Utah Admin. Code R317-15-6 - Director's Decision
6.1. Although the
evaluation process may vary on a site-specific basis, the director, in
determining whether a proposed discharge complies with applicable discharge and
water quality requirements, will ordinarily consider in the evaluation process
whether a proposed discharge:
A. prevents or
interferes with the attainment or maintenance of applicable water quality
standards in Section R317-2 including:
1.
impairs the designated beneficial use classifications (e.g., aquatic life,
drinking water, recreation) in Section
R317-2-6;
2. exceeds water quality criteria, either
narrative or numeric, in Section
R317-2-7;
3. fails to meet the antidegradation (ADR)
requirements of Section
R317-2-3;
B. causes a violation of the Utah
Water Quality Act, Title 19, Chapter 5;
C. are inconsistent with wasteloads and
permitted load allocations in listed TMDLs in Section
R317-1-7;
D. causes an exceedence of effluent
limitations or control regulations applicable under Rule R317-8; or
E. otherwise causes a failure of compliance
with applicable discharge and water quality requirements.
6.2. In considering whether there will be a
discharge or whether any discharge will comply with applicable discharge and
water quality requirements, the director may also consider whether the
applicant is currently in significant noncompliance of the terms and conditions
of any previously issued Certification for another project or activity, and may
deny Certification based on the existence of any such outstanding significant
noncompliance.
6.3. After review of
the application for Certification the director will either:
A. issue a Certification;
B. issue a Certification with specific
conditions that must be met in order for the applicant to be in compliance with
applicable law;
C. deny the
Certification and include reasons for denial; or
D. waive Certification if the director finds
that the activity will:
1. cause minimal or
no impacts to the quality of State waters; or
2. have a temporary and limited effect on
water quality, as provided in Subsection R317-2-3.5.b.4.
6.4. If a person who is required
to obtain a Certification fails to do so, the director may, at his discretion,
process an application for Certification after-the-fact. An application for an
after-the-fact Certifications will be reviewed under the same standards as
timely application for Certification. The director may require restoration,
other actions, or both, as a condition of Certification. An after-the-fact
applicant shall have the burden of proving what the original baseline
conditions were, and a Certification may be denied in the absence of such
proof. After-the-fact Certifications will not have retroactive effect.
Enforcement action may be taken for failure to obtain a Certification even if a
person obtains an after-the-fact permit or license from the federal
agency.
6.5. A Certification is a
Permit Order and may be challenged as provided in Section
19-1-301.5
and R305-7. A recipient of a Certification shall comply with all conditions of
the Certification; any noncompliance is a violation of these rules and is
grounds for enforcement action.
Notes
State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.
No prior version found.