Review

ii. Idaho's Temperature Criteria

iii. EPA's Proposed Temperature Criteria and Bull Trout

Distribution

F. Antidegradation Policy

G. Mixing Zone Policy

1. Idaho's Existing Policy

2. Federal Mixing Zone Policy for Idaho

H. Excluded Waters Provision

I. Federal Variances

J. Regulatory Impact Analysis

1. Use Attainability

2. Costs

i. Overview of Methodology to Estimate Potential Costs Related

to New Use Designations

ii. Results for Stream Segments with Specific Use Designations

and Unclassified Waters

iii. Overview of Approach to Estimate Potential Costs Related to

New Temperature Criteria

K. Executive Order 12866

L

ded Waters Provision

I. Federal Variances

J. Regulatory Impact Analysis

1. Use Attainability

2. Costs

i. Overview of Methodology to Estimate Potential Costs Related

to New Use Designations

ii. Results for Stream Segments with Specific Use Designations

and Unclassified Waters

iii. Overview of Approach to Estimate Potential Costs Related to

New Temperature Criteria

K. Executive Order 12866

L. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

N. Paperwork Reduction Act

O. Executive Order 12875

A. Potentially Affected Entities

Citizens concerned with water quality in Idaho may be interested in

this rulemaking. Entities discharging pollutants to waters of the

United States in Idaho could be indirectly affected by this rulemaking

since water quality standards are used in determining National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits.

Categories and entities which may ultimately be affected include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples of potentially affected

Category entities

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Industry.......................... Industries discharging pollutants to

surface waters in Idaho.

Municipalities.................... Publicly-owned treatment works

discharging pollutants to surface

waters in Idaho.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding NPDES regulated entities likely to be

affected by this action. This table lists the types of entities that

EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this action.

B. Background

1. Statutory and Regulatory Background

.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding NPDES regulated entities likely to be

affected by this action. This table lists the types of entities that

EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this action.

B. Background

1. Statutory and Regulatory Background

Under section 303 (33 U.S.C. 1313) of the Clean Water Act (CWA),

States are required to develop water quality standards for waters of

the United States within the State. Section 303(c) provides that water

quality standards shall include the designated use or uses to be made

of the water and criteria necessary to protect the uses. States are

required to review their water quality standards at least once every

three years and, if appropriate, revise or adopt new standards. The

results of this triennial review must be submitted to EPA, and EPA must

approve or disapprove any new or revised standards.

EPA regulations implementing section 303(c) are published at 40 CFR

Part 131. Under these rules, the minimum elements that must be included

in a State's water quality standards include: use designations for all

water bodies in the State, water quality criteria sufficient to protect

those use designations, and an anti-degradation policy consistent with

EPA's water quality standards. 40 CFR 131.6. States may also include in

their standards policies generally affecting the standards' application

and implementation. See 40 CFR 131.13. These policies are subject to

EPA review and approval.

The authority to review and to approve or disapprove new or revised

water quality standards for EPA Region X has been delegated from the

Administrator to the Regional Administrator, and redelegated to the

Regional Director of Water. See EPA's Delegation Manual, Sec. 2-10,

dated January 28, 1976, and EPA Region X's redelegation manual,

Sec. R10 1250.42, September 12, 1995

review and approval.

The authority to review and to approve or disapprove new or revised

water quality standards for EPA Region X has been delegated from the

Administrator to the Regional Administrator, and redelegated to the

Regional Director of Water. See EPA's Delegation Manual, Sec. 2-10,

dated January 28, 1976, and EPA Region X's redelegation manual,

Sec. R10 1250.42, September 12, 1995. The authority to determine that

new or revised standards are needed, notwithstanding a prior approval,

has not been delegated, and so remains with the Administrator.

Section 303(c) of the CWA authorizes EPA to promulgate water

quality standards to supersede State standards that have been

disapproved, or in any case where the Administrator determines that a

new or revised standard is needed to meet the CWA's requirements. EPA

is acting today to promulgate standards superseding State standards

that have been deemed disapproved by the U.S. District Court for the

Western District of Washington's in Idaho Conservation League v.

Browner (No. C96-807WD, February 20, 1997, herein ``ICL v. Browner'').

Today's proposal represents a preliminary determination by the

Administrator that each of the elements in today's rulemaking is

necessary and appropriate.

EPA's usual practice when promulgating a water quality standard is

to provide 45 days advance notice of a hearing, and a public comment

period that extends at least until the date of the hearing. 40 CFR

Sec. 25.5(a). However, the regulations also allow for the modification

of specific deadlines where necessary to accommodate the specific

provisions of court orders. Here, EPA is under a court order to propose

standards in 60 days and to promulgate 90 days after proposal. A

comment period of 45 days would not allow EPA sufficient time to

analyze and consider a substantial set of comments. Accordingly, EPA is

providing a comment period of 30 days as well as holding two public

hearings on May 12, 1997

to accommodate the specific

provisions of court orders. Here, EPA is under a court order to propose

standards in 60 days and to promulgate 90 days after proposal. A

comment period of 45 days would not allow EPA sufficient time to

analyze and consider a substantial set of comments. Accordingly, EPA is

providing a comment period of 30 days as well as holding two public

hearings on May 12, 1997. The demanding schedule for promulgation of

standards in this case has also led EPA to propose a special procedure

by which the Regional Administrator for Region 10 may grant variances

from EPA-designated uses where, following promulgation of these

standards, information becomes available showing that an EPA-designated

use is unattainable. See section I. below for a detailed discussion.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies,

in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), to insure that their actions

are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat

of such species which have been designated as ``critical.''

Consultation is designed to assist federal agencies in complying with

the requirements of section 7 by supplying a process within which FWS

and NMFS provide such agencies with advice and guidance on whether an

action complies with the substantive requirements of ESA. Approval of

State water quality standards and federal promulgation of water quality

standards are considered federal actions, and hence EPA is required to

comply with the requirements of section 7 of ESA prior to final

promulgation.

As a result of EPA's responsibilities and duties under Section 7 of

the Endangered Species Act, EPA has initiated informal consultation

with FWS and NMFS on this rulemaking. As part of this process EPA is

preparing a biological assessment document which will be submitted to

FWS and NMFS prior to the final rulemaking

omply with the requirements of section 7 of ESA prior to final

promulgation.

As a result of EPA's responsibilities and duties under Section 7 of

the Endangered Species Act, EPA has initiated informal consultation

with FWS and NMFS on this rulemaking. As part of this process EPA is

preparing a biological assessment document which will be submitted to

FWS and NMFS prior to the final rulemaking. EPA expects to conclude

consultation with the Services prior to the final rulemaking.

EPA developed today's proposed standards by application of existing

State requirements for development of water quality standards set out

in 40 CFR Part 131, EPA's implementing policies and procedures, and

existing methodologies for criteria development. The basis for the

proposed rule is described more fully below in sections C-I.

2. Factual Background

On July 11, 1994, Idaho submitted a complete set of water quality

standards to EPA for review and approval. Pursuant to section 303(c)(3)

of the CWA, EPA reviewed this complete set of standards. Under the

mistaken assumption that all the standards submitted in 1994 were new

or revised, EPA reviewed and approved or disapproved all of the State's

standards in a June 25, 1996 letter from Chuck Clarke, Region X

Regional Administrator, to Wallace Cory, Director, Idaho Division of

Environmental Quality. Specifically, the letter disapproved the State's

default use designation for unclassified waters, the use designations

for 53 waters with designated uses, temperature criteria, portions of

the mixing zone and antidegradation policies, the Kinross-Delamar

variance, and the excluded waters provision. The letter stated that EPA

was approving the remainder of Idaho's water quality standards, subject

to completing the consultation required under section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act

waters, the use designations

for 53 waters with designated uses, temperature criteria, portions of

the mixing zone and antidegradation policies, the Kinross-Delamar

variance, and the excluded waters provision. The letter stated that EPA

was approving the remainder of Idaho's water quality standards, subject

to completing the consultation required under section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act.

Subsequent to the June 25, 1996 action, EPA Region X discovered

records that clarified that the standards it had acted on included not

only new and revised standards, but also standards which had been

previously approved in the same or substantially the same form. This

discovery was significant because Region X had been delegated authority

to approve or disapprove only new or revised State standards; the

Administrator has reserved the authority to determine that new or

revised federal standards are needed where State standards have

previously been approved. EPA promptly notified the parties and the

court of this discovery.

To ensure that all the deficiencies in Idaho's standards were

addressed in these circumstances, by a November 22, 1996 memorandum

from Chuck Clarke to the Administrator, Region X acknowledged its error

and recommended that the EPA Administrator act pursuant to her

discretionary authority to fill those gaps where Region X had acted

beyond its authority. On February 20, 1997, the District Court in ICL

v. Browner held that EPA was obligated to promulgate standards to

supersede all of those disapproved in the June 25, 1996 letter,

regardless of whether the standards were new or revised.

C. Unclassified Waters

1. Background

Water quality standards consist of designated beneficial uses,

criteria necessary to protect those uses, and an antidegradation

policy. Water quality standards establish the ``goals'' for a water

body. Designated beneficial uses determine what criteria apply to the

water body. In general, States have not

ess of whether the standards were new or revised.

C. Unclassified Waters

1. Background

Water quality standards consist of designated beneficial uses,

criteria necessary to protect those uses, and an antidegradation

policy. Water quality standards establish the ``goals'' for a water

body. Designated beneficial uses determine what criteria apply to the

water body. In general, States have not

had the resources to designate beneficial uses on a segment-by-segment

basis for all of the State's surface waters. States usually initially

designate beneficial uses site-specifically for a subset of water

segments that are potentially threatened by degradation, and then as

resources and information become available gradually begin to classify

the remainder. This allows States to focus limited resources on

collecting information to protect the water segments at most risk. This

approach combined with a default use designation for unclassified

waters ensures all State surface waters have designated beneficial uses

and are protected for purposes of the Clean Water Act.

Section 101(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act States the national goal

of achieving by July 1, 1983, ``water quality which provides for the

protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and * * *

recreation in and on the water,'' wherever attainable. These national

goals are commonly referred to as the ``fishable/swimmable'' goals of

the Clean Water Act. Section 303(c)(2)(A) requires water quality

standards to ``protect the public health and welfare, enhance the

quality of water, and serve the purposes of this Act.'' EPA's

regulations at 40 CFR Part 131 interpret and implement these provisions

through a requirement that water quality standards provide for

fishable/swimmable uses unless those uses have been shown to be

unattainable, effectively creating a rebuttable presumption of

attainability. Unless that presumption has been rebutted, a default

designation of fishable/swimmable beneficial uses apply.

Under 40 CFR Sec

ns at 40 CFR Part 131 interpret and implement these provisions

through a requirement that water quality standards provide for

fishable/swimmable uses unless those uses have been shown to be

unattainable, effectively creating a rebuttable presumption of

attainability. Unless that presumption has been rebutted, a default

designation of fishable/swimmable beneficial uses apply.

Under 40 CFR Sec. 131.10(j), States and Tribes are required to

conduct a use attainability analysis (UAA) whenever the State or Tribe

designates or has designated uses that do not include the uses

specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA, or when the State or Tribe

wishes to remove a designated use that is specified in Section

101(a)(2) of the Act, or adopt subcategories of uses that require less

stringent criteria. Section 131.10 lists grounds upon which a finding

of un-attainability may be based. At a minimum, uses are considered by

EPA to be attainable if the uses can be achieved when (1) effluent

limitations under Section 301(b)(1) (A) and (B) and Section 306 are

established for point source dischargers, and (2) cost effective and

reasonable best management practices are established for nonpoint

source dischargers.

A UAA is defined in 40 CFR Sec. 131.3(g) as a ``structured

scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of a use

which may include physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors

as described in Sec. 131.10(g).'' In a UAA, the physical, chemical and

biological factors affecting the attainment of a use are evaluated

through a water body survey and assessment. In addition, where the

economic impact of attaining a use is an issue, those impacts may be

documented in the UAA.

2. Idaho's Unclassified Waters Provision

ude physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors

as described in Sec. 131.10(g).'' In a UAA, the physical, chemical and

biological factors affecting the attainment of a use are evaluated

through a water body survey and assessment. In addition, where the

economic impact of attaining a use is an issue, those impacts may be

documented in the UAA.

2. Idaho's Unclassified Waters Provision

Idaho's regulations at 16.01.02.101.01. adopted August 24, 1994,

protected unclassified surface waters for primary contact recreation,

unless the physical characteristics of a water body prevented primary

contact recreation. In those cases, the water body was protected for

secondary contact recreation. While providing for swimmable waters

unless and until such use is shown to be unattainable, this provision

did not provide any protection for aquatic life, that is, the

``fishable'' component of fishable/swimmable uses. In its June 1996

letter, EPA disapproved this provision because it did not protect

unclassified waters for ``protection and propagation of fish, shellfish

and wildlife'' and because the State had not demonstrated that such

uses were unattainable in unclassified waters, as required by sections

101(a) and 303(c) of the CWA and by EPA's regulations.

On December 1, 1996, Idaho adopted a modified unclassified waters

provision which protects unclassified waters for all recreational use

in and on the water and the protection and propagation of fish,

shellfish and wildlife, ``wherever attainable.'' By letter dated

September 23, 1996, Idaho explained that this language was not intended

to establish a default designation for aquatic life, but rather that

the State contemplated that when regulatory decisions such as NPDES

permit decisions arose, data would be reviewed to determine the

appropriate beneficial use

tion and propagation of fish,

shellfish and wildlife, ``wherever attainable.'' By letter dated

September 23, 1996, Idaho explained that this language was not intended

to establish a default designation for aquatic life, but rather that

the State contemplated that when regulatory decisions such as NPDES

permit decisions arose, data would be reviewed to determine the

appropriate beneficial use. Based on this letter and conversations with

Idaho's Division of Environmental Quality, it is EPA's understanding

that under Idaho's intended interpretation, this provision does not

presume that unclassified waters will be protected for fishable/

swimmable uses and does not require that such uses be demonstrated to

be unattainable before a lesser use is employed in regulatory

decisions. Idaho's approach appears to shift the burden so as to

require a demonstration that fishable/swimmable uses are attainable

before they will be protected. This is inconsistent with the goals of

CWA Sec. 101(a)(2) and the requirements of CWA Sec. 303(b)(2) and 40

CFR 131.10.

3. Federal Use Designation for Unclassified Waters in Idaho

EPA is proposing to promulgate a default use designation for

unclassified waters which provides for the protection and propagation

of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water,

unless it is demonstrated to EPA for a particular water body that such

use(s) are unattainable. Demonstrations that a fishable/swimmable use

is unattainable for a particular unclassified water body can be made by

applying for a variance to the federal standard. The federal variance

procedure is discussed in section I. The CWA specifies that States are

to establish water quality standards which includes designating

beneficial uses. It is only when a State adopts standards inconsistent

with the CWA, that EPA must promulgate replacement standards

le for a particular unclassified water body can be made by

applying for a variance to the federal standard. The federal variance

procedure is discussed in section I. The CWA specifies that States are

to establish water quality standards which includes designating

beneficial uses. It is only when a State adopts standards inconsistent

with the CWA, that EPA must promulgate replacement standards. If Idaho

formally designates a beneficial use for a specific unclassified water

body, that water body would no longer be subject to the proposed

unclassified waters provision. Such designations are subject to EPA

review and approval under CWA Sec. 303(c)(2). In addition, if Idaho

corrects the deficiency in their current designated use for

unclassified waters, and EPA approves, EPA will remove today's federal

designated use for unclassified waters.

In order to provide for the protection and propagation of aquatic

life in unclassified waters, it is necessary to determine the

predominant type of aquatic life in Idaho's surface waters. Aquatic

life in different ecosystems have different needs. Salmonid fishes,

especially chinook salmon and bull trout, are often referred to as

cold-water fish (ODEQ, 1995). Cold-water fish occur in all of Idaho's

basins, with some limited exceptions of isolated sub-basins in southern

Idaho. Table 1 shows the non-salmonid fish found in Idaho (Simpson and

Wallace, 1982). These fish are classified as cool/cold-and warm-water

species (ODEQ, 1995; Simpson and Wallace, 1982; Sigler and Sigler,

1987). Non-salmonid cool/cold-water fish native to Idaho include

several species of sculpin, dace, chub, and suckers. The only known

warm-water species of fish native to Idaho are the Utah sucker and the

Utah chub.

-salmonid fish found in Idaho (Simpson and

Wallace, 1982). These fish are classified as cool/cold-and warm-water

species (ODEQ, 1995; Simpson and Wallace, 1982; Sigler and Sigler,

1987). Non-salmonid cool/cold-water fish native to Idaho include

several species of sculpin, dace, chub, and suckers. The only known

warm-water species of fish native to Idaho are the Utah sucker and the

Utah chub.

Table 1.--Nonsalmonid Fishes of Idaho (Simpson and Wallace, 1982)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Family Common names Introduced or native Warm or cool/cold

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLUPEIDAE..................... American Shad, Herring.. Introduced................... Warm.

CENTRARCHIDAE................. Bass, Largemouth Bass, Introduced................... Warm.

Pumpkinseed, White

Crappie, Green Sunfish,

Warmouth, Bluegill.

Black Crappie, Introduced................... Cool/Cold.

Smallmouth Bass.

COTTIDAE...................... Bear Lake Sculpin, Native....................... Cool/Cold.

Mottled Sculpin, Paiute

Sculpin, Shorthead

Sculpin, Shoshone

Sculpin, Slimy Sculpin,

Torrent Sculpin, Wood

River Sculpin.

ICTALURIDAE................... Black Bullhead, Brown Introduced................... Warm.

Bullhead, Channel

Catfish, Tadpole

Madtom, Flathead

Catfish.

CATOSTOMIDAE.................. Bluehead Sucker, Native....................... Cool/Cold.

Bridgelip Sucker,

Largescale Sucker,

Longnose Sucker,

Mountain Sucker.

Utah Sucker............. Native....................... Warm.

GADIDAE....................... Burbot.................. Native....................... Cool/Cold.

CYPRINIDAE.................... Common Carp, Fathead Introduced................... Warm.

Minnow, Goldfish,

Tench, Tui Chub.

Chiselmouth, Leatherside Native....................... Cool/Cold

ucker,

Longnose Sucker,

Mountain Sucker.

Utah Sucker............. Native....................... Warm.

GADIDAE....................... Burbot.................. Native....................... Cool/Cold.

CYPRINIDAE.................... Common Carp, Fathead Introduced................... Warm.

Minnow, Goldfish,

Tench, Tui Chub.

Chiselmouth, Leatherside Native....................... Cool/Cold.

Chub, Leopard Dace,

Longnose Dace, Northern

Squawfish, Peamouth,

Redside Shiner,

Speckled Dace, Lake

Chub.

Utah Chub............... Native....................... Warm.

POECILIIDAE................... Guppy, Western Introduced................... Warm.

Mosquitofish.

PETROMYZONTIDAE............... Pacific Lamprey......... Native....................... Cool/Cold.

ESOCIDAE...................... Northern Pike........... Introduced................... Cool/Cold.

OSMERUS....................... Rainbow Smelt........... Introduced................... Cool/Cold.

PERCOPSIDAE................... Sand Roller............. Native....................... Cool/Cold.

ACIPENSERIDAE................. White Sturgeon.......... Native....................... Cool/Cold.

PERCIDAE...................... Walleye, Yellow Perch... Introduced................... Cool/Cold.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Utah Chub is native to the Bear River basin and the Snake River

basin above Shoshone falls. It is also found in the Wood River system

and in Henry's Fork of the Snake River with its range restricted to the

area below Mesa Falls (Simpson and Wallace, 1982). The Utah Chub

prefers lake, pond and reservoir environments and is tolerant of warmer

water temperatures (Simpson and Wallace, 1982). The Utah Chub is

considered a ``nuisance'' in trout waters, and the Idaho Department of

Fish and Game has attempted, unsuccessfully to eradicate Utah Chub from

important trout waters (Simpson and Wallace, 1982)

area below Mesa Falls (Simpson and Wallace, 1982). The Utah Chub

prefers lake, pond and reservoir environments and is tolerant of warmer

water temperatures (Simpson and Wallace, 1982). The Utah Chub is

considered a ``nuisance'' in trout waters, and the Idaho Department of

Fish and Game has attempted, unsuccessfully to eradicate Utah Chub from

important trout waters (Simpson and Wallace, 1982). Although no life

cycle studies have been conducted in Idaho, the successful colonization

of the Utah Chub in trout waters would seem to indicate that the Utah

Chub can reproduce and survive in cold water. The Utah Sucker is also

found in the Bear River basin and the Snake River basin above Shoshone

Falls. Although the temperature requirements for different stages of

its life cycle are unknown, its geographic distribution covers a wide

range of warm to very cold waters which suggest it is an adaptable

species (Simpson and Wallace, 1982).

The majority of native Idaho fish are classified as cold water

species and the presence of these species occurs throughout the entire

State. The only two warm water native fish species are of limited

geographic range and also occur where cold water native fish species

exist. In addition, of the 240 water segments that Idaho has

specifically designated beneficial uses for in their water quality

standards (see IDAPA 16.01.02.100.-161.), only 3 have been designated

as warm water biota. Of those three, EPA is proposing to promulgate

cold water protection for one of those streams based on the presence of

cold water species (see section D.4.ii.). EPA believes having a default

assumption protective of cold water species applicable in the State of

Idaho is reasonable based upon the State's beneficial use designations

to date and the scientific information presented above.

Idaho has set out in its water quality standards at

16.01.02.250.02.c. criteria necessary to support cold water aquatic

life

cold water species (see section D.4.ii.). EPA believes having a default

assumption protective of cold water species applicable in the State of

Idaho is reasonable based upon the State's beneficial use designations

to date and the scientific information presented above.

Idaho has set out in its water quality standards at

16.01.02.250.02.c. criteria necessary to support cold water aquatic

life. Because the predominant ecosystem in Idaho is comprised of cold

water aquatic life, EPA is proposing to rely on Idaho's existing

criteria for cold water biota for the protection of unclassified

waters, except where lower temperatures are required to protect

threatened and endangered species (see section E below). Idaho's

existing criteria for cold water biota include criteria for dissolved

oxygen (D.O.), temperature, ammonia, and turbidity. EPA solicits

comment on the selection of cold water biota as a default beneficial

use for unclassified waters. In particular, EPA seeks information about

the present distribution of various salmonid and non-salmonid cold

water species in Idaho. EPA also solicits comment on the distribution

of warm water species in Idaho. EPA seeks data on the temperature

requirements of sensitive life cycle stages for the Idaho Chub and the

Idaho Sucker. EPA also seeks comment on the historical distribution of

both native cold water and native warm water species in Idaho.

The second component of ``fishable/swimmable'' is proposed to be

addressed through the primary contact recreation use and associated

criteria. However, as discussed below in section D.4.i., Idaho's

criteria for secondary contact recreation are adequate to protect

swimming. EPA seeks comment on the option of relying on secondary

contact recreation for protection of recreation in unclassified waters.

Specifically, EPA is seeking comment on whether a primary contact

recreation use designation is necessary when the criteria associated

with secondary contact recreation are protective of swimming

eria for secondary contact recreation are adequate to protect

swimming. EPA seeks comment on the option of relying on secondary

contact recreation for protection of recreation in unclassified waters.

Specifically, EPA is seeking comment on whether a primary contact

recreation use designation is necessary when the criteria associated

with secondary contact recreation are protective of swimming.

When Idaho designates a beneficial use for a specific water body

that is currently unclassified, that water body will no longer be

within the scope of EPA's unclassified waters beneficial designated

use. EPA will review the State's beneficial use designation for

specific water bodies and approve or disapprove as part of EPA's review

process under section 303(c) of the CWA.

D. Stream Segments With Specific Beneficial Use Designations

1. Background

As discussed in Section ``C. Unclassified Waters'' above, the

federal water quality standards regulations require that water quality

standards

provide for fishable/swimmable uses unless it has been demonstrated

that attaining the designated beneficial uses is not feasible for any

of the reasons described in 40 CFR 131.10(g). Whenever the State

designates or has designated uses that do not include these fishable/

swimmable uses or when the State wishes to remove a designated use, a

use attainability analysis (UAA) must be completed and submitted to EPA

for review.

2. EPA Review of Idaho's Use Designations

attaining the designated beneficial uses is not feasible for any

of the reasons described in 40 CFR 131.10(g). Whenever the State

designates or has designated uses that do not include these fishable/

swimmable uses or when the State wishes to remove a designated use, a

use attainability analysis (UAA) must be completed and submitted to EPA

for review.

2. EPA Review of Idaho's Use Designations

Idaho's 1994 water quality standards which were submitted to EPA

for review contained 53 water body segments which had designated

beneficial uses which were less than fishable/swimmable. More

specifically, the designated beneficial uses for 9 segments were

missing cold water biota, for 18 were missing primary contact

recreation and for 26 were missing both cold water biota and primary

contact recreation. Idaho had not submitted UAA's justifying the

lowered uses for these segments.

In a letter to Idaho from EPA in October 1995, EPA pointed out this

deficiency. Idaho took no action. On June 25, 1996, EPA disapproved the

uses for these 53 water body segments because the State had failed to

justify lower use classifications in accordance with 40 CFR

Sec. 131.10(j). EPA Stated that, to meet the requirements of the CWA,

Idaho must either submit use attainability analyses providing the

justification for less than fishable/swimmable uses for the subject

waters or revise the standards to include fishable and swimmable uses.

3. Recent Idaho Actions

nts because the State had failed to

justify lower use classifications in accordance with 40 CFR

Sec. 131.10(j). EPA Stated that, to meet the requirements of the CWA,

Idaho must either submit use attainability analyses providing the

justification for less than fishable/swimmable uses for the subject

waters or revise the standards to include fishable and swimmable uses.

3. Recent Idaho Actions

To date, Idaho has taken action to revise the designated beneficial

uses for 2 of the 53 water body segments. Idaho adopted a temporary

rule on February 11, 1997 for the upgrade of uses for West Fork

Blackbird Creek, SB 4211 in the Salmon Basin, and Lindsay Creek, CB 210

in the Clearwater Basin. The temporary rule designated cold water biota

and salmonid spawning use for West Fork Blackbird Creek and secondary

contact recreation for Lindsay Creek and became effective on March 1,

1997. Idaho submitted this temporary rule to EPA on March 24, 1997.

With these changes, it appears that the beneficial use designations

for these segments meet the requirements of 40 CFR 131.10. However, the

process followed by Idaho in adopting this temporary rule has not yet

provided an opportunity for public hearing or comment on the rule as

required by 40 CFR 131.20. Because these segments are covered by Judge

Dwyer's order, and because EPA has not completed its approval/

disapproval action on Idaho's temporary rules for these segments, they

are included in today's proposal. If EPA approves these or other State

adopted standards before promulgating a final Federal rule, there will

be no need to include them in the final promulgation.

4. Federal Beneficial Use Designations for Specific Water Body Segments

's order, and because EPA has not completed its approval/

disapproval action on Idaho's temporary rules for these segments, they

are included in today's proposal. If EPA approves these or other State

adopted standards before promulgating a final Federal rule, there will

be no need to include them in the final promulgation.

4. Federal Beneficial Use Designations for Specific Water Body Segments

In its modified order, the District Court ordered EPA to propose

water quality standards by April 21, 1997 for the 53 water body

segments whose designations EPA had disapproved in June 1996. The

brevity of this schedule did not allow EPA time to complete its review

of available data on each of these segments, nor did it allow EPA time

to solicit data prior to this proposed rulemaking. Accordingly, in

proposing designated beneficial uses for the water body segments of

concern, EPA is relying on the rebuttable presumption implicit in its

regulations, that fishable/swimmable uses are attainable. If further

data indicates that this presumption is not appropriate for particular

water bodies, EPA's final rule will be revised accordingly. In

particular, if EPA determines, based on the record, that any of Idaho's

designations are justified, there will not be a need for federally

promulgated use designations for the water bodies in question. EPA

believes that this approach is reasonable because it is consistent with

the goals in section 101(a)(2) of the CWA and the implementing

requirements in the water quality standards regulations at 40 CFR Part

131.

Idaho's use classification system includes a number of beneficial

uses for its waters, including ``domestic water supply'',

``agricultural water supply'', ``cold water biota'', ``warm water

biota'', ``salmonid spawning'', ``primary contact recreation'' and

``secondary contact recreation''. EPA's approach in proposing

beneficial uses for the 53 water body segments is to select uses from

Idaho's system which correspond to ``fishable/swimmable'' uses

neficial

uses for its waters, including ``domestic water supply'',

``agricultural water supply'', ``cold water biota'', ``warm water

biota'', ``salmonid spawning'', ``primary contact recreation'' and

``secondary contact recreation''. EPA's approach in proposing

beneficial uses for the 53 water body segments is to select uses from

Idaho's system which correspond to ``fishable/swimmable'' uses. This

approach meets the requirements of the CWA while facilitating ultimate

withdrawal of federal standards.

i. Primary Contact Recreation

Forty-four of the water bodies whose beneficial use designations

were disapproved by EPA were missing primary contact recreation. In

most instances, the water bodies were assigned secondary contact

recreation; a few segments had neither primary or secondary. In light

of recent discussions with the State, it now appears that the criteria

assigned by Idaho to protect secondary contact recreation are

consistent with EPA guidance on bacteriological criteria for primary

contact recreation.

In the current Idaho water quality standards, except for fecal

coliform bacteria, all of the criteria applicable to primary contact

recreation are also applicable to secondary contact recreation (i.e.,

all toxic substance criteria for the protection of human health apply

to both primary and secondary contact recreation, see IDAPA

16.01.02.250.01.c.). It is only the bacteriological criteria which

differ between primary and secondary contact recreation.

Idaho's current bacteriological criteria for the protection of

secondary contact recreation are concentrations of fecal coliform

bacteria not to exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 milliliters (ml)

based on a minimum of five samples taken over a thirty day period, 800/

100 ml at any time; and 400/100 ml in more than ten percent of the

total samples taken over a thirty day period

ct recreation.

Idaho's current bacteriological criteria for the protection of

secondary contact recreation are concentrations of fecal coliform

bacteria not to exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 milliliters (ml)

based on a minimum of five samples taken over a thirty day period, 800/

100 ml at any time; and 400/100 ml in more than ten percent of the

total samples taken over a thirty day period. (See IDAPA

16.01.02.250.01.b.)

Idaho's current bacteriological criteria applicable for the

protection of primary contact recreation apply between May 1 and

September 30 of each calendar year and are concentrations of fecal

coliform bacteria not to exceed a geometric mean of 50/100 ml based on

a minimum of five samples taken over a thirty day period, 500/100 ml at

any time; and 200/100 ml in more than ten percent of the total samples

taken over a thirty day period. (See IDAPA 16.01.02.250.01.a.). EPA's

section 304(a)(1) bacteriological criteria document published in 1976

recommended a log mean fecal coliform limits of 200 FC/100 ml.

EPA believes it is required by the terms of the District Court's

order to propose primary contact recreation as a designated beneficial

use for those water bodies which already have secondary contact as a

designated beneficial use. However, EPA is soliciting comment on

whether Idaho's secondary contact recreation, with its associated

criteria, is sufficient. Specifically, EPA seeks comment on (1) whether

Idaho's criteria for secondary contact recreation are in fact

sufficient to protect primary contact recreation; and (2) if that is

so, whether there is any reason to promulgate federal primary contact

recreation use designations for the streams already subject to the

secondary contact recreation criteria.

ii. Cold Water Biota

Thirty five of the 53 segments addressed in EPA's June 1996 letter

Idaho's criteria for secondary contact recreation are in fact

sufficient to protect primary contact recreation; and (2) if that is

so, whether there is any reason to promulgate federal primary contact

recreation use designations for the streams already subject to the

secondary contact recreation criteria.

ii. Cold Water Biota

Thirty five of the 53 segments addressed in EPA's June 1996 letter

were disapproved because they were missing a cold water biota

beneficial use designation. As discussed above, under section C

(Unclassified Waters), cold water biota is the appropriate default

aquatic life classification for Idaho. To the extent possible prior to

proposal, EPA also examined data for these 35 segments relevant to the

existence of, or potential to support, cold water biota.

EPA solicited and collected water chemistry data for the South Fork

Coeur d'Alene River Basin from Idaho Fish and Game, the Coeur d'Alene

Tribe and from within EPA's Superfund Program. In addition, biological

monitoring data on marcroinvertebrates and fish population data was

collected from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Coeur

d'Alene Tribe for this basin.

EPA also reviewed physical, chemical and biological data on West

Fork Blackbird Creek which Idaho DEQ submitted to EPA. Additionally

Idaho DEQ submitted to EPA preliminary results of assessment data which

either they had collected or had been collected from other sources,

such as Idaho Department of Fish and Game, on the 35 water body

segments which were lacking a cold water biota beneficial use

designation.

Based on the above data, as well as EPA's approach discussed in

Section C above, EPA determined that it is appropriate to propose a

cold water biota designated beneficial use for the 35 water body

segments.

iii. Salmonid Spawning

As a result of EPA's responsibilities and duties under Section 7 of

the Endangered Species Act, EPA initiated informal consultation with

FWS and NMFS on our proposed action

the above data, as well as EPA's approach discussed in

Section C above, EPA determined that it is appropriate to propose a

cold water biota designated beneficial use for the 35 water body

segments.

iii. Salmonid Spawning

As a result of EPA's responsibilities and duties under Section 7 of

the Endangered Species Act, EPA initiated informal consultation with

FWS and NMFS on our proposed action. In conferring with NMFS on

designating beneficial uses for these 53 segments, EPA obtained data

from Idaho Department of Fish and Game which indicated that 7 of the 53

segments provide spawning habitat for chinook and steelhead salmon. Of

these 7, there were 4 which Idaho had not already designated for

salmonid spawning use. As a result of this information, EPA is

proposing an additional designated use of salmonid spawning for the

following four segments: Grasshopper Creek, Little Bear Creek,

Blackbird Creek, Panther Creek.

Based on the information provided, EPA determined that salmonid

spawning, which requires more stringent temperature and dissolved

oxygen criteria than those assigned to cold water biota, was the

appropriate beneficial use to ensure ``fishable'' water quality for

these four water body segments.

5. Request for Comment and Data

EPA believes the above beneficial uses are appropriate considering

the requirements of the CWA and given the time frame which the court

had ordered. Nonetheless, it is possible that information exists which

may further support or refute their attainability or support or refute

the appropriateness of the State's uses. Accordingly, EPA will evaluate

any data which is submitted with regard to the aquatic life uses (i.e.,

cold water biota and salmonid spawning) of the 35 water body segments

as well as the proposed primary contact recreational use. Based on such

information EPA can make a final decision whether the designated uses

in today's proposal are appropriate and required by the Clean Water

Act

s uses. Accordingly, EPA will evaluate

any data which is submitted with regard to the aquatic life uses (i.e.,

cold water biota and salmonid spawning) of the 35 water body segments

as well as the proposed primary contact recreational use. Based on such

information EPA can make a final decision whether the designated uses

in today's proposal are appropriate and required by the Clean Water

Act. To assist the Agency in ensuring that its decisions are based upon

the best available information, the Agency is soliciting information.

To assist commenters the following paragraphs provide guidance on what

information is relevant.

Specifically EPA is seeking information that would assist in

determining whether the beneficial uses identified above are currently

being attained, can be attained, or have been attained since or before

1975; whether natural conditions or features or human caused conditions

prevent the attainment of these uses and cannot be remedied or would

cause more environmental damage to correct than to leave in place; or

whether the controls more stringent than those required by Section

301(b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act would be needed to attain the

uses and would cause substantial and widespread economic and social

impact. Below is a general discussion of the types of data/information

requested by the Agency:

Ambient Monitoring Information: (1) Any in-stream data for any of

the above stream segments reflecting either natural conditions (e.g.,

in-stream flow data or other data relating to stream hydrology) or

irretrievable human-caused conditions which prevent the uses or water

quality criteria from being attained; (2) any available in-stream

biological data; (3) any chemical and biological monitoring data that

verify improvements to water quality as a result of treatment plant/

facility upgrades and/or expansions; and (4) any in-stream data

reflecting nonpoint sources of pollution or best management practices

that have been implemented for nonpoint source control

r

quality criteria from being attained; (2) any available in-stream

biological data; (3) any chemical and biological monitoring data that

verify improvements to water quality as a result of treatment plant/

facility upgrades and/or expansions; and (4) any in-stream data

reflecting nonpoint sources of pollution or best management practices

that have been implemented for nonpoint source control.

Current and Historical Effluent Data: (1) Any data and information

relating to mass loadings from point source discharges of pollutants

such as BOD, NH3-N, chlorine, metals (e.g., As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb,

Hg, Ni, Ag, Zn), toxics (e.g., volatile organic chemicals such as

benzene or toluene, acid extractables such as pentachlorophenol, base

neutrals such as anthracene, fluorene or pyrene, and pesticides such as

aldrin, lindane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin and toxaphene); (2) data and

information related to facility or treatment plant effluent quality;

and (3) any information related to releases of pollutants from other

sources such as landfills, transportation facilities, construction

sites, agriculture/silviculture, incinerators, and contaminated

sediments.

Models: (1) Any data or information on analytical models which can

be used to evaluate or predict stream quality, flow, morphology; (2)

any physical, biological or chemical characteristics relating to

beneficial uses; and (3) the results of any such models which can be

used to evaluate beneficial uses.

Economic Data: Any information relating to costs and benefits

associated with facility or treatment plant expansions or upgrades

analytical models which can

be used to evaluate or predict stream quality, flow, morphology; (2)

any physical, biological or chemical characteristics relating to

beneficial uses; and (3) the results of any such models which can be

used to evaluate beneficial uses.

Economic Data: Any information relating to costs and benefits

associated with facility or treatment plant expansions or upgrades.

This information includes: (1) Qualitative descriptions or quantitative

estimates of any costs and benefits associated with facility or

treatment plant expansions or upgrades, or associated with facilities

or treatment plants meeting limits; (2) any information on costs to

households in the community with facility or treatment plant expansions

or upgrades, whether through an increase in user fees, an increase in

taxes, or a combination of both; (3) descriptions of the geographical

area affected; (4) any changes in median household income, employment,

and overall net debt as a percent of full market value of taxable

property; and (5) any effects of changes in tax revenues if the

private-sector entity were to go out of business, changes in income to

the community if workers lose their jobs, and effects on other

businesses both direct and indirect.

E. Temperature Criteria for Threatened and Endangered Species

1. Background

Water quality standards consist, in part, of designated uses and

criteria to protect those uses. States designate uses for aquatic life

to provide protection for a variety of aquatic species which may be

present in their waters. Thermal requirements for these species vary

among species and among different life stages. Providing protection for

these varied species and their temperature requirements can be

accomplished a

ist, in part, of designated uses and

criteria to protect those uses. States designate uses for aquatic life

to provide protection for a variety of aquatic species which may be

present in their waters. Thermal requirements for these species vary

among species and among different life stages. Providing protection for

these varied species and their temperature requirements can be

accomplished a

number of ways. Most commonly, temperature criteria are set to protect

the more sensitive species residing at a site, or subcategories of uses

are established with criteria tailored to address and protect

particular species and/or life stages.

Idaho has three aquatic life designated beneficial uses, cold water

biota, warm water biota and salmonid spawning, with each category

having differing applicable temperature criteria. When designating uses

and applying this categorical aquatic life based approach, Idaho is

required to ensure that the criteria are sufficiently protective to

safeguard the full range of waters in the State to which the uses are

assigned. EPA's review of the criteria assigned by Idaho to its cold

water biota beneficial use designation indicated that the temperature

criteria did not provide adequate protection to some more sensitive

species. Accordingly, EPA disapproved aspects of Idaho's cold water

biota temperature criteria in the June 1996 letter. Idaho has not

revised these criteria to meet EPA's objection.

EPA's approach today is to propose more protective temperature

criteria to apply to Idaho's current cold water biota beneficial use

designation for those segments and river reaches with more sensitive

species. The Agency believes this approach minimizes the impact on

Idaho's current water quality standards while providing the protection

required by the CWA. EPA proposes to modify only the temperature

criteria applicable to the cold water biota beneficial use designation

for specific water bodies [for a list of these waters see Sec. 131.33

ose segments and river reaches with more sensitive

species. The Agency believes this approach minimizes the impact on

Idaho's current water quality standards while providing the protection

required by the CWA. EPA proposes to modify only the temperature

criteria applicable to the cold water biota beneficial use designation

for specific water bodies [for a list of these waters see Sec. 131.33

(c)-(e) of today's proposed rule]. The remaining criteria applicable to

coldwater biota (i.e., turbidity, ammonia, and dissolved oxygen) remain

unchanged. Specifically, today's proposal includes more stringent

temperature criteria for specified waters in Idaho in order to protect

the Kootenai River white sturgeon, five species of aquatic snails

(hereinafter ``snails''), and bull trout. The literature indicates that

Idaho's temperature criteria are inadequate to protect these aquatic

species. EPA is consulting with the FWS concerning the adequacy of the

criteria being proposed today. The following is a discussion of why EPA

determined more stringent criteria were needed and how EPA selected the

criteria being proposed today.

FWS has determined that Kootenai River white sturgeon and five

species of aquatic snails are threatened by extinction in Idaho. In

addition, the bull trout is a candidate for listing as threatened or

endangered. (Although FWS was petitioned to list the bull trout, it has

not yet listed it.) Where a species is likely to be listed EPA assesses

the effects to candidate aquatic species in a similar manner as listed

species. Therefore EPA specifically assessed the impacts of Idaho's

water quality standards to bull trout.

In order to determine whether EPA's approval of Idaho's water

quality standards would adversely effect species listed or candidates

for listing under ESA, EPA reviewed applicable scientific literature

ed EPA assesses

the effects to candidate aquatic species in a similar manner as listed

species. Therefore EPA specifically assessed the impacts of Idaho's

water quality standards to bull trout.

In order to determine whether EPA's approval of Idaho's water

quality standards would adversely effect species listed or candidates

for listing under ESA, EPA reviewed applicable scientific literature.

Based on a review of the literature available to EPA, the Agency

determined that Idaho's temperature criteria were inadequate in

providing protection to Kootenai River white sturgeon, 5 species of

aquatic snails and bull trout. As discussed more fully below, the

scientific literature indicates that temperatures in exceedance of

applicable requirements, along with other habitat parameters, are

threats to each of these aquatic species. EPA determined that

temperatures lower than those currently specified under the State's

designated uses are more appropriate for these species. Based on this

determination, on June 25, 1996 EPA disapproved Idaho's temperature

criteria in certain water body segments which provide habitat for these

species.

2. Kootenai River White Sturgeon

i. EPA's Review

According to the literature and review of the data from the

Kootenai River monitoring programs conducted from 1990 through 1995,

Kootenai River white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) spawned within

a 16 river kilometer (10 river mile) stretch of the Kootenai River,

primarily from Bonners Ferry downstream to the lower end of Shorty's

Island (White Sturgeon: Kootenai River Population Draft Recovery Plan,

U.S. FWS). Kootenai River sturgeon spawn from May through July (58 FR

36379-86; July 7, 1993). Spawning is dependent on, and therefore occurs

when, the physical environment permits egg development and cues

ovulation. Following fertilization, white sturgeon eggs attach to river

substrate and undergo a relatively short incubation period of 8 to 15

days until they hatch (Brannon et. al., 1985)

U.S. FWS). Kootenai River sturgeon spawn from May through July (58 FR

36379-86; July 7, 1993). Spawning is dependent on, and therefore occurs

when, the physical environment permits egg development and cues

ovulation. Following fertilization, white sturgeon eggs attach to river

substrate and undergo a relatively short incubation period of 8 to 15

days until they hatch (Brannon et. al., 1985). Landlocked populations

of white sturgeon normally spawn during the period of peak flows from

April through July (Duke et. al. 1990).

According to the literature, significant modification to the

natural hydrograph in the Kootenai River caused by flow regulation at

Libby Dam is considered the primary reason for the Kootenai River

sturgeon's declining numbers (Apperson and Anders 1991). Since 1972,

when Libby Dam began operating, spring flows in the Kootenai River have

been reduced an average 50 percent, and winter flows have increased by

300 percent over normal. As a consequence, natural high spring flows

required by white sturgeon for reproduction rarely occur during the May

to July spawning season when suitable temperature, water velocity and

photoperiod conditions exist.

Based on recent monitoring studies of Kootenai River flow,

temperature, and fertilized egg distribution, water temperatures

corresponding to estimated spawning dates of Kootenai River sturgeon

range from approximately 8.5 to 14 deg.C and have been estimated to

occur in the May-July time period. During 1970, 1974 and 1980, where

successful, natural recruitment of Kootenai sturgeon is believed to

have occurred, temperatures associated with peak flow events during the

presumed spawning period ranged from 11 to 13 deg.C (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Columbia River Basin Field Office, ``Rationale for

Reestablishment of Natural Recruitment of Kootenai River White

Sturgeon'')

e period. During 1970, 1974 and 1980, where

successful, natural recruitment of Kootenai sturgeon is believed to

have occurred, temperatures associated with peak flow events during the

presumed spawning period ranged from 11 to 13 deg.C (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Columbia River Basin Field Office, ``Rationale for

Reestablishment of Natural Recruitment of Kootenai River White

Sturgeon''). Elsewhere, spawning of white sturgeon has been documented

at higher temperatures than Kootenai sturgeon, with reported spawning

in the lower Columbia River occurring at temperatures ranging from 10-

18 deg.C during 1987 to 1991 (Parsley et al., 1993). Parsley et al.

further report that most of the spawning in the lower Columbia River

occurred between 10 and 12 deg.C. Because the Columbia River white

sturgeon may be acclimated to warmer temperatures than those

experienced by sturgeon in the Kootenai River, the applicability of

Columbia River data to Kootenai sturgeon is unclear. It should be

further noted that white sturgeon spawning is cued by other factors, of

which flow is among the most important, and therefore, the lack of

spawning at some temperatures may be due to suboptimal flow conditions

or other important factors. Thus, while the available information

suggests that 8-14 deg.C is a reasonable temperature range to be

considered for maintenance of Kootenai River sturgeon, the current

optimal temperature range for Kootenai River white sturgeon is not

entirely certain.

Partly because of the uncertainty in defining optimal spawning

conditions for Kootenai sturgeon, the FWS and the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (COE) are experimenting with agreed upon operational

guidelines for flow releases at Libby Dam during 1997 and 1998 in part,

to obtain more data to determine optimal spawning conditions for

nge for Kootenai River white sturgeon is not

entirely certain.

Partly because of the uncertainty in defining optimal spawning

conditions for Kootenai sturgeon, the FWS and the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (COE) are experimenting with agreed upon operational

guidelines for flow releases at Libby Dam during 1997 and 1998 in part,

to obtain more data to determine optimal spawning conditions for

sturgeon. Future studies and monitoring may more accurately determine

Kootenai River white sturgeon spawning requirements.

Data on temperature requirements of other life stages of white

sturgeon is much more limited. An optimum temperature for egg

development of 14 deg.C is reported by Wang et al. (1985 as cited

by Parsley et al., 1993), with elevated mortality occurring at 18

deg.C and complete mortality at 20 deg.C. Temperature tolerance data

for other life stages was not found, although older sturgeon are

reported to inhabit deeper locations in Kootenai River locations with

temperatures ranging from 14 to 20 deg.C (PSMFC, 1992).

In addition to evaluation of the literature, EPA conferred with FWS

and COE staff in determining appropriate temperature values protective

of sturgeon spawning. EPA reviewed data from monitoring efforts by the

COE on the Kootenai River from 1993 through 1997.

ii. Idaho's Temperature Criteria

Idaho's current designated beneficial use for the Kootenai River

from Bonners Ferry to Shorty's Island is cold water biota, which has

applicable temperature criteria of 22 deg.C or less with a maximum

daily average of 19 deg.C Hence, EPA concluded that Idaho's cold water

biota temperature criteria do not provide an adequate level of

protection for Kootenai River white sturgeon spawning.

iii. EPA's Proposed Temperature Criteria

Temperature criteria being proposed for the Kootenai River from

Bonners Ferry to Shorty's Island were derived using EPA's temperature

criteria guidance (``Temperature Criteria for Freshwater Fish: Protocol

and Procedures''; U.S. EPA, 1977)

ta temperature criteria do not provide an adequate level of

protection for Kootenai River white sturgeon spawning.

iii. EPA's Proposed Temperature Criteria

Temperature criteria being proposed for the Kootenai River from

Bonners Ferry to Shorty's Island were derived using EPA's temperature

criteria guidance (``Temperature Criteria for Freshwater Fish: Protocol

and Procedures''; U.S. EPA, 1977). The EPA protocol recommends

expression of temperature criteria in two forms: (1) A short-term

maxima (protection against lethal conditions, usually for a duration of

24 hours), and (2) a mean temperature value (expressed as the maximum

weekly average temperature) that is designed to protect critical life

stage functions such as spawning, embryogenesis, growth, maturation and

development. For sturgeon, sufficient data were available to derive

weekly mean temperature criteria to protect spawning and egg

incubation.

In addition to data sources discussed previously, EPA relied on

communications with relevant Corps and FWS staff.

Based on the information reviewed, EPA is proposing seasonal

minimum and maximum weekly average temperature criteria to protect for

white sturgeon spawning [see Sec. 131.33(d) of today's proposed rule].

Rather than setting temperature criteria based on fixed calendar dates,

the temperature criteria for Kootenai River sturgeon are designed to

protect critical spawning and egg incubation life stages, but allow for

some temporal flexibility as to when such temperatures for spawning and

egg incubation activities can occur. This flexibility is desirable

given known, natural temperature variations that occur at the Kootenai

River site from year to year

alendar dates,

the temperature criteria for Kootenai River sturgeon are designed to

protect critical spawning and egg incubation life stages, but allow for

some temporal flexibility as to when such temperatures for spawning and

egg incubation activities can occur. This flexibility is desirable

given known, natural temperature variations that occur at the Kootenai

River site from year to year. Therefore, such criteria are based on

first establishing a minimum weekly average temperature of 8 deg.C

(believed to be the lower limit for spawning), followed by an 8-week

time period where the maximum weekly average temperature does not

exceed the upper spawning temperature limit of 14 deg.C currently

estimated for Kootenai River sturgeon. Selection of an 8-week

``spawning window'' approximates the length of the spawning period

currently estimated for Kootenai River sturgeon. The maximum weekly

average temperature criterion of 16 deg.C set for weeks 9 and 10

(after achievement of the 8 deg.C minimum temperature) is intended to

protect egg incubation of late spawners based on 1-2 week egg

incubation time reported for Kootenai River sturgeon. The 16 deg.C

maximum weekly average temperature criterion is an EPA inferred

estimate of the threshold for egg incubation based on data reported by

Wang et al. (1985; as cited in Parsley et al., 1993) and reflects

natural gradual warming of water temperatures that will likely occur at

this site during mid to late July.

EPA believes that these temperature criteria in combination with

the time frame regime will provide appropriate protection for white

sturgeon spawning in the Kootenai River while maintaining necessary

flexibility due to natural variability in seasonal temperature regimes

3) and reflects

natural gradual warming of water temperatures that will likely occur at

this site during mid to late July.

EPA believes that these temperature criteria in combination with

the time frame regime will provide appropriate protection for white

sturgeon spawning in the Kootenai River while maintaining necessary

flexibility due to natural variability in seasonal temperature regimes.

While recognizing that other factors besides temperature are also

limiting to a viable population of sturgeon in the Kootenai River

system, EPA determined that revising the temperature criteria in this

known spawning segment was an appropriate and needed measure towards

the protection and conservation of this species.

EPA is soliciting comments and data on the proposed temperature

criteria. Comments are particularly sought concerning: (a) Additional

information on range, distribution, and population of the species; (b)

the relationship between water velocities, temperature and spawning;

(c) appropriate time frames for sturgeon spawning; (d) implementation

issues associated with the weekly moving average and onset of the

maximum weekly average; and (e) appropriateness of both the minimum and

maximum weekly average values.

3. Freshwater Aquatic Snails

i. EPA's Review

EPA reviewed the available scientific literature in order to

determine the water quality requirements for the following five species

of freshwater aquatic snails which are listed as threatened or

endangered under the ESA: the Bliss Rapids snail, the Snake River

physa, Banbury Springs lanx, Utah valvata snail and Idaho springsnail.

According to the 1995 Snake River Aquatic Species Recovery Plan

developed by the FWS, these 5 snails occupy habitat in the middle Snake

River from C.J. Strike Reservoir to American Falls Dam

ies

of freshwater aquatic snails which are listed as threatened or

endangered under the ESA: the Bliss Rapids snail, the Snake River

physa, Banbury Springs lanx, Utah valvata snail and Idaho springsnail.

According to the 1995 Snake River Aquatic Species Recovery Plan

developed by the FWS, these 5 snails occupy habitat in the middle Snake

River from C.J. Strike Reservoir to American Falls Dam. The recovery

area for 4 of the species (Idaho springsnail, Utah valvata snail, Snake

River physa and Bliss Rapids snail) has been delineated in the mainstem

Snake River between river kilometers (rkm) 834-1142 (rivermiles (rm)

518-709). The recovery area for the one remaining species (Banbury

Springs lanx) includes cold-water spring complexes to the Snake River

between rkm 941.5-948.8 (rm 584.8-589.3).

Little is known about the ecology of the listed snail species. A

priority recovery measure in the Recovery Plan is to obtain more data

to describe habitat and life history requirements. EPA reviewed

available literature on the distribution and habitat conditions where

the listed snails are found in the Snake River. From a survey conducted

by Idaho Power in the Middle Snake River from April through December

1995 (Crazier and Myers, 1996) there is data showing that the Bliss

Rapids snail occurred in water temperatures of 7.6 degrees C to 19.8

degrees C, the Banbury Springs lanx occurred in temperatures of 11.8

degrees C to 14.5 degrees C, and the Idaho springsnail was found in

water temperatures of 7.6 degrees C to 19.8 degrees C. The Utah valvata

and Snake River physa were not found in the portion of the river that

was surveyed. The Snake River Recovery Plan (1995) notes that the

Banbury Springs lanx had only been found at that time in waters of 15

degrees C. to 16 degrees C. The Recovery Plan recommends annual average

temperatures below 18 degrees C, however an annual average is not

likely to provide an adequate basis for

ah valvata

and Snake River physa were not found in the portion of the river that

was surveyed. The Snake River Recovery Plan (1995) notes that the

Banbury Springs lanx had only been found at that time in waters of 15

degrees C. to 16 degrees C. The Recovery Plan recommends annual average

temperatures below 18 degrees C, however an annual average is not

likely to provide an adequate basis for

implementation of a temperature criterion.

ii. Idaho's Temperature Criteria

The current Idaho water quality standards designate part of the

recovery area within the Snake River, specifically, water body segment

SWB-10, Snake River from King Hill to Marsing, primary contact

recreation, which has no applicable temperature criteria, and designate

other parts of the recovery area cold water biota, which has

temperature criteria of 22 deg.C or less with a maximum daily average

of 19 deg.C.

Based on the information which was reviewed and conferring with

FWS, EPA determined that the cold water biota temperature criteria do

not provide an adequate level of protection for these five species of

snails. Therefore, on June 25, 1996, EPA disapproved Idaho's

temperature criteria applicable within the specified geographic ranges

or recovery areas for each of the 5 snail species.

iii. EPA's Proposed Temperature Criterion

In order to provide adequate and protective temperatures for the

listed snail species EPA is proposing a maximum daily average

temperature of 18 degrees C in the Middle Snake River from river mile

518 to river mile 709. Additionally, for water body segment SWB 10,

which does not currently have cold water biota designated use, EPA is

also proposing that use as well as a maximum daily average of 18

degrees C temperature criterion. This proposal is based on the limited

temperature information available related to the species occurrence,

the Recovery Plan recommendation, and correspondence between the FWS

and Idaho on April 11, 1997

r body segment SWB 10,

which does not currently have cold water biota designated use, EPA is

also proposing that use as well as a maximum daily average of 18

degrees C temperature criterion. This proposal is based on the limited

temperature information available related to the species occurrence,

the Recovery Plan recommendation, and correspondence between the FWS

and Idaho on April 11, 1997. The FWS letter responded to a State

request for clarification of the Recovery Plan recommendation, and it

again stressed the need for a temperature at or below 18 degrees C as a

level necessary to move toward recovery of the listed aquatic snails.

The letter additionally noted that spring habitats where listed snails

occur adjacent to the Snake River will likely require even lower

temperatures for optimal habitat conditions.

EPA is soliciting comments on the proposed temperature criterion.

Because of the limited information available at the time of this

proposal, EPA is soliciting additional data. Data and information are

sought pertinent to: (1)aquatic snail occurrence in the Middle Snake

River, and (2) refining the habitat and temperature requirements of the

individual species. EPA is also soliciting comments on other options

for applying temperature criteria to the Middle Snake River for

protection of listed aquatic snails.

4. Bull Trout

i. EPA's Review

According to the literature, bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) is

a species which is considered an indicator of the environmental health

of watersheds and is known to reproduce only in clean, cold relatively

pristine streams.

EPA evaluated the literature and conferred with biologists from the

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the Interior Columbia Ecosystem

Management Project. According to the literature, bull trout is a

species requiring a narrow and relatively cold range of temperature

conditions to reproduce and survive. They appear to be one of the most

temperature intolerant species of salmonids

treams.

EPA evaluated the literature and conferred with biologists from the

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the Interior Columbia Ecosystem

Management Project. According to the literature, bull trout is a

species requiring a narrow and relatively cold range of temperature

conditions to reproduce and survive. They appear to be one of the most

temperature intolerant species of salmonids. They spawn in late summer

through fall (late August-November) and have a long egg incubation

period (typically lasting from early fall to April). High temperatures

are therefore a concern for migration and spawning in the late summer

and early fall.

Incubation of bull trout eggs requires cold temperatures ranging

from 1 to 6 deg.C and occurs at optimum temperatures of approximately

4 deg.C (ORDEQ, 1994; Weaver and White, 1985; McPhail and Murray,

1979). Specifically, Weaver and White (1985) report 4 to 6 deg.C as

being needed for egg incubation of bull trout embryos in Montana

streams. Further, McPhail and Murray (1979) report 0% to 20% survival

of incubating bull trout embryos at temperatures ranging from 8 to 10

deg.C; 60% to 90% survival at 6 deg.C; and 85-95% survival at 2-4

deg.C, further suggesting 6 deg.C as close to a reasonable threshold

for egg incubation.

Based on EPA's review of the literature, in addition to a review

conducted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ORDEQ,

1994), a temperature range of 4-10 deg.C is believed to be necessary

to maintain successful bull trout spawning. A temperature range of

approximately 6 to 8 deg.C is believed approximate the optimum

spawning temperatures of bull trout (Idaho Department of Fish and

Game). Optimum temperatures for fry growth have been reported to be 4

deg.C (McPhail and Murray, 1979). For later life stages of bull trout,

temperatures less than 12 deg.C appear to be most suitable for

juvenile rearing and adult migration. Specifically, Shepard et al.

ximately 6 to 8 deg.C is believed approximate the optimum

spawning temperatures of bull trout (Idaho Department of Fish and

Game). Optimum temperatures for fry growth have been reported to be 4

deg.C (McPhail and Murray, 1979). For later life stages of bull trout,

temperatures less than 12 deg.C appear to be most suitable for

juvenile rearing and adult migration. Specifically, Shepard et al.

(1984) report the highest densities of bull trout in Montana streams at

temperatures of 12 deg.C and below, some presence of bull trout at 15

to 18 deg.C and complete absence of bull trout in streams with

temperatures exceeding 19 deg.C. Based on field observations of the

presence of juvenile bull trout in Idaho streams, 12 deg.C also

appears to be a maximum temperature where juveniles are found (Idaho

Dept. Fish and Game). Temperatures between 10 and 12 deg.C are also

reported to be the optimum range for adult migration, which occurs

between bull trout feeding and spawning areas (ORDEQ, 1994).

ii. Idaho's Temperature Criteria

The current temperature criteria applicable to the cold water biota

use classification (22 deg.C or less with a maximum daily average of

19 deg.C) does not provide an adequate level of protection for bull

trout. Therefore, on June 25, 1996, EPA disapproved Idaho's temperature

criteria applicable within geographic ranges where bull trout occur.

iii. EPA's Proposed Temperature Criteria and Bull Trout Distribution

Temperature criteria being proposed for Idaho streams designated as

bull trout habitat were derived using EPA's temperature criteria

guidance (``Temperature Criteria for Freshwater Fish: Protocol and

Procedures; U.S. EPA, 1977)

sapproved Idaho's temperature

criteria applicable within geographic ranges where bull trout occur.

iii. EPA's Proposed Temperature Criteria and Bull Trout Distribution

Temperature criteria being proposed for Idaho streams designated as

bull trout habitat were derived using EPA's temperature criteria

guidance (``Temperature Criteria for Freshwater Fish: Protocol and

Procedures; U.S. EPA, 1977). The EPA protocol recommends expression of

temperature criteria in two forms: (1) a short-term maxima (protection

against lethal conditions, usually for a duration of 24 hours), and (2)

a mean temperature value (expressed as the maximum weekly average

temperature) that is designed to protect critical life stage functions

such as spawning, embryogenesis, growth, maturation and development.

Sufficient data were available to derive temperature criteria as

maximum weekly average temperatures (MWAT) that would be protective of

various bull trout life stages, including spawning, egg incubation,

juvenile rearing and adult migration. Because of the complex life

history of bull trout, EPA is proposing temperature criteria that would

span a calendar year, but that would vary depending on the presence and

thermal tolerances of various bull trout life stages [see

Sec. 131.33(c)(1) in today's proposed rule].

During January and February, the maximum weekly average temperature

(MWAT) criterion is proposed at 4 deg.C to protect optimum

temperatures required for egg incubation. During March, a MWAT of 6

deg.C is being proposed based on data discussed earlier that indicate 6

deg.C approximates a maximum temperature threshold for successful egg

incubation. A MWAT of 8 deg.C during the

proposed rule].

During January and February, the maximum weekly average temperature

(MWAT) criterion is proposed at 4 deg.C to protect optimum

temperatures required for egg incubation. During March, a MWAT of 6

deg.C is being proposed based on data discussed earlier that indicate 6

deg.C approximates a maximum temperature threshold for successful egg

incubation. A MWAT of 8 deg.C during the

month of April is being proposed to account for an expected gradual

increase in stream temperatures during this time period and is

considered to be within the optimum range for juvenile growth. During

May, a MWAT of 10 deg.C is proposed because it reflects an expected

gradual increase in stream temperatures that is likely to occur at this

time and is considered an optimum temperature for adult migration and

juvenile growth. A MWAT criterion of 12 deg.C is being proposed for

the months of June, July and through August 15 to protect against

exceedence of temperature limits reported for juvenile rearing. A MWAT

criterion of 10 deg.C is proposed from August 16 through the month of

September because this temperature reflects the upper range for

spawning reported in the literature for bull trout and bull trout

spawning occurs during this time period. During the month of October, a

MWAT value of 8 deg.C is proposed to maintain optimal temperature

conditions for bull trout spawning and reflects an expected gradual

decrease in stream temperatures. Finally, a MWAT value of 6 deg.C is

proposed for the months of November and December to reflect the limit

for egg incubation and spawning optimum.

At the time of the disapproval, EPA had not identified the exact

geographic areas inhabited by bull trout. EPA believed that Idaho had

the resources to ascertain this information as the Office of the

Governor of Idaho was in the process of developing a bull trout

conservation plan. On July 1, 1996 a final version of the Governor's

Bull Trout Plan was released

incubation and spawning optimum.

At the time of the disapproval, EPA had not identified the exact

geographic areas inhabited by bull trout. EPA believed that Idaho had

the resources to ascertain this information as the Office of the

Governor of Idaho was in the process of developing a bull trout

conservation plan. On July 1, 1996 a final version of the Governor's

Bull Trout Plan was released. This plan identifies 59 key watersheds

which should be targeted for the protection and restoration of bull

trout populations. Although this plan identifies watersheds of concern,

it did not provide the level of resolution which EPA deems necessary in

describing distribution of bull trout.

Today's proposed rulemaking includes a list of water bodies where

revised temperature criteria are needed in order to protect bull trout.

In deriving this list, EPA relied upon bull trout distribution data

from the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP)

as well as bull trout distribution data from the Idaho Department of

Fish and Game.

Section 131.33(c)(2) of today's proposed rule contains a list of

Idaho water bodies that are known, suspected, and/or predicted to serve

as spawning and rearing areas of bull trout. The ICBEMP's ``Key

Salmonid'' database [footnote 1 to Sec. 131.33(c)(2)], and the Idaho

Department of Fish and Game Digital Bull Trout Distribution Database

[footnote 2 to Sec. 131.33(c)(2)] were both used in deriving this list.

The ICBEMP data are tied to sub-watersheds, also known as ``6th-

code HUCs''. ICBEMP scientists determined criteria to identify sub-

watersheds that represent spawning and rearing areas. Sub-watersheds

identified as migration corridors only are excluded. The resultant sub-

watersheds were overlaid with the digital Pacific Northwest River Reach

File in the EPA Geographic Information System to produce a file of

streams within these sub-watersheds with possible spawning and rearing

activity

determined criteria to identify sub-

watersheds that represent spawning and rearing areas. Sub-watersheds

identified as migration corridors only are excluded. The resultant sub-

watersheds were overlaid with the digital Pacific Northwest River Reach

File in the EPA Geographic Information System to produce a file of

streams within these sub-watersheds with possible spawning and rearing

activity. Only streams with attributed names in the dataset were used

in this process. Some streams with no actual bull trout spawning and

rearing activity are probably included, as only one stream with bull

trout presence was sufficient to cause the entire sub watershed (thus

all named streams within) to indicate spawn and rearing presence from

this database. EPA used the 1994-1995 version of this database.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game attributed bull trout

distribution data to Pacific Northwest River Reach File segments. Water

bodies coded as having ``known or suspected'' bull trout presence are

contained in the table with a superscript of ``2''. Hence the water

bodies from this database in the table contain areas that may be used

as only migration corridors, as there was no way to specifically

exclude them.

EPA had discussions with FWS on the temperature requirements for

bull trout protection. Additionally EPA consulted with staff from Idaho

Department of Fish & Game as well as numerous biologists familiar with

bull trout requirements and distribution.

Based on the above information, EPA is proposing maximum weekly

average seasonal temperature criteria. These criteria are proposed in

Sec. 131.33(c)(1) of today's proposed rule.

EPA is soliciting comment on both the temperature criteria as well

as the distribution data. Comments are particularly sought concerning

as numerous biologists familiar with

bull trout requirements and distribution.

Based on the above information, EPA is proposing maximum weekly

average seasonal temperature criteria. These criteria are proposed in

Sec. 131.33(c)(1) of today's proposed rule.

EPA is soliciting comment on both the temperature criteria as well

as the distribution data. Comments are particularly sought concerning

(a) affirmation of the presence of bull trout spawning in the current

list of water bodies in section (c)(2) of today's proposed rule; (b)

the adequacy of the proposed methodology for defining bull trout

distribution; (c) whether or not there is a better way to describe the

distribution; (d) site specific temperature data for any of the listed

water bodies; (e) site specific or laboratory temperature data on bull

trout; (f) proposals to address protection of migratory corridors; (g)

identification of water bodies in Sec. 131.33(c)(2) of today's proposed

rule which are not spawning and rearing areas; (h) identification of

additional known water bodies which provide spawning and rearing

habitat; (i) original information which would refine the list down to

stream level as opposed to watershed level along with geographic

identifiers for these streams i.e., USGS hydrologic unit codes; and (j)

other methods for refining the geographic distribution list.

F. Antidegradation Policy

The third component of a State's water quality standards, in

addition to designated uses and criteria to support those uses, is an

antidegradation policy consistent with 40 CFR 131.12. Section 131.12(a)

specifies three levels of protection to be accorded waters. The first

level (commonly referred to as Tier I) requires that existing uses, and

the level of water quality needed to protect such uses, be protected

and maintained [Sec. 131.12(a)(1)]

ds, in

addition to designated uses and criteria to support those uses, is an

antidegradation policy consistent with 40 CFR 131.12. Section 131.12(a)

specifies three levels of protection to be accorded waters. The first

level (commonly referred to as Tier I) requires that existing uses, and

the level of water quality needed to protect such uses, be protected

and maintained [Sec. 131.12(a)(1)]. The second level (Tier II) requires

that water quality in certain high quality waters not be lowered unless

the lowering is found to be necessary to accommodate important social

and economic development [Sec. 131.12(a)(2)]. The highest level of

protection (Tier III) applies to waters identified as ``Outstanding

National Resource Waters;'' water quality in such waters shall be

maintained and protected [Sec. 131.12(a)(3)].

EPA Region X's June 1996 letter disapproved the Tier III portion of

Idaho's antidegradation policy (IDAPA 16.01.02.051.03) because it did

not protect Tier III waters from degradation caused by point sources,

and thus did not provide effective protection for such waters. On

November 14, 1996, the State adopted a temporary rule which added

protection from point sources and addressed EPA's concern. This rule

was effective December 1, 1996. The State formally submitted this

revised rule to EPA for approval by a letter dated March 13, 1997,

which was received by EPA on March 24, 1997. Because of the timing of

this State submission and the work involved in preparing today's

proposal, EPA has not yet completed its approval process on the State's

revision. Accordingly, EPA believes it is still bound by the court's

order to propose a federal water quality standard addressing the

deficiency in section 16.01.02.051.03 of Idaho's 1993 antidegradation

policy.

Therefore, EPA is today proposing a Tier III antidegradation

provision applicable to waters of the United States within the State of

Idaho

or discharges to free-

flowing systems (e.g., streams and rivers) and discharges to open

waters (e.g., lakes or reservoirs). Subsection 060.01.g. allows water

quality within a mixing zone to be exempt from both Idaho's chemical-

specific water quality criteria at 16.01.02.250. and selected narrative

criteria at 16.01.02.200.01., 16.01.02.200.02., and 16.01.02.200.03.

(Idaho's subsection 200.01. prohibits State surface waters from

containing concentrations of hazardous materials that are of

significance to public health; subsection 200.02 prohibits toxic

substances in toxic concentrations; and subsection 200.03. prohibits

deleterious materials in concentrations that impair designated

beneficial uses.)

EPA disapproved subsection 060.01.g. of Idaho's mixing zone policy

because, although the principles identified in the remainder of Idaho's

mixing zone policy are adequate to ensure that the designated uses of

the receiving water are maintained, the language of the policy makes

these principles non-binding. Subsection 060.01. States ``the

Department will consider [emphasis added] the following principles''

(060.01.a-h). Thus, although subsections 060.01.a.-f. and h. contain

explicit language regarding the physical limitations to the size,

shape, and location of mixing zones, which on their face would appear

to protect designated beneficial uses even if narrative criteria are

not applicable, the word ``consider'' indicates that compliance with

subsections 060.01.a.-f. and h. is not mandatory.

Clean Water Act Sec. 303(c)(2)(A) requires States to adopt water

quality criteria to protect designated beneficial uses. EPA's

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.11 further clarify that such

criteria ``must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to

protect the designated use.'' There are no exceptions identified, or

alluded to in the CWA or EPA's implementing regulations. Water quality

within a mixing zone is not exempted

States to adopt water

quality criteria to protect designated beneficial uses. EPA's

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.11 further clarify that such

criteria ``must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to

protect the designated use.'' There are no exceptions identified, or

alluded to in the CWA or EPA's implementing regulations. Water quality

within a mixing zone is not exempted. By definition a mixing zone is an

area where chemical-specific acute and chronic water quality criteria

can be exceeded as long as a number of other protections are maintained

(Water Quality Standards Handbook; EPA-823-B-94-005a, August 1994).

These other protections are narrative criteria. EPA is not precluding

flexibility in how Idaho chooses to interpret the narrative criteria at

subsections 200.01.-03. EPA has simply disapproved an authorized,

categorical exemption from the narrative criteria in the absence of

other binding requirements in the mixing zone policy.

EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 131.11(a)(2) require States and tribes

to identify methods for implementing narrative criteria. Such methods

need to address all mechanisms to be used by the State to ensure that

narrative criteria are attained. Chemical-specific ambient water

quality criteria are most frequently used to ensure that narrative

criteria and beneficial designated uses are attained. However, when

chemical-specific criteria are absent or do not apply, as is the case

for water quality within a mixing zone, other implementation methods

are needed to ensure the designated uses are attained (WQS Handbook,

Chap. 3). While mixing zones allow the magnitude component of an

ambient water quality criterion to be exceeded, controlling the

exposure component ensures the beneficial designated use is maintained.

Idaho's implementation methods at 060.01.a.-h. would control exposure

by limiting the size, shape, and location of a mixing zone, if they

were mandatory.

2. Federal Mixing Zone Policy for Idaho

Chap. 3). While mixing zones allow the magnitude component of an

ambient water quality criterion to be exceeded, controlling the

exposure component ensures the beneficial designated use is maintained.

Idaho's implementation methods at 060.01.a.-h. would control exposure

by limiting the size, shape, and location of a mixing zone, if they

were mandatory.

2. Federal Mixing Zone Policy for Idaho

To address the above deficiency, EPA considered two options. Under

the first option, EPA would make the requirements of subsections

060.01.a.-f. and h. mandatory. This would protect the water quality

within a mixing zone and ensure that the designated beneficial uses for

the water body as a whole are maintained. However, EPA was concerned

that this approach would disregard site-specific situations that may

warrant some flexibility. For example, stream-specific and discharge-

specific conditions may allow a mixing zone to consume more than 25% of

the volume of stream flow (as specified in 060.01.e.ii.) and still

ensure that the designated beneficial use is attained.

For that reason, EPA also considered a second option that changes

the language at 060.01.g. so as not to exempt water quality within a

mixing zone from the narrative criteria at subsections 200.01.-03. This

approach allows Idaho to retain the discretion on when to rely on the

default implementation methods specified in subsections 060.01.a.-f.

and h., and when to rely on alternative methods to ensure the

designated beneficial use is maintained. Today's proposed rule contains

this second option.

EPA solicits comment on the appropriateness of option 1 and option

2. Does the increased flexibility provided in option 2 leave too much

discretion to the State? Are there other alternatives for protecting

the water quality within a mixing zone to ensure the designated

beneficial uses for the water body as a whole are maintained?

H. Excluded Waters Provision

ule contains

this second option.

EPA solicits comment on the appropriateness of option 1 and option

2. Does the increased flexibility provided in option 2 leave too much

discretion to the State? Are there other alternatives for protecting

the water quality within a mixing zone to ensure the designated

beneficial uses for the water body as a whole are maintained?

H. Excluded Waters Provision

Each State is required to have water quality standards for all

navigable waters in the State. CWA Sec. 303. The term ``navigable

waters'' is defined in Sec. 502(7) of the CWA to mean the ``waters of

the United States, including the territorial seas''. In accordance with

the intent expressed by the legislative history of the CWA, the term

``waters of the United States'' is in turn defined in regulations to

include, inter alia, intrastate waters whose use, degradation, or

destruction would or could affect interstate commerce. 40 CFR 122.2 and

Sec. 232.2(q). This portion of the definition is further explained at

53 FR 20765 (June 6, 1988).

Idaho's standards provide that, unless designated for particular

uses, lakes, ponds, pools, streams, and springs outside public lands

but located wholly and entirely upon a person's land are not protected

specifically and generally for any beneficial use (see IDAPA

16.01.02.101.03.).

The fact that a water may be located wholly on a person's land does

not necessarily preclude it from being a water ``the use, degradation

or destruction of which would or could affect interstate commerce.''

Hence, it is at least theoretically possible that some of these

unprotected excluded waters could be waters of the United States. To

ensure that any such waters receive the protection afforded other

unclassified waters, EPA is today proposing a rule which effectively

adds to the State's

being a water ``the use, degradation

or destruction of which would or could affect interstate commerce.''

Hence, it is at least theoretically possible that some of these

unprotected excluded waters could be waters of the United States. To

ensure that any such waters receive the protection afforded other

unclassified waters, EPA is today proposing a rule which effectively

adds to the State's

excluded waters provision the qualifying phrase ``unless such waters *

* * are `waters of the United States' as defined at 40 CFR

Sec. 122.2.''

This proposal is precautionary in nature. EPA has not identified

any specific waters which would be affected by this change. However,

the language EPA is proposing ensures that, if such waters are later

identified, their beneficial uses will be protected in the same way

uses of other unclassified waters are.

I. Federal Variances

As explained above in Sections C. and D., because of the scope of

rulemaking and the schedule ordered by the District Court, EPA has

relied on a rebuttable presumption approach to designating beneficial

uses and is only able to provide a 30-day comment period. EPA's final

rule will reflect consideration of the data made available to it by the

close of the comment period. However, it is possible that subsequent

data may become available which will be material to the attainability

of the uses involved in today's proposal.

If this occurs, one option available to EPA would be to propose to

revise or withdraw the federal use designation. An alternative

approach, particularly where the information is discharger-specific

and/or it appears that the use in question will eventually be

attainable, is to grant a water quality standards variance applicable

to the discharger in question. EPA has approved the granting of water

quality standards variances by States in circumstances which would

otherwise justify changing a use designation on grounds of

unattainability

larly where the information is discharger-specific

and/or it appears that the use in question will eventually be

attainable, is to grant a water quality standards variance applicable

to the discharger in question. EPA has approved the granting of water

quality standards variances by States in circumstances which would

otherwise justify changing a use designation on grounds of

unattainability. In contrast to a change in standards which removes a

use designation for a waterbody, a water quality standards variance

applies only to the discharger to whom it is granted and only to the

pollutant parameter(s) upon which the finding of unattainability was

based; the underlying standard remains in effect for all other

purposes.

For example, if a designated aquatic life use is currently

precluded because of high levels of metals from past mining activities

which cannot be remediated in the short term, but it is expected that

water quality will eventually improve, a temporary variance may be

granted to a discharger with relaxed criteria for such metals, until

remediation progresses and the use becomes attainable. The practical

effect of such a variance is to allow a permit to be written using less

stringent criteria, while encouraging ultimate attainment of the

underlying standard. A water quality standards variance provides a

mechanism for assuring compliance with sections 301(b)(1)(C) and

402(a)(1) of the CWA that require NPDES permits meet applicable water

quality standards, while granting temporary relief to point source

dischargers.

While 40 Sec. CFR 131.13 allows States to adopt variance procedures

for State-adopted water quality standards, such State procedures may

not be used to grant variances from federally adopted standards

g compliance with sections 301(b)(1)(C) and

402(a)(1) of the CWA that require NPDES permits meet applicable water

quality standards, while granting temporary relief to point source

dischargers.

While 40 Sec. CFR 131.13 allows States to adopt variance procedures

for State-adopted water quality standards, such State procedures may

not be used to grant variances from federally adopted standards. EPA

believes that it is appropriate to provide comparable federal

procedures where, as proposed here, EPA adopts use designations which

rely, at least in part, on a rebuttable presumption that fishable/

swimmable uses are attainable or adopts more stringent criteria for the

State's use designations. Therefore, EPA is proposing to authorize the

Region X Regional Administrator to grant water quality standard

variances where a permittee submits data indicating that an EPA-

designated use is not attainable for any of the reasons in 40 CFR

Sec. 131.10(g) or that a State designated use is not attainable due to

EPA-promulgated temperature criteria. This variance procedure will

apply to standards promulgated by EPA for specific named segments. EPA

does not believe it is necessary to have a variance procedures for

unclassified waters, since Idaho may effectively provide the same

relief by classifying an unclassified water, but invites comment on

this point.

Today's proposed rule spells out the process for applying for and

granting such variances. Because water quality standard variances are

technically revised water quality standards, the proposal requires a

variance to go through the same basic steps as the originally

promulgated standard, that is, publication of the proposed variance,

the opportunity for a hearing, and publication of the final variance.

However, the Administrator is delegating to the Regional Administrator

the authority to propose and grant these variances

re

technically revised water quality standards, the proposal requires a

variance to go through the same basic steps as the originally

promulgated standard, that is, publication of the proposed variance,

the opportunity for a hearing, and publication of the final variance.

However, the Administrator is delegating to the Regional Administrator

the authority to propose and grant these variances. This delegation

should expedite the processing of variance requests, as they will

typically arise in the context of NPDES proceedings being handled by

EPA Region X.

The proposed variance procedures require an applicant for a water

quality standards variance to submit a request to the Regional

Administrator (or his delegatee) with supporting information. To avoid

delays in the permitting process attributable to the variance request,

the proposal requires the applicant to submit the variance request

prior to or concurrent with the NPDES application. EPA seeks comment on

the appropriateness of this timing requirement.

The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction

that the designated use is unattainable for one of the reasons

specified in 40 CFR 131.10(g). A variance may not be granted if the use

could be attained by all dischargers implementing effluent limitations

required under sections 301(b) and 306 of the CWA and the applicant

implementing reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source

control. EPA will incorporate into the permittee's NPDES permit all

conditions needed to implement the variance.

Under the proposal, a variance may not exceed 5 years or the term

of the NPDES permit, whichever is less. A variance may be renewed if

the permittee demonstrates that the use in question is still not

attainable. Renewal of the variance may be denied if the permittee did

not comply with the conditions of the original variance

tee's NPDES permit all

conditions needed to implement the variance.

Under the proposal, a variance may not exceed 5 years or the term

of the NPDES permit, whichever is less. A variance may be renewed if

the permittee demonstrates that the use in question is still not

attainable. Renewal of the variance may be denied if the permittee did

not comply with the conditions of the original variance.

EPA is soliciting comment on the need for a variance process for

EPA-promulgated use designations, the appropriateness of the particular

procedures proposed today, and whether the proposed variance procedures

are sufficiently detailed.

J. Regulatory Impact Analysis

As explained more fully below in section L (Regulatory Flexibility

Act), EPA's proposed rule does not itself establish any requirements

directly applicable to regulated entities. While implementation of

today's proposed rule may ultimately result in some new or revised

permit conditions for some dischargers, EPA's action today does not

impose any of these as yet unknown requirements on dischargers.

Nonetheless, EPA is attempting, within the limits of these

uncertainties, to make an estimate of the possible indirect costs which

might ultimately result from this rulemaking.

The following is a summary of the proposed methodology being used

for the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) that is being prepared for

this rule. Further discussion will be included in the full RIA, which

will be included in the docket as part of the final rulemaking.

Under the CWA, costs cannot be a basis for adopting water quality

criteria that will not be protective of designated uses. If a range of

scientifically defensible criteria that are protective can be

identified, however, costs may be considered in selecting a particular

criterion within that range.

The designated uses and water quality criteria of the proposed rule

are not enforceable requirements until separate

cannot be a basis for adopting water quality

criteria that will not be protective of designated uses. If a range of

scientifically defensible criteria that are protective can be

identified, however, costs may be considered in selecting a particular

criterion within that range.

The designated uses and water quality criteria of the proposed rule

are not enforceable requirements until separate

steps are taken to implement them. Therefore, this publication of the

proposed rule does not have an immediate effect on dischargers. Until

actions are taken to implement these designated uses and criteria,

there will be no economic effect on any dischargers.

In the short time prior to proposal EPA attempted to assess, to the

best of its ability, compliance costs for facilities that could

eventually be indirectly affected by the designated uses and water

quality criteria of today's proposed rule. As described below, EPA

searched readily available data sources but did not find the

information necessary to accurately estimate these potential costs.

Although the costs are not expected to be significant, EPA has

developed a methodology to estimate the potential indirect cost impacts

on facilities discharging pollutants to waters subject to the numeric

water quality criteria and uses established by this proposal. During

the public comment period EPA will continue to gather additional data

and information on the facilities and waters needed to evaluate use

attainability and the costs attributable to this rule.

EPA is soliciting public comment and supporting data on the

facilities and waters it intends to evaluate as part of the RIA, and on

the methodology it will use to estimate costs associated with

implementation of the proposed rule

A will continue to gather additional data

and information on the facilities and waters needed to evaluate use

attainability and the costs attributable to this rule.

EPA is soliciting public comment and supporting data on the

facilities and waters it intends to evaluate as part of the RIA, and on

the methodology it will use to estimate costs associated with

implementation of the proposed rule. EPA will review the comments and

data provided by the public as well as the information and data it

gathers during the public comment period, and will estimate the

potential costs to facilities as an indirect result of attaining

numeric water quality criteria and uses proposed in this rule. EPA will

include this information as part of the final rulemaking.

1. Use Attainability

As discussed earlier in this preamble, EPA is relying on the

rebuttable presumption that fishable/swimmable uses are attainable in

the water body segments affected by this rulemaking. However, in order

to properly assess the impact of EPA's new use designations in Idaho,

EPA performed a preliminary evaluation to determine if this presumption

is appropriate for all assessed water body stream segments affected by

this proposal.

Although an appropriate evaluation of use attainability should

consider physical, biological, and chemical indicators, the court-

ordered schedule did not provide adequate time to properly evaluate all

indicators. EPA did, however, extract chemical-specific data from the

EPA STORET data base, which houses ambient water quality data for water

bodies throughout the U.S., including Idaho. If EPA were to find that

significant exceedances of water quality criteria (in terms of relative

magnitude above the applicable criteria, duration of exceedance above

the criteria, and the number and types of pollutants) has occurred,

then an upgrade of designated uses might not be appropriate

base, which houses ambient water quality data for water

bodies throughout the U.S., including Idaho. If EPA were to find that

significant exceedances of water quality criteria (in terms of relative

magnitude above the applicable criteria, duration of exceedance above

the criteria, and the number and types of pollutants) has occurred,

then an upgrade of designated uses might not be appropriate.

EPA's STORET extraction included all data on record, and all

pollutants for which EPA's new use designation would result in more

stringent water quality criteria. EPA focused on the 35 water body

segments for which the cold water biota protection designated use will

be applied. Upon extraction, EPA generated summary statistics (minimum,

average, and maximum values on record) for the ambient water quality

within each affected stream segment and compared them to the applicable

water quality criteria to protect the cold water biota use designation.

Most data on record in STORET for the affected water body stream

segments is from the period prior to the mid-to late-1980's. Based on

this data, EPA found periodic exceedances of water quality criteria for

several water body stream segments for several specific parameters.

However, due to the age of most of the data, and the fact that data for

all applicable parameters were not available, EPA could not

definitively conclude that a downgrade for any water body stream

segment affected by this rule was justified. Therefore for purposes of

cost estimates, EPA assumed that the new use designation would apply to

all affected water bodies. EPA is requesting comments and data

regarding the applicability of the new use designation for these water

body stream segments. The affected water body stream segments can be

found in Section 131.33(b), Tables 1-6, within this proposal

ected by this rule was justified. Therefore for purposes of

cost estimates, EPA assumed that the new use designation would apply to

all affected water bodies. EPA is requesting comments and data

regarding the applicability of the new use designation for these water

body stream segments. The affected water body stream segments can be

found in Section 131.33(b), Tables 1-6, within this proposal. EPA is

most interested in the following types of information: instream

characteristics (e.g., mean width/depth, flow/velocity, reaeration

rates); riparian characteristics; biological inventory; biological

potential (e.g., diversity, intolerant species); and ambient pollutant

concentrations for applicable parameters of concern for the stream

segment.

2. Costs

i. Overview of Methodology To Estimate Potential Costs Related to New

Use Designations

The new use designations being proposed by EPA, by themselves, will

have no impact or effect. However, when the water quality criteria to

protect these uses are applied to dischargers through the NPDES permit

program, then costs may be incurred by regulated entities (i.e., point

source dischargers) but these costs can vary significantly because of

the wide range of control strategies available to dischargers. Since

the NPDES permitting authority also has significant flexibility and

discretion in how it chooses to implement water quality criteria,

analysis of potential costs would be difficult to perform for all

potentially affected entities, even if EPA had more time than was

allowed under the Court established time-frame. EPA attempted to

estimate the potential costs attributable to the proposal by developing

detailed cost estimate for a selected subset (a sample) of facilities

from the point source dischargers that may be impacted by the proposed

rule and then used the sample results to extrapolate to the universe of

potentially affected facilities

ime than was

allowed under the Court established time-frame. EPA attempted to

estimate the potential costs attributable to the proposal by developing

detailed cost estimate for a selected subset (a sample) of facilities

from the point source dischargers that may be impacted by the proposed

rule and then used the sample results to extrapolate to the universe of

potentially affected facilities. As explained below, EPA has not been

able to come up yet with a reliable cost estimate due to significant

data gaps. The following discussion addresses the approach which EPA

has attempted to use, and plans to follow if more data is obtained.

The actual impact of the proposed rule will depend upon the

procedures and policy decisions that will be established by the

permitting authority to implement the rule and on which control

strategy the discharger selects in order to bring the facility into

compliance. These procedures and policy decisions established by the

permitting authority typically provide the methods to determine the

need for water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) and, if WQBELs

are required, how to derive WQBELs from applicable water quality

criteria. The implementation procedures used to derive WQBELs for this

analysis were based on the methods recommended in the EPA ``Technical

Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control'' (or TSD)

(EPA/505/2-90-001; March 1991). Specifically, a projected effluent

quality (PEQ) was calculated and compared to the projected WQBEL. A PEQ

is considered an effluent value statistically adjusted for uncertainty

to estimate a maximum value that may occur.

The PEQ for each selected pollutant was compared to the projected

WQBEL. If the PEQ exceeded the projected WQBEL, a reasonable potential

existed to exceed the WQBEL. Pollutants with a reasonable potential to

exceed then were analyzed to determine potential costs to achieve the

projected WQBEL.

n effluent value statistically adjusted for uncertainty

to estimate a maximum value that may occur.

The PEQ for each selected pollutant was compared to the projected

WQBEL. If the PEQ exceeded the projected WQBEL, a reasonable potential

existed to exceed the WQBEL. Pollutants with a reasonable potential to

exceed then were analyzed to determine potential costs to achieve the

projected WQBEL.

Prior to estimating compliance costs, an engineering analysis of

how each sample facility could comply with the projected WQBEL was

performed. The costs were then estimated based on the decisions and

assumptions made in the analysis. To ensure consistency and

reasonableness in estimating the general types of controls that would

be necessary for a sample facility to comply with the proposal

(assuming that implementation of the rule resulted in more stringent

discharge requirements), as well as to integrate into the cost analysis

the other alternatives available to regulated facilities, a costing

decision matrix was used for each sample facility. Specific rules were

established in the matrix to provide the reviewing engineers with

guidance in consistently selecting options.

Under the decision matrix, costs for minor treatment plant

operation and facility changes were considered first. Minor, low-cost

modification or adjustment of existing treatment was determined to be

feasible where literature indicated that the existing treatment process

could achieve the projected WQBEL and where the additional pollutant

reduction was relatively small (e.g., 10 to 25 percent of current

discharge levels).

Where it was not technically feasible to simply adjust existing

operations, the next most attractive control strategy was determined to

be waste minimization/pollution prevention controls. However, costs for

these controls were estimated only where they were considered feasible

based on the reviewing engineer's understanding of the process(es) at a

facility

ent of current

discharge levels).

Where it was not technically feasible to simply adjust existing

operations, the next most attractive control strategy was determined to

be waste minimization/pollution prevention controls. However, costs for

these controls were estimated only where they were considered feasible

based on the reviewing engineer's understanding of the process(es) at a

facility. The practicality of techniques was determined based on

several criteria established in the decision matrix. Decision

considerations included the level of pollutant reduction achievable

through waste minimization/pollution prevention techniques,

appropriateness of waste minimization/pollution prevention for the

specific pollutant, and knowledge of the manufacturing processes

generating the pollutant of concern.

If waste minimization/pollution prevention alone was deemed not

feasible to reduce pollutant levels to those needed to comply with the

projected WQBELs, as calculated for this analysis, a combination of

waste minimization/pollution prevention, simple treatment, and/or

process optimization was considered. If these relatively low-cost

controls could not achieve the projected WQBELs, more expensive

controls (e.g., end-of-pipe treatment) were considered.

Development of end-of-pipe treatment cost estimates constituted a

review of the existing treatment systems at each facility. Decisions to

add new treatment systems or to supplement existing treatment systems

were based on this initial evaluation. For determining the need for

additional or supplemental treatment, sources of performance

information included the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD),

Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory's ``RREL Treatability Database''

(Version 4.0). The pollutant removal capabilities of the existing

treatment systems and/or any proposed additional or supplemental

systems were evaluated based on the following criteria: (1) The

effluent levels that were being achieved currently at the facility; and

cluded the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD),

Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory's ``RREL Treatability Database''

(Version 4.0). The pollutant removal capabilities of the existing

treatment systems and/or any proposed additional or supplemental

systems were evaluated based on the following criteria: (1) The

effluent levels that were being achieved currently at the facility; and

(2) the levels that are documented in the EPA ``RREL Treatability

Database.'' If this analysis showed that additional treatment was

needed, unit processes that would achieve compliance with the projected

WQBELs were chosen using the same documentation.

ii. Results for Stream Segments With Specific Use Designations and

Unclassified Waters

EPA identified 46 facilities that possess NPDES permits to

discharge to stream segments with specific use designations for which

new use designations are being proposed in this rule. Of these 46

facilities, 12 are classified as major dischargers, and 34 are

classified as minor dischargers. For purposes of sample selection, EPA

grouped the facilities into six categories of dischargers, including

mining, food products manufacturing, power plants, logging and lumber

production, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and miscellaneous

facilities (e.g., universities, agricultural supplies manufacturers,

etc.). The following table presents the universe of facilities and the

number of sample facilities randomly selected by EPA to represent each

category. The number of sample facilities selected by EPA was based on

ensuring adequate representation of the dischargers within the group

(relative to other groups), as well as considering the time frame

available to perform the analyses.

ufacturers,

etc.). The following table presents the universe of facilities and the

number of sample facilities randomly selected by EPA to represent each

category. The number of sample facilities selected by EPA was based on

ensuring adequate representation of the dischargers within the group

(relative to other groups), as well as considering the time frame

available to perform the analyses.

Summary of Dischargers To Stream Segments With Specific Use Designations

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. of point source No. of sample facilities

dischargers selected

Category ---------------------------------------------------

Major Minor Major Minor

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mining...................................................... 7 1 1 1

Food Products Manufacturing................................. 2 1 1 ...........

Power Plants................................................ ........... 4 ........... 1

Logging and Lumber Production............................... ........... 1 ........... 1

Miscellaneous............................................... ........... 11 ........... 2

POTWs....................................................... 3 16 1 4

---------------------------------------------------

Total................................................... 12 34 3 9

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.... 1

Miscellaneous............................................... ........... 11 ........... 2

POTWs....................................................... 3 16 1 4

---------------------------------------------------

Total................................................... 12 34 3 9

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An exact number of NPDES permitted facilities that discharge to

unclassified waters was not possible due to the court ordered schedule

to propose the rule. However, EPA estimated the potential number of

facilities that could be affected by the proposal through data and

information contained in the EPA Permit Compliance System (PCS).

Specifically, EPA manually subtracted from the entire list of NPDES

permitted dischargers within Idaho, all dischargers to stream segments

with specific use designations (including those stream segments for

which EPA is proposing new use designations). Exclusion of a facility

was based on the receiving water name for the discharge as contained in

PCS. As a result of this effort, EPA estimates that 110 facilities have

NPDES permits to discharge to unclassified waters within Idaho. Of the

110, eight are classified as majors and 102 are classified as minors.

The following table presents the estimated universe of facilities

discharging to unclassified waters and the number of sample

facilities randomly selected by EPA to represent each category. Again,

the number of sample facilities selected by EPA was based on ensuring

adequate representation of the dischargers within the group (relative

to other groups), as well as considering the time frame available to

perform the analyses.

estimated universe of facilities

discharging to unclassified waters and the number of sample

facilities randomly selected by EPA to represent each category. Again,

the number of sample facilities selected by EPA was based on ensuring

adequate representation of the dischargers within the group (relative

to other groups), as well as considering the time frame available to

perform the analyses.

Summary of Dischargers To Unclassified Waters

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. of point source No. of sample facilities

dischargers selected

Category ---------------------------------------------------

Major Minor Major Minor

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mining...................................................... 3 15 1 2

Food Products Manufacturing................................. ........... 3 ........... 1

Power Plants................................................ ........... 4 ........... 1

Logging and Lumber Production............................... ........... 3 ........... 1

Miscellaneous............................................... 4 52 2 4

POTWs....................................................... 1 25 1 3

---------------------------------------------------

Total................................................... 8 102 4 12

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

......... 3 ........... 1

Miscellaneous............................................... 4 52 2 4

POTWs....................................................... 1 25 1 3

---------------------------------------------------

Total................................................... 8 102 4 12

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To estimate costs for each of the sample facilities, EPA obtained

data from NPDES permit files (permit application, permit, fact sheet or

Statement of basis), and downloaded effluent monitoring data from PCS.

For each sample facility, EPA performed an evaluation of reasonable

potential to exceed water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) based

on applicable water quality criteria to protect new use designations

(i.e., cold water biota protection). EPA considered any pollutant for

which water quality criteria existed and for which data were available.

EPA assumed that reasonable potential existed if a permit limit for the

pollutant of concern was included in the existing permit for the sample

facility. In the absence of a permit limit, but where monitoring data

were available, EPA evaluated reasonable potential based on the

monitoring data and the procedures contained in the TSD (EPA 505/2-90-

001; March 1991). It should be noted that evaluation of the reasonable

potential to exceed the applicable dissolved oxygen criteria was not

possible in most cases, due to the lack of data. However, there were

several sample facilities that were discharging oxygen-demanding

pollutants. To account for the possible effect of the oxygen demand

potential from these facilities, EPA used a flow-based approach to

determine the reasonable potential to exceed the dissolved oxygen

criteria

d the applicable dissolved oxygen criteria was not

possible in most cases, due to the lack of data. However, there were

several sample facilities that were discharging oxygen-demanding

pollutants. To account for the possible effect of the oxygen demand

potential from these facilities, EPA used a flow-based approach to

determine the reasonable potential to exceed the dissolved oxygen

criteria. In particular, if the discharge from a sample facility was to

an effluent dominated stream (i.e., the effluent discharge flow from

the sample facility was greater than 50 percent of the receiving stream

flow), then EPA assumed that treatment was needed to meet the dissolved

oxygen criteria.

To calculate WQBELs, EPA used the TSD procedures to derive maximum

daily and monthly average limits. Background concentrations were based

on the average of data contained in STORET for upstream monitoring

stations (including nearby tributaries); in the absence of background

data, EPA assumed zero. Critical low flows were calculated from data

contained in the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Daily Flow file

data base for nearby gage stations; the 1-day, 10-year low flow (1Q10)

was used for acute aquatic life protection and the 7-day, 10-year low

flow (7Q10) was used for chronic aquatic life protection. In the

absence of stream flow data, EPA conservatively assumed zero low flow.

Once WQBELs were derived, EPA attempted to derive cost estimates

that represent the cost to remove the incremental amount of

pollutant(s) to levels needed to comply with WQBELs (based on the

existing effluent limit or reported effluent quality in the absence of

a limit). Ideally, this assessment would be based on an evaluation of

the performance of existing treatment system units, as well as

consideration of other possible control options (e.g., waste

minimization, pollution prevention)

e the incremental amount of

pollutant(s) to levels needed to comply with WQBELs (based on the

existing effluent limit or reported effluent quality in the absence of

a limit). Ideally, this assessment would be based on an evaluation of

the performance of existing treatment system units, as well as

consideration of other possible control options (e.g., waste

minimization, pollution prevention). However, the general lack of

appropriate information and data, particularly for the minor sample

facilities, prohibited EPA from assessing the feasibility of potential

control options to reduce pollutant concentrations. Although EPA does

not expect significant costs based on initial examination of the types

and number of pollutants that would be affected by the proposed rule,

any estimates made by EPA without an adequate information base would be

speculation.

As a result of the significant data gaps for the sample facilities,

EPA was unable to estimate costs for the sample facilities. The

following table presents the facilities that were randomly selected as

sample facilities for the cost analysis.

Sample Facilities Selected by EPA for Cost Analysis

------------------------------------------------------------------------

NPDES permit

Category Sample facility name No.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stream Segments with Specific Use Designations

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mining......................... Goldback Mines Corp... ID0026026

Hecla Mining Co....... ID0000167

Star/Morning Mine and

Mill.

Food Products Manufacturing.... Armour Fresh.......... ID0000787

Power Plants................... Idaho Power--Swans ID0022551

Falls.

Logging and Lumber Production.. Boise Cascade Council ID0025631

Sawmill.

Miscellaneous.................. University of Idaho ID0027464

Irrigation Lagoons.

Agway Inc. Seed Coop.. ID0027464

POTWs.......................... City of Preston....... ID0020214

Food Products Manufacturing.... Armour Fresh.......... ID0000787

Power Plants................... Idaho Power--Swans ID0022551

Falls.

Logging and Lumber Production.. Boise Cascade Council ID0025631

Sawmill.

Miscellaneous.................. University of Idaho ID0027464

Irrigation Lagoons.

Agway Inc. Seed Coop.. ID0027464

POTWs.......................... City of Preston....... ID0020214

City of Troy.......... ID0023604

Clarkia Water & Sewer ID0025071

District.

Cambridge Sewer ID0020338

Association.

City of Franklin...... ID0025569

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unclassified Waters

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mining......................... Beartrack Gold........ ID0027022

Caladay Project--Daly ID0025429

Gulch.

Unnamed Discharge to ID0024881

Crooked Creek.

Food Products Manufacturing.... Wippco Processing ID0026794

Plant.

Power Plants................... Idaho Power Company... ID0027502

Logging and Lumber Production.. Jaype Plywood......... ID0000451

Miscellaneous.................. Niagara Springs ID0022381

Hatchery.

Snake River Hatchery.. ID0000752

Standal Ponds......... ID0027782

Yoder Farms........... ID0024236

Great Western Chemical ID0027537

Unnamed Discharge to ID0025168

Lapwai Creek.

POTWs.......................... Unnamed Discharge to ID0020176

American Falls

Reservoir.

City of Kamiah........ ID0027545

Unnamed Discharge to ID0025101

Hangman Creek.

Unnamed Discharge to ID0026310

Four Mile Creek.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

. ID0024236

Great Western Chemical ID0027537

Unnamed Discharge to ID0025168

Lapwai Creek.

POTWs.......................... Unnamed Discharge to ID0020176

American Falls

Reservoir.

City of Kamiah........ ID0027545

Unnamed Discharge to ID0025101

Hangman Creek.

Unnamed Discharge to ID0026310

Four Mile Creek.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA is requesting comments, data, and information for the sample

facilities that could assist EPA in evaluating the potential indirect

costs to the sample facilities, including, but not limited to,

descriptions of existing treatment systems and pollutant control

systems; pollutants expected in effluent discharge; long-term average

discharge flow and pollutant effluent concentrations; long-term average

receiving water pollutant concentrations; and critical low flow values

for receiving water stream segments.

iii. Overview of Approach to Estimate Potential Costs Related to New

Temperature Criteria

EPA is also including as part of today's proposed rule temperature

criteria for threatened and endangered species. Due to the number of

water body stream segments that are affected by this more stringent

temperature criteria and lack of data, EPA was not able to project the

potential costs to NPDES permitted dischargers associated with proposal

of the more stringent temperature criteria. The water body stream

segments with more stringent temperature criteria to protect threatened

and endangered species can be found in Sections 131.33 (c) through (e)

of today's proposed rule.

If sufficient data can be obtained, the approach EPA plans to use

to estimate potential costs is similar to the approach used for

estimating the costs for new use designations (i.e., randomly selecting

sample facilities to represent the universe of affected facilities)

teria to protect threatened

and endangered species can be found in Sections 131.33 (c) through (e)

of today's proposed rule.

If sufficient data can be obtained, the approach EPA plans to use

to estimate potential costs is similar to the approach used for

estimating the costs for new use designations (i.e., randomly selecting

sample facilities to represent the universe of affected facilities).

The data requirements to evaluate the potential costs would include not

only ambient and effluent temperature data for critical times of the

year during which spawning and rearing occur, but also detailed

operational information to evaluate the ability of a facility to comply

with the more stringent temperature criteria.

This detailed data were not available to EPA within the time-frame

to complete the cost analysis, and therefore EPA was not able to fully

assess the impact to NPDES permitted dischargers. EPA is soliciting the

above mentioned data for facilities located on water body stream

segments identified in Sections 131.33 (c)-(e) of today's proposed

rule.

K. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA

must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and

therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and

the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines

``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a

rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or

my, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this is not a ``significant regulatory

action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866, and is therefore not

subject to OMB review.

L. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended By the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) provides that, whenever an

agency publishes a rule under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553, after being required

to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, an agency must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis unless the head of the agency

certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. Secs. 604 &

605. The Administrator is today certifying, pursuant to Sec. 605(b) of

the RFA, that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Agency did not

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Under the CWA water quality standards program, States must adopt

water quality standards for their waters

ll entities. 5 U.S.C. Secs. 604 &

605. The Administrator is today certifying, pursuant to Sec. 605(b) of

the RFA, that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Agency did not

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Under the CWA water quality standards program, States must adopt

water quality standards for their waters

that must be submitted to EPA for approval. If the Agency disapproves a

State standard, EPA must promulgate standards consistent with the

statutory requirements. These State standards (or EPA-promulgated

standards) are implemented through the NPDES program that limits

discharges to navigable waters except in compliance with an EPA permit

or permit issued under an approved State program. The CWA requires that

all NPDES permits must include any limits on discharges that are

necessary to meet State water quality standards.

Thus under the CWA, EPA's promulgation of water quality standards

where State standards are inconsistent with statutory requirements

establishes standards that are implemented through the NPDES permit

process by authorized States, or, in the absence of an approved State

NPDES program, by EPA. EPA implements the NPDES program in Idaho. EPA

and authorized States have discretion in deciding how to meet the water

quality standards and in developing discharge limits as needed to meet

the standards. While State or EPA implementation of federally-

promulgated water quality standards may result in new or revised

discharge limits being placed on small entities, the standards

themselves do not apply to any discharger, including small entities.

Today's proposed rule imposes obligations on EPA but, as explained

above, does not itself establish any requirements that are applicable

to small entities. As a result of this action, EPA will need to ensure

that permits issued in the State of Idaho include any limitations on

discharges necessary to comply with the standards in the final rule

apply to any discharger, including small entities.

Today's proposed rule imposes obligations on EPA but, as explained

above, does not itself establish any requirements that are applicable

to small entities. As a result of this action, EPA will need to ensure

that permits issued in the State of Idaho include any limitations on

discharges necessary to comply with the standards in the final rule.

EPA and the State have a number of discretionary choices associated

with permit writing and total maximum daily load (TMDL) calculations

and waste load allocations (WLAs) which can affect the burden felt by

any small entity as a result of EPA action to implement the final rule.

While implementation of the final rule may ultimately result in some

new or revised permit conditions for some dischargers, including small

entities, EPA's action today does not impose any of these as yet

unknown requirements on small entities.

The RFA requires analysis of the impacts of a rule on the small

entities subject to the rules' requirements. See United States

Distribution Companies v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

Today's proposed rule establishes no requirements applicable to small

entities, and so is not susceptible to regulatory flexibility analysis

as prescribed by the RFA. (``[N]o analysis is necessary when an agency

determines that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities that are subject to the

requirements of the rule,' '' United Distribution at 1170, quoting Mid-

Tex Elec. Co-op v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 342 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (emphasis

added by United Distribution court).) The Agency is thus certifying

that today's proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities, within the meaning of the

RFA.

M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

to the

requirements of the rule,' '' United Distribution at 1170, quoting Mid-

Tex Elec. Co-op v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 342 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (emphasis

added by United Distribution court).) The Agency is thus certifying

that today's proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities, within the meaning of the

RFA.

M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the

effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal

governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA

generally must prepare a written Statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal Mandates'' that

may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any

one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written Statement

is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify

and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt

the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205

do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,

section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the rule an explanation why that

alternative was not adopted.

Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal

governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a

small government agency plan

the least

costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the rule an explanation why that

alternative was not adopted.

Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal

governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a

small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying

potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of the

affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the

development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

As noted above, this proposed rule is limited to water quality

standards for a limited number of waters within the State of Idaho. EPA

believes that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements

that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA also

believes that this proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate

that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State,

local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector

in any one year. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

N. Paperwork Reduction Act

Today's rulemaking imposes no new or additional information

collection activities subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.). Therefore, no Information Collection request will be

submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in

compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

O. Executive Order 12875

ections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

N. Paperwork Reduction Act

Today's rulemaking imposes no new or additional information

collection activities subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.). Therefore, no Information Collection request will be

submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in

compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

O. Executive Order 12875

In compliance with Executive Order 12875, EPA has involved State

governments in the development of this rule. Prior to this rulemaking

action, EPA met numerous times with representatives of Idaho's Division

of Environmental Quality and Idaho's Attorney General's office to

discuss our concerns with the State's water quality standards, possible

remedies for addressing the disapproved sections of the water quality

standards, and the rulemaking process. EPA has also corresponded with

Idaho's Division of Environmental Quality and the Governor's office.

EPA has held telephone conferences and meetings with U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to discuss

Endangered Species Act consultation issues related to this action. In

addition, EPA issued a notice on March 21, 1997, (62 FR 13567)

outlining EPA's rulemaking plans and informing the public that EPA

would be seeking information on specific streams in Idaho. EPA will

continue to work with affected parties before finalizing water quality

standards for Idaho.

EPA has scheduled two public hearings for May 12, 1997, in Boise,

Idaho. EPA's public notification process is targeting interested

parties, both within and outside of government, to ensure them the

opportunity for involvement.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

Environmental protection, Water pollution control, Water Quality

Standards.

Dated: April 21, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40

CFR Part 131 as follows:

PART 131--WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

arties, both within and outside of government, to ensure them the

opportunity for involvement.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

Environmental protection, Water pollution control, Water Quality

Standards.

Dated: April 21, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40

CFR Part 131 as follows:

PART 131--WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for part 131 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Subpart D--[Amended]

2. Section 131.33 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 131.33 Idaho.

(a) Prior to classification by the State, unclassified waters shall

be protected for primary contact recreation and cold water biota.

(b) In addition to the State adopted use designations, the

following water body segments in Idaho have the beneficial uses

designated in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Primary

Idaho map code Waters Cold water Salmonid contact

biota spawning recreation

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Panhandle Basin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PB 11S................................ Granite Creek-source to mouth. ............ ............ x

PB 121S............................... Canyon Creek-below mining x ............ x

impact.

PB 140S............................... South Fork Coeur d'Alene River- x ............ x

Daisy Gulch to mouth.

PB 142S............................... Nine Mile Creek-below mining x ............ x

impact.

PB 143S............................... Big Creek-below mining impact. x ............ x

PB 145S............................... Government Gulch-source to x ............ x

mouth.

PB 146S............................... Pine Creek-below mining impact ............ ...........

. x

Daisy Gulch to mouth.

PB 142S............................... Nine Mile Creek-below mining x ............ x

impact.

PB 143S............................... Big Creek-below mining impact. x ............ x

PB 145S............................... Government Gulch-source to x ............ x

mouth.

PB 146S............................... Pine Creek-below mining impact ............ ............ x

PB 147S............................... Lake Creek-below mining impact x ............ x

PB 148S............................... Shields Gulch-below mining x ............ x

impact.

PB 220P............................... Trestle Creek-source to mouth. ............ ............ x

PB 322S............................... St. Maries-Fernwood to mouth.. x ............ ............

PB 340S............................... Plummer Creek-source to mouth. x ............ x

PB 450S............................... Hangman Creek-source to Idaho- x ............ x

Washington border.

PB 451S............................... Rock Creek-source to Idaho- x ............ x

Washington border.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Clearwater Basin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CB 152................................ Cottonwood Creek-source to x ............ ............

mouth.

CB 170................................ Palouse River-Princeton to x ............ x

Idaho-Washington border.

CB 171................................ So. Fork Palouse River-source x ............ x

to Idaho-Washington border.

CB 210................................ Lindsay Creek................. ............ ............ x

CB 1321............................... Three Mile Creek-source to ............ ............ x

mouth.

CB 1322............................... Cottonwood Creek-source to ............ ............ x

mouth.

CB 1421..............................

-source x ............ x

to Idaho-Washington border.

CB 210................................ Lindsay Creek................. ............ ............ x

CB 1321............................... Three Mile Creek-source to ............ ............ x

mouth.

CB 1322............................... Cottonwood Creek-source to ............ ............ x

mouth.

CB 1421............................... Grasshopper Creek-source to x x ............

mouth.

CB 1541............................... Little Bear Creek-source to x x x

mouth.

CB 1711............................... Cow Creek-source to Idaho- x ............ x

Washington border.

CB 1712............................... Paradise Creek source to Idaho- x ............ x

Washington border.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Salmon Basin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SB 130................................ Thompson Creek-source to mouth ............ ............ x

SB 140................................ Squaw Creek-source to mouth... ............ ............ x

SB 421................................ Blackbird Creek-source to x x x

mouth.

SB 430................................ Panther Creek-Blackbird Creek ............ x x

to mouth.

SB 4211............................... West Fork Blackbird Creek- x x x

source to mouth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

............ x

SB 421................................ Blackbird Creek-source to x x x

mouth.

SB 430................................ Panther Creek-Blackbird Creek ............ x x

to mouth.

SB 4211............................... West Fork Blackbird Creek- x x x

source to mouth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) Southwest Idaho Basin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SWB 10................................ Snake River-King Hill to x ............ ............

Marsing.

SWB 20................................ Snake River-Marsing to Boise x ............ ............

River.

SWB 30................................ Snake River-Payette River to x ............ ............

Boise River.

SWB 271............................... Ten Mile Creek-source to mouth ............ ............ x

SWB 271............................... Five Mile Creek-source to ............ ............ x

mouth.

SWB 282............................... Indian Creek-below Sugar x ............ x

Avenue Nampa to mouth.

SWB 410............................... Weiser River-source to Midvale x ............ ............

SWB 421............................... Crane Creek-source to mouth... x ............ ............

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....................... Indian Creek-below Sugar x ............ x

Avenue Nampa to mouth.

SWB 410............................... Weiser River-source to Midvale x ............ ............

SWB 421............................... Crane Creek-source to mouth... x ............ ............

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(5) Upper Snake Basin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USB 235............................... North Fork Teton River-source ............ ............ x

to mouth.

USB 236............................... South Fork Teton River-source ............ ............ x

to mouth.

USB 320........................

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.