The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDWQ-2025-002303LEVEL II ANTIDEGRADATION REVIEWFORM UTAH DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY Instructions The objective of antidegradation rules and policies is to protect existinghigh quality waters and set forth a process for determining where and how much degradation is allowable for socially and/or economically important reasons.In accordance with Utah Administrative Code (UAC R317-2-3), an antidegradation review (ADR) is a permit requirement for any project that will increase the level of pollutants in waters of the state. The rule outlines requirements for Level I and Level II ADRs, as well as public comment procedures. This review form is intended to assist the applicant and Division of Water Quality (DWQ) staff in complying with the rule but is not a substitute for the complete rule in R317-2-3.5. Additional details can be found in the Utah Antidegradation Implementation Guidance and relevant sections of the guidance are cited in this review form. ADRsshould be among the first steps of an application for a UPDES permit because the review helps establish treatment expectations. The level of effort and amount of information required for the ADR depends on the nature of the project and the characteristics of the receiving water. To avoid unnecessary delays in permit issuance, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) recommends that the process be initiated at least one year prior to the date a final approved permit is required. DWQ willdetermine if the project will impair beneficial uses (Level I ADR) using information provided by the applicant and whether a Level II ADR is required. The applicant is responsible for conducting the Level II ADR. For the permit to be approved, the Level II ADR must document that all feasible measures have been undertaken to minimize pollution for socially, environmentally or economically beneficial projects resulting in an increase in pollution to waters of the state. For permits requiring a Level II ADR, this antidegradation form must be completed and approved by DWQ before any UPDES permit can be issued. Typically, the ADR form is completed in an iterative manner in consultation with DWQ. The applicant should first complete the statement of social, environmental and economic importance (SEEI) in Part C and determine the parameters of concern (POC) in Part D. Once the POCs are agreed upon by DWQ, the alternatives analysis and selection of preferred alternative in Part E can be conducted based on minimizing degradation resulting from discharge of the POCs. Once the applicant and DWQ agree upon the preferred alternative, the review is considered complete, andthe form must be signed, dated, and submitted to DWQ. Part A: Application Information Facility Name: Facility Owner: Facility Location: Form Prepared By: Outfall Number: Receiving Water: Designated Beneficial Uses of the Receiving Water (R317-2-13): Domestic Water Supply:1C Recreation: 2A 2B Aquatic Life: 3A 3B 3C 3D 3E Agricultural Water Supply: 4 Great Salt Lake: 5A 5B 5C 5D 5E Antidegradation Category of Receiving Water (R317-2-12): 1 2 3 UPDES Permit Number: Effluent Flow Reviewed: Typically, this isthe maximum monthlyaveragedischarge at design capacity. Exceptions should be noted. What is the application for? (check all that apply)A UPDES permit for a new facility, project, or outfall.A UPDES permit renewal with an expansion or modification of an existing wastewater treatment works.A UPDES permit renewal requiring limits for a pollutant not covered by the previous permit and/or an increase to existing permit limits.A UPDES permit renewal with no changes in facility operations. Part B. Determination of Need for Level II Review This section of the form is intended to help applicants determine if a Level II ADR is required for specific permitted activities. In addition, the Executive Secretary may require a Level II ADR for an activity with the potential for major impact on the quality of waters of the state (R317-2-3.5a.1). B1. The UPDES permit is new oris being renewed and the proposed effluent concentration and loading limits are higher than the concentration and loading limits in the previous permit and any previous antidegradation review(s). Yes(Proceed to Part B2of the Form) NoNo Level II ADR is required and there is no need to proceed further with review questions. B2. Will any pollutants use assimilative capacity of the receiving water, i.e. do the pollutant concentrations in the effluent exceed thosein the receiving waters at critical conditions?For most pollutants, effluent concentrations that are higher than the ambient concentrations require an antidegradation review. For a few pollutants, such as dissolved oxygen, an antidegradation review is required if the effluent concentrations are less than the ambient concentrations in the receiving water. (Refer to Section 3.3 of Implementation Guidance)Yes(Proceed to Part B3of the Form) NoNo Level II ADR is required and there is no need to proceed further with review questions. B3. Are water quality impacts of the proposed project temporary and limited (Section 3.3.3of Implementation Guidance)?Proposed projects that will have temporary and limited effects on water quality can be exempted from a Level II ADR. YesIdentify the reasons used to justify this determination in Part B3.1 and proceed to Part G. No Level II ADR is required. NoA Level II ADR is required (Proceed to Part C) B3.1Complete this question only if the applicant is requesting a Level II review exclusion for temporary and limited projects (see R317-2-3.5(b)(3) and R317-2-3.5(b)(4)). For projects requesting a temporary and limited exclusion please indicate the factor(s) used to justify this determination (check all that apply and provide details as appropriate)(Section 3.3.3of Implementation Guidance):Water quality impacts will be temporary and related exclusively to sediment or turbidity and fish spawning will not be impaired. Factors to be considered in determining whether water quality impacts will be temporary and limited:The length of time during which water quality will be lowered: The percent change in ambient concentrations of pollutants: Pollutants affected: Likelihood for long-term water quality benefits: Potential for any residual long-term influences on existing uses: Impairment of fish spawning, survival and development of aquatic fauna excludingfish removal efforts: Additional justification, as needed: Level II Antidegradation Review Part C, D, E, and F of the form constitute the Level II ADR Review. The applicant must provide as much detail as necessary for DWQ to perform the antidegradation review. Questions are provided for the convenience of applicants; however, for more complex permits it may be more effective to provide the required information in a separate report.Applicants that prefer a separate report should record the report name here and proceed to Part G of the form. Optional Report Name: Part C. Statement of Social, Economic and Environmental Importance This section determines whether the degradation from the project is necessary to accommodate important social and/or economic development in the area in which the waters are located.The applicant must provide as much detail as necessary for DWQ to concur that the project is socially and economically necessary when answering the questions in this section. More information is available in Section 6.2 of the Implementation Guidance. C1. Describe the proposed project or activity that requires a discharge of pollutants to waters of the State of Utah. C2. Describe the social and economic benefits that would be realized through the proposed project, including the number and nature of jobs created and anticipated tax revenues. C3. Describe any environmental benefits to be realized through implementation of the proposed project. C4. Describe any social and economic losses that may result from the project, including impacts to recreation or commercial development. C5. Summarize any supporting information from the affected communities on preserving assimilativecapacity to support future growth and development. C6. Describe any structures or equipment associated with the project that will be placed within or adjacent to the receiving water. Part D. Parameters of Concern This section identifiesand ranksthe parameters of concernfrom increasing to decreasing potential threat to beneficial uses of the receiving waters.Parameters of concern are constituents in the effluent at concentrations greater than ambientconcentrations in the receiving water. The applicant is responsible for identifying parameter concentrations in the effluent and UDWQ will provide parameter concentrations for the receiving water through the wasteload allocation. More information is available inSection 3.3.3 of the Implementation Guidance. D1. Parameters of Concern: Rank Pollutant Ambient Effluent Concentration/ Units Basis Concentration/ Units Basis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 D2. Parameters Present in the Effluent Not Considered Parameters of Concern: Pollutant Ambient Concentration Effluent Concentration Justification PartE. Alternative Analysis Level II ADRs require the applicant to determine whether there are feasible less-degrading alternatives to the proposed project. For new and expanded discharges, the Alternatives Analysis must be prepared under the supervision of and stamped by a Professional Engineer registered with the State of Utah. DWQ may grant an exception from this requirement under certain circumstances, such as the alternatives considered potentially feasible do not include engineered treatment alternatives.More information regarding the requirements for the Alternatives Analysis is available in Section 5 of the Implementation Guidance. E1. Attach as an appendix to this form a report that describes the following factors for all alternative treatment options1) a technical description of the treatment process, including construction costs and continued operation and maintenance expenses, 2) the mass and concentration of discharge constituents, and 3) a description of the reliability of the system, including the frequency where recurring operation and maintenance may lead to temporary increases in discharged pollutants. Most of this information is typically available from a Capital Facility Plan, if available.Report Name: E2. Describe the proposed method and cost of the baseline treatment alternative. The baseline treatment alternative is the minimum treatment required to meet water quality based effluent limits (WQBEL) as determined by the preliminary or final wasteload analysis (WLA) and any secondary or categorical effluent limits. E3.Were any of the following alternatives feasible and affordable? Alternative Feasible Reason Not Feasible/AffordablePollutant TradingYesNo Water Recycling/ReuseYesNo Land ApplicationYesNo Connection to Other FacilitiesYesNo Upgrade to Existing FacilityYesNo Total ContainmentYesNo Improved O&M of Existing Systems Yes No Seasonal or Controlled Discharge Yes No New Construction Yes No No Discharge Yes No E4. From the applicant’s perspective, what is the preferred treatment option? E5. Is the preferred option also the least polluting feasible alternative? YesNo If no, what were less degradingfeasible alternative(s)? If no, provide a summary of the justification for not selecting the least polluting feasible alternative and if appropriate, provide a more detailed justification as an attachment. E6. Describe anyoptional mitigation to compensate for the proposed water quality degradation? Part F. Public Notice Level II ADRs require an opportunity for the public and interested parties to review and comment on the documentation. UDWQ conducts the mandatory Public Notice once the Level II ADR has been reviewed and is considered complete, which typically occurs with the environmental determination or the draft UPDES permit. Level II ADRs are public noticed for a minimum30 day comment period. More information is available in Section 3.7.1 of the Implementation Guidance. F1. Does the applicant want to conduct optional public review(s) of components of the Level II ADR in addition to the mandatory public review? Statement of Social, Economic and Environmental Importance Parameters of Concern Alternatives Analysis Part G. Certification of Antidegradation Review G1. Applicant’s Certification The formmust be signed by the same responsible person who signed the accompanying UPDES permit applicationper UAC R317-8-3.1(3) or 401 Certification. Based on my inquiry of the person(s) who manage the system or who prepared the documentation, the information in this form and associated documents is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete.Print Name:Signature:Date: G2. Professional Engineer’s Certification The Alternatives Analysis must be prepared underthe supervision of and stamped by a Professional Engineer registered with the State ofUtah. UDWQ may grant an exception from this requirement under certain circumstances,such as the alternatives considered potentially feasible do not include engineeredtreatment alternatives. The Alternatives Analysis was prepared under my supervision and the information in this form and associated documents is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. Apply the Professional Engineer stamp below.Print Name:Professional Engineer License Number:Signature:Date: