A.
Classification. All waters of the Reservation shall
be designated either outstanding national resource waters (ONRW) or
outstanding Menominee resource waters (OMRW). All waters of the Reservation,
existing in-stream water uses, and the level of water quality and
quantity necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained
and protected.
(1)
Outstanding national resource waters (ONRW).
(a)
The main stem of the Wolf River, from the north
line of the Reservation downstream to the Highway M Bridge, shall
be designated an outstanding national resource water (ONRW). Consistent
with "zero discharge" provisions (PL 92-500, 1972, as amended) of
the Clean Water Act, this chapter requires that no new or increased
discharges will be allowed to enter ONRWs. No existing discharge water
shall enter ONRW designated waters of the Reservation without a tribal
water permit. ONRWs shall be guaranteed unique high levels of protection.
(b)
The Tribe hereby designates such specified waters
as outstanding national resource waters for the purpose of prohibiting
the new or increased discharge of Lake Superior bioaccumulative substances
of immediate concern from point sources in these areas.
B.
Designation of outstanding Menominee resource waters
(OMRW).
(1)
All waters of the Reservation not otherwise designated
ONRW are considered high-quality waters classified as outstanding
Menominee resource waters (OMRW). OMRWs shall not be degraded below
their present water quality.
(2)
No new or increased discharges shall be permitted
within the drainage basins that affect waters of the Reservation,
unless it is determined by the Department or the Tribal Legislature
that the issuance of a tribal water permit for the discharge, and
accompanying water quality degradation resulting from said discharge,
will provide necessary social and economic benefits to the Tribe.
The tribal procedures used for evaluating said discharge(s) can be
found in this and other articles.
C.
Implementation policy. Procedures described herein
shall apply to discharges or loadings that enter ONRW or affect OMRW
of the Reservation. Persons or entities currently engaging in discharges
or loadings that enter ONRW designated waters of the Reservation shall
obtain a tribal water permit within one year of enactment of this
chapter. No new or increased discharges shall be allowed to enter
ONRW designated waters of the Reservation. Persons or entities proposing
new or increased discharges or loadings that will affect OMRW designated
waters of the Reservation shall obtain a tribal water permit; furthermore,
additional permits and certifications may be required before such
activities can be undertaken. The following outlines general procedures
the Tribe will use to evaluate the aforementioned activities:
(2)
The applicant must demonstrate that any existing,
new, or increased discharge will provide specific economic and social
developments and/or benefits necessary to the Tribe.
(3)
The applicant must demonstrate that existing, new,
or increased effluent will not interfere with or become injurious
to any designated, existing, or other beneficial uses. Water quality
necessary to support these uses shall be maintained and protected.
(4)
The applicant must submit detailed plans and descriptions
of proposed resource management methods, pollution prevention, and
technological and best management practices that will be implemented
to manage and minimize impacts resulting from proposed activities.
(5)
The applicant must obtain a tribal water permit. [Note:
Additional permits and/or certifications may be required; for example,
if a NPDES permit is required, additional compliance (over and above
this chapter) with public notice and intergovernmental coordination
requirements listed at 40 CFR Parts 25 and 29, and after due consideration
of such technical, economic, social and other criteria as provided
by Sections 301 and 302 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311
and 1312, shall be met in order to allow lower water quality.]
(a)
Where the quality of the waters exceeds levels
necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife
and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained
and protected unless the Tribe finds, after full satisfaction of the
intergovernmental coordination and public participation provisions
of the Tribe's continuing planning process, that allowing lower water
quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development
in the area in which the waters are located. In allowing such degradation
or lower water quality, the Tribe shall assure water quality adequate
to protect existing uses fully. Further, the Tribe shall assure that
there shall be achieved the highest statutory and regulatory requirements
for all new and existing point sources and all cost-effective and
reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source control.
In those cases where potential water quality impairment associated
with a thermal discharge is involved, the antidegradation policy and
implementation method shall be consistent with Section 316 of the
Clean Water Act.
(6)
Outstanding national resource waters will not be subject
to lowering of water quality for economic or social development purposes.
(7)
Consideration of any application must be consistent
with Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. § 1278).
This antidegradation standard shall be applicable
to any action or activity by any source, point or nonpoint, of pollutants
that is anticipated to result in an increased loading of BCCs to surface
waters of the Great Lakes system and for which independent regulatory
authority exists requiring compliance with water quality standards.
Pursuant to this standard:
A.
Existing in-stream water uses, as defined pursuant
to 40 CFR 131, and the level of water quality necessary to protect
existing uses shall be maintained and protected. Where designated
uses of the water body are impaired, there shall be no lowering of
the water quality with respect to the pollutant or pollutants which
are causing the impairment.
B.
Where, for any parameter, the quality of the waters
exceeds levels necessary to support the propagation of fish, shellfish,
and wildlife and recreation in and on the waters, that water shall
be considered high quality, and that quality shall be maintained and
protected unless the Tribe finds, after full satisfaction of intergovernmental
coordination and public participation provisions of the Tribe's continuing
planning process, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to
accommodate important economic or social development in the area in
which the waters are located. In allowing such degradation, the Tribe
shall assure water quality adequate to protect existing uses fully.
Further, the Tribe shall assure that there shall be achieved the highest
statutory and regulatory requirements for all new and existing point
sources and all cost-effective and reasonable best management practices
for nonpoint source control. The Tribe shall utilize the antidegradation
implementation procedures adopted pursuant to the requirements of
this article in determining if any lowering of water quality will
be allowed.
(1)
Where high-quality waters constitute an outstanding
national resource, such as waters of parks and wildlife refuges and
waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that
water quality shall be maintained and protected; and
(2)
In those cases where the potential lowering of water
quality is associated with a thermal discharge, the decision to allow
such degradation shall be consistent with Section 316 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA).
A.
BCC
CONTROL DOCUMENT
HIGH-QUALITY WATERS
LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN
LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN OUTSTANDING NATIONAL RESOURCE WATERS
LAKE SUPERIOR BIOACCUMULATIVE SUBSTANCES OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN
OUTSTANDING NATIONAL RESOURCE WATERS
(1)
(2)
SIGNIFICANT LOWERING OF WATER QUALITY
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(a)
(b)
(7)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Definitions. In addition to definitions contained
elsewhere in this chapter, the following shall apply:
Bioaccumulative chemicals of concern; see Tables 5 and 6.[1]
Any authorization issued by the Department or federal agency
to any source of pollutants to waters under its jurisdiction that
specifies conditions under which the source is allowed to operate.
Water bodies in which, on a parameter-by-parameter basis,
the quality of the waters exceeds levels necessary to support propagation
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.
For the purposes of the MITW WQS, each of the references
to "Lake Superior" and "Lake Superior basin" shall include Great Lakes
tributary waters that also flow to Lake Michigan.
Outstanding national resource waters and those waters designated
as such by the Tribe consistent with the September 1991 Bi-National
Program to Restore and Protect the Lake Superior Basin. The purpose
of such designations shall be to prohibit new or increased discharges
of Lake Superior bioaccumulative substances of immediate concern from
point sources in these areas.
A list of substances identified in the September 1991 Bi-National
Program to Restore and Protect the Lake Superior Basin. They include
2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD; octachlorostyrene; hexachlorobenzene; chlordane;
DDT, DDE, and other metabolites; toxaphene; PCBs; and mercury. Other
chemicals may be added to the list following the Tribe's assessment
of environmental effects and impacts and after public review and comment.
Those waters designated as such by the Tribe. The Tribal
designation shall describe the quality of such waters to serve as
the benchmark of the water quality that shall be maintained and protected.
Waters that may be considered for designation as outstanding national
resource waters include but are not limited to:
Water bodies that are recognized as important
because of protection through official action, such as federal or
tribal law, presidential or secretarial action, international treaty,
or interstate compact, due to:
Waters whose designation as outstanding national
resource waters is reasonably necessary for the protection of other
waters so designated.
A significant lowering of water quality occurs when there is
a new or increased loading of any BCC from any regulated existing
or new facility, either point source or nonpoint source, for which
there is a control document or reviewable action, as a result of any
activity, including but not limited to:
Construction of a new regulated facility or modification of
an existing regulated facility such that a new or modified control
document is required.
Modification of an existing regulated facility operating under
a current control document such that the production capacity of the
facility is increased.
Addition of a new source of untreated or pretreated effluent
containing or expected to contain any BCC to an existing wastewater
treatment works, whether public or private.
A request for an increased limit in an applicable control document.
Other deliberate activities that, based on the information available,
could be reasonably expected to result in an increased loading of
any BCC to any waters of the Great Lakes system.
Notwithstanding the above, changes in loadings of any BCC within
the existing capacity and processes and that are covered by the existing
applicable control document are not subject to an antidegradation
review. These changes include but are not limited to:
The Director may exclude from an antidegradation review new
effluent limits based on improved monitoring data or new water quality
criteria or values that are not a result of changes in pollutant loading.
For all waters, the Director shall ensure that the level of
water quality necessary to protect existing uses is maintained. In
order to achieve this requirement, and consistent with 40 CFR 131.10,
water quality standards use designations must include all existing
uses. Controls shall be established as necessary on point and nonpoint
sources of pollutants to ensure that the criteria applicable to the
designated use are achieved in the water and that any designated use
of a downstream water is protected. Where water quality does not support
the designated uses of a water body or ambient pollutant concentrations
exceed water quality criteria applicable to that water body, the Director
shall not allow a lowering of water quality for the pollutant or pollutants
preventing the attainment of such uses or exceeding such criteria.
For outstanding national resource waters:
For high-quality waters, the Director shall ensure that no action resulting in a lowering of water quality occurs unless an antidegradation demonstration has been completed pursuant to § 512-25 of this article and the information thus provided is determined by the Director pursuant to § 512-26 of this article to adequately support the lowering of water quality.
The Director shall establish conditions in the control document applicable to the regulated facility that prohibit the regulated facility from undertaking any deliberate action, such that there would be an increase in the rate of mass loading of any BCC, unless an antidegradation demonstration is provided to the Director and approved pursuant to § 512-26 of this article prior to commencement of the action. Imposition of limits due to improved monitoring data or new water quality criteria or values or changes in loadings of any BCC within the existing capacity and processes and that are covered by the existing applicable control document are not subject to an antidegradation review.
For BCCs known or believed to be present in
a discharge, from a point or nonpoint source, a monitoring requirement
shall be included in the control document. The control document shall
also include a provision requiring the source to notify the Director
of any increased loadings. Upon notification, the Director shall require
actions as necessary to reduce or eliminate the increased loading.
Exemptions. Except as the Director may determine on a case-by-case
basis that the application of these procedures is required to adequately
protect water quality, or as the affected water body is an outstanding
national resource water as defined in this section, the procedures
in this definition do not apply to:
Short-term, temporary (i.e., weeks or months)
lowering of water quality;
Bypasses that are not prohibited at 40 CFR 122.41(m);
and
Response actions pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as
amended, or similar federal or tribal authorities, undertaken to alleviate
a release into the environment of hazardous substances, pollutants
or contaminants which may pose an imminent and substantial danger
to public health or welfare.
[1]
Editor's Note: Tables 5 and 6 are included
at the end of this chapter.
Any entity seeking to lower water quality in a high-quality water or create a new or increased discharge of Lake Superior bioaccumulative substances of immediate concern in a Reservation water must first, as required by § 512-24 of this article, submit an antidegradation demonstration for consideration by the Director. The Tribe should tailor the level of detail and documentation in antidegradation reviews to the specific circumstances encountered. The antidegradation demonstration shall include the following:
A.
Pollution prevention alternatives analysis. Identify
any cost-effective pollution prevention alternatives and techniques
that are available to the entity that would eliminate or significantly
reduce the extent to which the increased loading results in a lowering
of water quality.
B.
Alternative or enhanced treatment analysis. Identify
alternative or enhanced treatment techniques that are available to
the entity that would eliminate the lowering of water quality and
their costs relative to the cost of treatment necessary to achieve
applicable effluent limitations.
C.
Lake Superior. For waters designated as outstanding national resource waters pursuant to this article, any entity proposing a new or increased discharge of any Lake Superior bioaccumulative substance of immediate concern to the Lake Superior basin shall identify the best technology in process and treatment to eliminate or reduce the extent of the lowering of water quality. In this case, the requirements in Subsection B of this section do not apply.
D.
Important social or economic development analysis.
Identify the social or economic development and the benefits to the
area in which the waters are located that will be foregone if the
lowering of water quality is not allowed.
E.
Special provision for remedial actions. Entities proposing remedial actions pursuant to the CERCLA, as amended, corrective actions pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, or similar actions pursuant to other federal or tribal environmental statutes or ordinances may submit information to the Director that demonstrates that the action utilizes the most cost-effective pollution prevention and treatment techniques available and minimizes the necessary lowering of water quality, in lieu of the information required by Subsections B through D.
A.
Once the Director determines that the information
provided by the entity proposing to increase loadings is administratively
complete, the Director shall use that information to determine whether
or not the lowering of water quality is necessary and, if it is necessary,
whether or not the lowering of water quality will support important
social and economic development in the area. If the proposed lowering
of water quality is either not necessary or will not support important
social and economic development, the Director shall deny the request
to lower water quality. If the lowering of water quality is necessary
and will support important social and economic development, the Director
may allow all or part of the proposed lowering to occur as necessary
to accommodate the important social and economic development. In no
event may the decision reached under this section allow water quality
to be lowered below the minimum level required to fully support existing
and designated uses. The decision of the Director shall be subject
to the public participation requirements of 40 CFR 25.
B.
For water bodies classified as outstanding national
resource waters pursuant to this article, any entity requesting to
lower water quality in Reservation waters as a result of the new or
increased discharge of any Lake Superior bioaccumulative substance
of immediate concern shall be required to install and utilize the
best technology in process and treatment as identified by the Director.
A.
Procedure 1: Site-specific modification to criteria
and values.
(1)
Requirements for site-specific modification to criteria
and values. Criteria and values may be modified on a site-specific
basis to reflect local environmental conditions as restricted by the
following provisions. Any such modifications must be protective of
designated uses and aquatic life, wildlife or human health and be
submitted to EPA for approval. In addition, any site-specific modifications
that result in less stringent criteria must be based on a sound scientific
rationale and shall not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of endangered or threatened species listed or proposed under Section
4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or result in the destruction
or adverse modification of such species' critical habitat. More stringent
modifications shall be developed to protect endangered or threatened
species listed or proposed under Section 4 of the ESA, where such
modifications are necessary to ensure that water quality is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of such species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of such species' critical
habitat. More stringent modifications may also be developed to protect
candidate (C1) species being considered by the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) for listing under Section 4 of the ESA,
where such modifications are necessary to protect such species. All
site-specific modifications are applicable to aquatic life, wildlife,
and human health criteria.
B.
Procedure 2: Variances from water quality standards
for point sources.
(1)
Applicability. The Tribe may grant a variance to a
WQS which is the basis of a water quality based effluent limitation
included in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. A WQS variance applies only to the permittee requesting the
variance and only to the pollutant or pollutants specified in the
variance. A variance does not affect, or require the Tribe to modify,
the corresponding water quality standard for the water body as a whole.
(2)
The Tribe's procedure for considering and granting
a variance from water quality standards for point sources shall be
implemented according to the following reference document: refer to
Procedure 2, Appendix F to 40 CFR Part 132, March 23, 1995, Great
Lakes Water Quality Initiative.
C.
Procedure 3: Total maximum daily loads, waste load
allocations for point sources, load allocations for nonpoint sources,
waste load allocations in the absence of a TMDL, and preliminary waste
load allocations for purposes of determining the need for water-quality-based
effluent limits. The Tribe herein adopts the provisions of Procedure
3, Appendix F to 40 CFR Part 132, March 23, 1995, Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative, for the purpose of developing total maximum daily
loads (TMDLs), waste load allocations (WLAs) in the absence of TMDLs,
and preliminary waste load allocations for purposes of determining
the need for water-quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs), except
as specifically provided in accordance with said reference.
D.
Procedure 4: Additivity. The Tribe herein adopts provisions
to protect human health from the potential adverse additive effects
from both the noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic components of chemical
mixtures in effluents utilizing procedures found in Procedure 4, Appendix
F to 40 CFR Part 132, March 23, 1995, Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative.
E.
Procedure 5: Reasonable potential to exceed water
quality standards.
(1)
If the Department determines that a pollutant is or
may be discharged into the Great Lakes system at a level which will
cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an
deviation above any Tier I criterion or Tier II value, the Department
shall incorporate a water-quality-based effluent limitation (WQBEL)
in a NPDES permit for the discharge of that pollutant. When facility-specific
effluent monitoring data is available, the permitting authority shall
make this determination by developing preliminary effluent limitations
(PEL) and comparing those effluent limitations to the projected effluent
quality (PEQ) of the discharge in accordance with the following procedures.
In all cases, the permitting authority shall use any valid, relevant,
representative information that indicates a reasonable potential to
exceed any Tier I criterion or Tier II value.
F.
Procedure 6: Whole effluent toxicity requirements.
The Tribe herein adopts whole effluent toxicity provisions in accordance
with Procedure 6, Appendix F to 40 CFR Part 132, March 23, 1995, Great
Lakes Water Quality Initiative, including definitions contained in
said reference.
G.
Procedure 7: Loading limits. Whenever a water-quality-based
effluent limitation (WQBEL) is developed, the WQBEL shall be expressed
as both a concentration value and a corresponding mass loading rate.
(1)
Both mass and concentration limits shall be based
on the same permit averaging periods, such as daily, weekly, or monthly
averages, or in other appropriate permit averaging periods.
(2)
The mass loading rates shall be calculated using effluent
flow rates that are consistent with those used in establishing the
WQBELs expressed in concentration.
H.
Procedure 8: Water-quality-based effluent limitations
below the quantification level. When a water-quality-based effluent
limitation (WQBEL) for a pollutant is calculated to be less than the
quantification level:
(1)
Permit limits. The Department shall designate as the
limit in the NPDES permit the WQBEL exactly as calculated.
(2)
Analytical method and quantification level.
(a)
The permitting authority shall specify in the permit the most sensitive, applicable analytical method specified in or approved under 40 CFR Part 136, or other appropriate method if one is not available under 40 CFR Part 136, to be used to monitor for the presence and amount in an effluent of the pollutant for which the WQBEL is established and shall specify in accordance with Subsection H(2)(b) of this procedure the quantification level that can be achieved by use of the specified analytical method.
(b)
The quantification level shall be the minimum
level (ML) specified in or approved under 40 CFR Part 136 for the
method for that pollutant. If no such ML exists, or if the method
is not specified or approved under 40 CFR Part 136, the quantification
level shall be the lowest quantifiable level practicable. The permitting
authority may specify a higher quantification level if the permittee
demonstrates that a higher quantification level is appropriate because
of effluent-specific matrix interference.
(c)
The permit shall state that, for the purpose
of compliance assessment, the analytical method specified in the permit
shall be used to monitor the amount of pollutant in an effluent down
to the quantification level, provided that the analyst has complied
with the specified quality assurance/quality control procedures in
the relevant method.
(d)
The permitting authority shall use applicable
tribal procedures to average and account for monitoring data. The
permitting authority may specify in the permit the value to be used
to interpret sample values below the quantification level.
(3)
Special conditions. The permit shall contain a reopener
clause authorizing modification or revocation and reissuance of the
permit if new information generated as a result of special conditions
included in the permit indicates that presence of the pollutant in
the discharge at levels above the WQBEL. Special conditions that may
be included in the permit include, but are not limited to, fish tissue
sampling, whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests, limits and/or monitoring
requirements on internal waste streams, and monitoring for surrogate
parameters. Data generated as a result of special conditions can be
used to reopen the permit to establish more stringent effluent limits
or conditions, if necessary.
(4)
Pollutant minimization program. The permitting authority
shall include a condition in the permit requiring the permittee to
develop and conduct a pollutant minimization program for each pollutant
with a WQBEL below the quantification level. The goal of the pollutant
minimization program shall be to maintain the effluent at or below
the WQBEL. In addition, The Department may consider cost-effectiveness
when evaluating the requirements of a PMP. The pollutant minimization
program shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
(a)
An annual review and semiannual monitoring of
potential sources of the pollutant, which may include fish tissue
monitoring and other bio-uptake sampling;
(b)
Quarterly monitoring for the pollutant in the
influent to the wastewater treatment system;
(c)
Submittal of a control strategy designed to
proceed toward the goal of maintaining the effluent below the WQBEL;
(d)
Implementation of appropriate, cost-effective
control measures consistent with the control strategy; and
I.
Procedure 9: Compliance schedules.
(1)
Limitations for new Great Lakes dischargers. When
a permit issued on or after March 23, 1997, to a new Great Lakes discharger
(defined in 40 CFR 132.2) contains a water-quality-based effluent
limitation (WQBEL), the permittee shall comply with such a limitation
upon the commencement of the discharge.
(2)
Limitations for existing Great Lakes dischargers.
(a)
Any existing permit that is reissued or modified
on or after March 23, 1997, to contain a new or more restrictive WQBEL
may allow a reasonable period of time, up to five years from the date
of permit issuance or modification, for the permittee to comply with
that limit, provided that the Tier I criterion or whole effluent toxicity
(WET) criterion was adopted (or, in the case of a narrative criterion,
Tier II value, or Tier I criterion derived pursuant to the methodology
in Appendix A of Part 132, was newly derived) after July 1, 1977.
(b)
When the compliance schedule established under Subsection I(2)(a) goes beyond the term of the permit, an interim permit limit effective upon the expiration date shall be included in the permit and addressed in the permit's fact sheet or statement of basis. The administrative record for the permit shall reflect the final limit and its compliance date.
(c)
If a permit establishes a schedule of compliance under Subsection I(2)(a) which exceeds one year from the date of permit issuance or modification, the schedule shall set forth interim requirements and dates for their achievement. The time between such interim dates may not exceed one year. If the time necessary for completion of any interim requirement is more than one year and is not readily divisible into stages for completion, the permit shall require, at a minimum, specified dates for annual submission of progress reports on the status of any interim requirements.
(3)
Delayed effectiveness of Tier II limitations for existing
Great Lakes discharges.
(a)
Whenever a limit (calculated in accordance with
Procedure 3) based upon a Tier II value is included in a reissued
or modified permit for an existing Great Lakes discharger, the permit
may provide a reasonable period of time, up to two years, in which
to provide additional studies necessary to develop a Tier I criterion
or to modify the Tier II value. In such cases, the permit shall require
compliance with the Tier II limitation within a reasonable period
of time, no later than five years after permit issuance or modification,
and contain a reopener clause.
(b)
The reopener clause shall authorize permit modifications
if specified studies have been completed by the permittee or provided
by a third party during the time allowed to conduct the specified
studies and the permittee or a third party demonstrates, through such
studies, that a revised limit is appropriate. Such a revised limit
shall be incorporated through a permit modification and a reasonable
time period, up to five years, shall be allowed for compliance. If
incorporated prior to the compliance date of the original Tier II
limitation, any such revised limit shall not be considered less stringent
for purposes of the antibacksliding provisions of Section 402(o) of
the Clean Water Act.
(c)
If the specified studies have been completed
and do not demonstrate that a revised limit is appropriate, the permitting
authority may provide a reasonable additional period of time, not
to exceed five years, with which to achieve compliance with the original
effluent limitation.
(d)
Where a permit is modified to include new or more stringent limitations, on a date within five years of the permit expiration date, such compliance schedules may extend beyond the term of a permit consistent with Subsection H(2)(b) of this procedure.
(e)
If future studies [other than those conducted under Subsection I(3)(a), (b) or (c) above] result in a Tier II value being changed to a less stringent Tier II value or Tier I criterion, after the effective date of a Tier II based limit, the existing Tier II based limit may be revised to be less stringent if:
[1]
It complies with Section 402(o)(2) and (3) of
the CWA;
[2]
In nonattainment waters, where the existing Tier II limit was based on Procedure 3, the cumulative effect of revised effluent limitation based on Subsection I(3)(c) above will assure compliance with water quality standards; or
[3]
In attained waters, the revised effluent limitation
complies with the Tribe's antidegradation policy and procedures.
