Page 1 

EPA 

Public Session I: Water Quality Standards Regulatory Changes 

Moderator: Grace Robiou 

August 24, 2010 

1:00 p.m. EDT

Operator: Good afternoon, my name is Andrea and I will be your conference operator 

today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Water Quality 

Standards Regulatory Changes Conference Call. 

All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After 

the speakers remarks there will be a question-and-answer session. If you 

would like to ask a question during this time simply press star then the number 

1 on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question, 

press the pound key. Thank you. 

Miss Robiou, you may begin your conference. 

Grace Robiou: Thank you. Hello, I’m Grace Robiou, and I am located at EPA headquarters 

in Washington, DC. I want to welcome you to this session on EPA’s proposal 

making to revise the water quality standards regulation. We are at an early 

stage in this effort and that’s why we’re holding these informal opportunities 

to gather your ideas. 

What we hear from you and others in these sessions can help us in formulating 

our proposal. There will be other opportunities next year for more formal 

comments after we actually publish the details of a proposal in the Federal 

Register. As you will learn in a few minutes, we’ve been taking a close look 

at the EPA regulation which governs water quality standards to see if we can 

improve its effectiveness in helping restore and maintain the integrity of the 

nation’s waters. 
Page 2 

We have come up with a targeted set of changes to the regulation, and we’ve 

outlined those in the Federal Register notice a few weeks ago. This is the 

start of the rulemaking effort that should result in a formal proposal in the 

Federal Register in the summer of 2011. 

For the next 20 minutes, we will be using the briefing document that was 

posted on our website to describe our thinking. If you have that briefing in 

front of you, we will lead you through it slide by slide. We’re now on slide 

number 1. If you don’t have the briefing, that’s also OK. We will cover the 

important points verbally, and the slides will still be on our website for future 

reference. 

I’m turning now to slide number two, our purpose today is to solicit your 

views on the specific positions EPA is considering for this rulemaking. We 

will begin by providing a short overview of our proposal and why we think 

changes to the regulation might be appropriate. But we want to try to keep it 

short so that most of the call can be devoted to hearing your views. 

Slide number three shows our schedule. As you can see we are at an early 

stage in our rulemaking. EPA has not made any final decisions on the 

contents of the proposal; those decisions will be made after we talk with you 

as well as we have similar sessions with states, tribes and other stakeholders. 

As you can see on this slide after we published the proposed rule in the 

summer of next year there will be a 60-day formal public comment period. 

I’m turning now to slide number four, now to give you more information on 

the proposal, I’d like to introduce Christina Christensen, Christina. 

Christina Christensen: Thank you, Grace. Slide four provides an outline of what I’ll be 

discussing today. I will begin with some background on what water quality 

standards are and why we’re considering revising our national water quality 

standards regulation. I will then give some detail that each of the six areas 

we’re considering for revision which are listed on slide four. 

OK, we’re turning to slide five, what are water quality standards? Under the 

Clean Water Act, water quality standards are provisions the state, tribal, or 

federal law approved by EPA that describe the desired condition of a 
Page 3 

waterbody or the level of protection. Standards are the foundation for other 

programs of the act such as discharge permits that impose enforceable water 

quality based control. 

And standards consist of three major components; designated uses, water 

quality criteria, and antidegradation policies and can include optional general 

policies such as variances or mixing zones. 

Slide number six shows that the Clean Water Act gives states and authorized 

tribes the primary role to set standards. Authorized tribes are federally 

recognized Indian tribes that EPA has found eligible to run standard programs, 

and this is known a treatment in a manner similar to a state or TAS. And as of 

today 45 tribes have been approved for TAS. 

The Clean Water Act requires states and tribes to review their standards every 

three years. If they decide new or revised standards are needed they must 

adopt these amendments and submit them to EPA for review. The Clean 

Water Act calls on EPA to review and approve standards within 60 days of 

submission or disapprove within 90 days. 

If EPA approves the standards, they can then be used for all purposes under 

the Clean Water Act including setting permit limits, or developing total 

maximum daily loads. The Clean Water Act also authorizes the EPA 

Administrator to determine that federal water quality standards are needed to 

replace or augment state and tribal standards and to promulgate them as 

binding standards. 

Now let’s consider the national standards regulation on slide number seven. 

The regulation simply adds details to what the Clean Water Act says on 

designated uses, water quality criteria, and antidegradation. It requires states 

and tribes to engage the public before revising their standards and it specifies 

the roles of states tribes and EPA for administering standards. 

Please turn to slide number eight now. So why is the EPA considering 

revising this regulation? Well, the main parts of EPA’s regulation have been 

in place since 1983. They’ve provided a solid foundation for controlling 

water quality. But there are practical reasons for initiating this rulemaking. 
Page 4 

As we’ve implemented the 1983 regulation, some important issues have come 

up again and again that the regulation does not explicitly address. This can 

waste time and resources, and we’d like to improve that situation. 

Slide number nine lists some of the work we did before settling on the specific 

areas we’d like to improve. In 2008 EPA developed a list of over 40 potential 

regulatory revisions that might help provide clarity and national consistency 

and lead to environmental improvements. In developing this list, we 

considered recurring policy issues as well as case law from the past 25 years. 

We also reviewed our 1998 advance notice of proposed rulemaking, and we 

considered the comments we received on it. In addition, we held preliminary 

consultations with several state water quality standards managers, and we 

consulted with EPA regional experts to get a sense of where regulatory 

revisions were most needed. 

To narrow the field of over 40-plus potential revisions, EPA managers also 

considered how well the current regulation addressed recurring issues, 

whether it was well equipped to handle emerging issues, and whether 

sufficient flexibility is provided to states and tribes when needed. 

Based on our view, we’ve narrowed our focus to six specific areas, and I will 

take you through each of these in turn. 

We’re now on slide number 10. Slide number 10 summarizes our six targeted 

areas, and I will take you through each of them in more detail. When I’m 

done, we’ll be asking for your views on what we’ve presented today. 

You might want to make a note of any comments you have as we go along 

and save them for the feedback part of this conference call. And of course 

we’re very welcome to views that support our ideas, but we’d also be very 

interested in hearing your views and any possible unintended consequences of 

changing the regulation in a specific area. We also welcome any specific 

suggestions for changes that you do or do not wish to see in this proposal. 

Please turn to slide number 11 on antidegradation. Our current regulations 

sets the national policy of protecting existing uses and preventing the lowering 
Page 5 

of high water quality, unless necessary, to accommodate important economic 

or social development. It also specifies that states and authorized tribes must 

adopt specific antidegradation policies. All states and tribes have adopted 

policies in accordance with the regulation and we do not need to see any of 

the changes this. 

We are concerned, however, with the implementation of these policies. 

Although many states have done a good job of implementation, some states 

have not even identified antidegradation implementation methods, despite the 

regulation’s requirement to do so. We recognize that the current regulation 

does not specify what the implementation method must include but only 

requires them to be consistent with the antidegradation policy. 

As a possible change, EPA is considering modifying the regulation to specify 

that antidegradation implementation methods must meet specific minimum 

requirements. To do this, EPA is considering adding a paragraph that would 

specify minimum implementation elements to be included in state or tribal 

standards. 

A minimum element, for example, could be the state or tribe process for 

identifying high quality water. EPA is also considering requiring an 

antidegradation implementation method be adopted in the state and tribal 

water quality standards rather than simply being identified. The methods 

would thus be subject to EPA review and approval. 

Our current thinking is that these changes would bring more consistent 

application, clarity, and transparency to the protection of high quality water. 

Further EPA’s oversight role would be more clearly defined. 

The second area, on slide 12, concerns the discretionary determination the 

EPA administrator can make that a revised or new standard is necessary to 

meet the requirements of the act. This provision is in section 303(c)(4)(b) of 

the Clean Water Act. If such a determination is made, EPA must promptly 

propose a federal standard and promulgate a standard within 90 days of 

proposal. 
Page 6 

Over the years, there have been recurring instances of confusion or 

misunderstanding about what actually constitutes an EPA Administrator’s 

determination. For example, in some cases EPA staff people have sent routine 

letters suggesting priorities for states to consider when revising their water 

quality standards. 

Some courts have construed these kinds of communications to states as 

official EPA Administrator determination that obliged EPA to promulgate 

water quality standards. EPA is considering clarifying in the water quality 

standards regulation that an [EPA] Administrator’s determination must be 

signed by the [EPA] Administrator or someone he or she specifically 

authorizes. And must include a statement that the document constitutes a 

determination under section 303(c)(4)(b) of the Clean Water Act. 

EPA’s current thinking is that this type of change could ensure that it is clear 

when EPA has or has not made one of these determinations. This kind of 

change would allow EPA to continue to provide routine written suggestions to 

states and tribes without triggering any need for immediate federal action. 

On slide 13 we’ll turn to the topic of designated uses. Section 101(a)(2) of the 

Clean Water Act establishes a national goal whenever attainable of water 

quality that provides for the protection and prorogation of fish, shell fish, and 

wild life and recreation in and on the water. If a state or tribe wants to remove 

one of these goal uses our regulation requires that to demonstrate that 

obtaining the designated use is not feasible for one of six specific factors. 

The state or tribe must also submit a use attainability analysis, or structured 

scientific assessments of factors effecting attainment of designated uses. The 

regulation does not, however, specify which uses, if any, must be adopted to 

replace the use that is being removed. Furthermore, EPA’s long standing 

interpretation of the Act and regulation is that Section 101(a)(2) uses are 

attainable unless the state or tribe demonstrates otherwise. 

This interruption is essential to our water qualities standards program, 

however, it’s not articulated explicitly in the regulation. EPA is considering 

clarifying that designated uses reflecting the goals of the Clean Water Act are 
Page 7 

attainable unless otherwise demonstrated. States and authorized tribes must 

designate such uses unless they have conducted a use attainability analysis to 

support a lesser designated use and EPA has approved said action. 

EPA is also considering clarifying that the highest attainable uses closest to a 

101(a)(2) goal must be adopted if such a goal itself is not attainable. 

On slide 14, we discuss variances or temporary changes to water quality 

standards. The current regulation allows states and authorized tribes to adopt 

variances as general policies for applying and implementing their water 

quality standards. And this is specified in Section 131.13 of the regulation. 

We would retain the state and tribal discretion, but the current regulation does 

not provide any specificity on how to use variances. 

So as a result, there’s a lack of clarity on the proper use of variances. 

Furthermore, variances are sometimes repeatedly renewed without achieving 

environmental improvements in a waterbody. 

EPA is considering establishing explicit provisions to guide the use of 

variances. For example ,EPA is considering a provision that requires all 

variances to have an expiration date. Such a change could provide regulatory 

clarity on what is an acceptable variance versus what is not. 

Slide number 15 addresses the reviews required every three years by the Clean 

Water Act, or triennial reviews as we call them. The current regulation does 

not call for involving the public when states and tribes determine what they 

will focus on in their triennial reviews. This can have the effect of narrowing 

public input to those portions of standards that the state or tribe chooses to 

review. 

A second concern is that, despite the availability of new scientific 

information, some states or tribes may not consider it in a timely fashion and 

thus may not always evaluate whether their current criteria continue to protect 

designated uses. EPA is considering revising its requirements to specify that 

states and authorized tribes must solicit and consider public comments in 

determining the scope of each triennial review. 
Page 8 

EPA is also considering establishing a new triennial requirement that states 

and authorized tribes must evaluate whether their current water criteria 

continue to be protective of designated uses, taking into consideration any 

new information that’s become available since state or tribal criteria were 

adopted or last revised. 

This will clarify that states and tribes would need to consider EPA’s most 

recent national recommended water quality criteria published under section 

304(a). EPA’s current thinking is that these changes will increase 

transparency by ensuring that stakeholders have input on the scope of triennial 

reviews. They could offer strength and oversight of whether state and tribal 

water quality criteria are being kept up to date and whether they continue to 

protect designated uses. 

Slide number 16 refers to three court decisions handed down since the 

regulation was last revised. The complete legal citations for these cases are 

available in EPA’s Federal Register notice. EPA is considering codifying the 

results of these decisions and the regulations. First EPA is considering 

revising the definition of water quality standards that appears in the regulation 

to reflect the results of a 2004 court case concerning Florida’s Impaired 

Waters Rule. 

In this case some binding provisions and state law had the effect of changing 

water quality standards without EPA approval. The court decisions and EPA's 

response to it more clearly define which kind of provisions actually constitute 

water quality standards requiring EPA’s review. 

Second EPA is considering specifying that provisions which authorize 

compliance schedules are considered water quality standards and therefore 

must be submitted to EPA for review and approval. Compliance schedules 

govern the timing of water quality-based effluent limits in NPDES permits. 

This change will codify the results of a 1990 Environmental Appeals Board 

decision involving Star-Kist Caribe Incorporated. 

Note that we’re authorizing provisions to be considered water quality 

standards compliance schedules themselves are not, they are permeating 
Page 9 

provisions. The EPA is considering clarifying that states and authorized tribes 

must submit to EPA records of public participation that have occurred in 

reviewing and adopting standards. These records would include public 

comments and a state or tribes responses to the comments. 

This change would codify the results of the 1996 decision involving standards 

affecting the City of Albuquerque. Codifying these three positions and 

regulation will help eliminate confusion and could minimize future mitigation 

on these topics. 

This concludes our presentation of the proposal that EPA is developing. Slide 

17 gives you several EPA websites for more information. They provide more 

information about these listening sessions and water quality standards in 

general. They also show where we’ll be posting the transcripts and recordings 

of these sessions and how you can provide your views and comments in 

writing if you want to add to your views expressed today. 

Please note again that these are just listening sessions at an early stage of the 

rulemaking process. There will still be a formal 60 day public comment 

period after the proposal is published in the summer of 2011. 

Thanks for your attention; I will now turn it back to Grace Robiou. 

Grace Robiou: Thank you, Christina. We’re now going to turn to the heart of today’s 

conference call. The feedback session. We’re going to dedicate between 10 

and 15 minutes to answer any clarifying questions you may have about 

anything you have heard in this presentation that leaves you puzzled. We 

would appreciate it if you would keep those initial questions short and limit 

them to questions of fact or clarification of what you’ve heard. 

After that we are going to turn to taking your comments and views on the 

targeted regulatory revisions EPA is considering. Operator, we’re now going 

to turn to clarifying questions. 

Operator: Yes, if you would like to ask a clarifying question you may do so by pressing 

star then the number 1 on your telephone keypad. Your first question comes 

from the line Albert Ettinger. 
Page 10 

Albert Ettinger: Hello. 

Grace Robiou: Hi, Albert. 

Albert Ettinger: OK, great. Do I understand correctly that we’ve got until September 3 to 

comment on this and then we won't have another opportunity to comment 

formally, at least, until you guys selected what you’re going to propose 

changes are? 

Christina Christensen: Yes, that is correct. If you look at slide number 19, which I think is the 

last slide in our presentation, we have just made a note that if anyone is not 

able to make a comment today, and we do have over 300 people on this call, 

we would encourage you to provide your comments to us by September 3. 

You can either send them by e-mail or mail a hard copy. And we did just ask 

for September 3 so people have time after these sessions and that gives us 

time to consider them as we move forward. 

And then your next chance after that will be during the formal 60 day public 

comment period next summer. 

Operator: And your next question comes from the line of Jon Tack. 

Jon Tack: Hi, this is Jon Tack from Iowa, just one clarifying question, am I 

understanding correctly that you’re saying that antidegradation 

implementation procedures are not currently required to be reviewed and 

approved? 

Christina Christensen: Yes that is correct. Our regulation currently specifies that they must be 

identified, but it does not actually say that they are required, so therefore they 

don’t need to be reviewed and approved by EPA. 

Jon Tack: OK, thank you. 

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Don Parrish. Mr. Parrish your line 

is open. 
Page 11 

Don Parrish: Yes. Thank you very much. I have two questions. The first relates to the first 

question or the part about the rulemaking that occurred or the advanced notice 

of proposed rulemaking in 1998—here can we find EPA’s response to those 

comments? 

And then number two, has EPA in their Federal Register notice made any 

attempt to justify the shift that they're trying to make with the antidegradation 

requirements? Taking it from what it is now, requiring a listing of those 

procedures versus incorporating them into the permit, or into the standard. 

Thank you. 

Christina Christensen: OK, with regard to your first question on the ANPRM. The ANPRM was 

published back in 1998, and it was an advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking, and then we never finalized that rulemaking. So while I think we 

received comments we never prepared a formal response to those comments 

since we never formalized that rulemaking. 

With regard to your second question, right now we’re still in the information 

gathering portion of this rulemaking so while the changes I outlined for 

integration are changes that we’re considering making, we haven’t made any 

final decisions. In our proposed rulemaking we’ll be sure to outline or justify 

our rational and our thinking behind making those changes. 

Operator: And your next question comes from the line of Henri Bartholomew. 

Henri Bartholomew : Hi, it’s Henri Bartholomew. I've looked at the website where the briefing 

slides were supposed to be, but I’m not finding them there. Could you give us 

an address where we can find the slides that you were using today? 

Christina Christensen: Yes we can. The address that you want to look at is 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/wqs_listening.cfm so let me just 

repeat that one more time I know it’s a really long Web address 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/wqs_listening.cfm. And that is 

our Website for our rulemaking and these listening sessions, and it will give 

you all sorts of information including our PowerPoint presentation and as well 

how you can submit additional written comments. 
Page 12 

Henri Bartholomew: Thank you. 

Operator: And your next question comes from the line of Greg Goblick. 

Greg Goblick: Hello, I have a question on slide 13, pertaining to section 101(a)(2) of the 

Clean Water Act. I was wondering has there been any consideration towards 

expanding this definition to include agricultural uses? In particular water that 

may be used for wash water for vegetables or fruit or irrigation for ready to 

eat crops? 

And the thinking or understanding is we’re all familiar with many of the 

outbreaks that have occurred in the past five or six years associated with 

produce in (inaudible) and spinach for example in California in 2006 and 

things of that nature. And I was wondering has any thought been given to 

address some of those issues? 

Christina Christensen: Thank you for that question, and I think the short answer is no. The Clean 

Water Act defines section 101(a)(2) goal uses and at this time our proposal 

making won't be proposing any changes to the language of the Clean Water 

Act. 

Greg Goblick: OK. 

Operator: And your next question comes from the line of Daniel Myers. 

Daniel Myers: In California, the North Coast region is indicating that they will not be filing 

or doing a triennial review this year. I wondered about whether that is 

considered an optional thing. We also have gotten guidance on the completion 

of TMDL action plans, or implementation plans. I wonder if the regulations 

are going to formalize a rational time frame for the states to do their 

implementation plans, thank you. 

Christina Christensen: Thank you. In response to your first question about the triennial reviews 

being optional, according to the Clean Water Act and our regulation triennial 

reviews should be held at least every three years. So that’s the requirement 

outlined in our regulation. 
Page 13 

And can you just repeat your second question for me? 

Daniel Myers: Yes, we’ve received guidance that implementation plans for TMDLs should 

be completed within seven to nine years, something like that. But I’m not 

seeing that as a formal requirement. It seems like it’s simply guidance and not 

in the regulations. I think it should be in the regulations if it’s not. 

Grace Robiou: The scope of this rulemaking is limited to the regulations that govern water 

quality standards. I believe that your question would fall in the context of the 

TMDL or total maximum daily loads regulations which is outside the scope of 

this action. 

Daniel Myers: OK, thank you. 

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Donna Long. 

Donna Long: I concede, my questions been answered. 

Operator: OK, your next question comes from the line (Gemit Ahmed). 

(Gemit Ahmed): (Gemit Ahmed) and I have a question about your triennial reviews. Can you 

clarify how you envision to schedule triennial reviews? Should the 

reevaluation be limited to the new information based on the EPA’s most 

recent water quality criteria or is it open to any new information that is 

developed by the scientific community as a whole? 

Grace Robiou: The idea here is to require that states and tribes take into consideration any 

new information including EPA’s recommended water quality criteria 

recommendations. 

(Gemit Ahmed): So how do we (inaudible) the information? Are they then going to provide the 

guidance to what type of new information would be acceptable to consider? 

Because there's always all kinds of new information available and it would be 

nice to have some kind of guidance to determine what can be considered and 

what should be left until it’s further developed. 

Grace Robiou: I think you’ve made a very good comment, and we’ll take note of how we will 

handle that in rulemaking if we move forward with that, particular revision. 
Page 14 

(Gemit Ahmed): Thank you. 

Operator: And your next question comes from line of Bill Payne. 

Bill Payne: Hello,I was wondering if the water quality standard regulation was going to be 

open to other issues, basically anything in the standards other than those six 

that you’ve listed? 

Christina Christensen: Right now the only changes we are considering making are in the specific 

six areas outlined in today’s presentation. 

Bill Payne: OK, thank you. 

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Pam Homer. 

Pam Homer: Yes this is Pam Homer New Mexico, our antidegradation implementation 

procedure is probably 40 pages long, and so I’m wondering how a 

requirement to include antidegradation implementation in this water quality 

standard regulation jives with the Florida decision about kind of a more 

restricted view of what constitutes a water quality standard which I understand 

to be magnitude frequency duration? How do those ideas fit together? 

Christina Christensen: I think that’s a really good comment. I think that’s something that we’ll 

definitely think about and talk about on our end, so thank you for sharing that? 

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Ann Heil. 

Ann Heil: Hi, I wanted to ask a follow-up question to the first caller’s question about the 

deadlines for comments. The briefing says September 3 but on August 20 I 

received an e-mail from Thomas Gardner that indicated that the cutoff date 

was September 10, and anything included by that date would be included in 

the docket. I’m working with some of the statewide groups in California to 

prepare comments and we had timed the preparation of the comments for the 

September 10 deadline. 

So, I guess the question is, will you take them through September 10? 
Page 15 

Christina Christensen: Yes we will take them through September 10. I think we encourage 

everyone to submit any written comments as soon as you can. If you can get 

them in by September 3 that would be great, but we will accept them through 

September 10. 

Ann Heil: Great, thank you. 

Christina Christensen: I just want to add that people can provide comments any time, it’s not a 

formal comment period, comments will go to the docket. But in order to help 

make those comments the most useful to us going forward, to have 

discussions with the senior decision makers at EPA, the mid-September time 

frame, whether its September 3 or 10, is the most helpful to us in preparing for 

those discussions. But comments can be sent in any time again since it’s not a 

formal comment period. 

Operator: And your next question comes from the line Sandy Gruzesky. 

(Randy Patting): This is (Randy Patting). I had a question backing up to variances and this part 

of that discussion. Are they to be included under the consideration in formal 

kind of review and then in (Re) specifically? 

Grace Robiou: Are you asking whether variances would be now considered part of our reg, 

our water quality standards? 

(Randy Patting): Yes, part of the same process. 

Grace Robiou: Well, variances are currently described in the existing regulations as an 

optional element of water quality standards. So I think that the revisions that 

we are contemplating regarding variances have more to do with how variances 

are applied, in what circumstances they're appropriate. 

(Randy Patting): OK. Thank you. 

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Lois Rellergert. 

Lois Rellergert: Hi, my question goes back to the answer about the ANPRM. Even though 

EPA did not provide a formal response to those comments, is there a place 
Page 16 

where the comments were collected and that they could be distributed to the 

public? 

Christina Christensen: Thank you. Before I answer I just want to indicate that we’ll have time for 

one more clarifying question before we move on. And in response to that, no, 

we did not have a place where we collected all those responses, comments. I 

think we received over 3,000 comments to the ANPRM, and we don’t have a 

contemplation of those. 

We’ll take one more clarifying question. 

Operator: Your next clarifying question comes from t the line of Scott Thomas. 

Scott Thomas: Hi, my question’s on designated uses on slide 13. You discussed that the 

concept is that you require that the highest attainable use closest to the goal 

must be adopted. I’m wondering, are you assuming that you’ll just rely on the 

state to define the hierarchy of uses and the tiers or do you envision some sort 

of federal mandate on how you tier uses? 

Christina Christensen: We will plan to provide some sort of guidance or discussion in our 

proposal about what it is we intend by the concept of the highest attainable 

use. We intend to think of the highest attainable use as the use closest to the 

101 (a)(2) goal uses of the Clean Water Act. But we’ll take a note of that, and 

we’ll add a discussion in our proposal on that. Thank you. 

Grace Robiou: We’re now going to turn to comments regarding the content of the proposed 

rulemaking. I want to maybe go back to something Christina said,where she 

made a point of wanting to hear about any concerns that you may have about 

our unintended consequences of our proposal, and for specific revisions that 

you would like to see or would not like to see in our proposal. 

Operator I’m turning now to you on those kinds of comments. 

Operator: If you want to make a comment please press star then the number 1 on your 

telephone keypad. Your first comment comes from the line of Matt Rota. 
Page 17 

Matt Rota: Hey this is Matt Rota down in New Orleans, and I probably won't get to all of 

my questions. I have some comments on the tier two antidegradation. First of 

all, I encourage you all to make sure that antidegradation tier two is applied to 

the majority of waters in the states, if you could put that in the regs. Because 

several states are basically trying to get away with having as few tier two 

waters as possible. 

And one way to encourage covering most of the waterbodies is using a 

perimeter-by-perimeter approach. Also I know some of the states are 

struggling with how to apply tier two antidegradation to general permits and 

also 401 certifications. I would request that in this rulemaking that those two 

things are specifically addressed with ways that EPA says it needs to be done. 

And another question that I have is about the triennial review, and you say 

that states need to solicit and consider public comments. I would request that 

that’s made a little more strong in that they make sure that not only are they 

soliciting them but that they're being taken seriously and not just explained 

away. 

So some way to make sure that public comments are not only solicited but 

taken seriously and some sort of ramifications if they aren’t taken seriously. 

Thanks. 

Operator: Your next comment comes from the line of Steve Brown. Mr. Brown, your 

line is open. Your next comment comes from the line of Gerald Greene. 

Gerald Greene: Hi, this is Gerry. On your slide 16 I had a question or a statement regarding 

submitting public comments. It seems odd that we speak in terms of having to 

submit both to the state as well as EPA on these things for the record. In that 

it seems that there would be a high probability the record would then 

potentially get out of conformity between the two regulatory agencies. 

It seems best that you should keep it going in one direction, i.e. local 

commenting to the state and then a copy goes to the feds rather than this being 

conflicting records. 
Page 18 

Christina Christensen: OK thank you, and just to clarify, our intention is that they would submit 

them to the state and then the state would submit them to EPA. 

Gerald Greene: OK. 

Christina Christensen: There wouldn’t be a double set. 

Operator: And your next comment comes from the line of Carter Strickland. 

Carter Strickland: Yes I had a clarifying question, but we’ll rephrase it for this part of the 

proposal. Our question related to slide 13 designated uses and whether EPA 

was considering how it would apply it to its existing state designations that 

aren’t in the 101 (a)(2) list. I guess the way for you to consider it in terms of 

unintended consequences is that you should consider the impact on state 

agency resources and whether they’ll have the ability to work through a 

backlog if that’s what you intend, of UAA determinations. 

Operator: Your next comment comes from the line of Linda Shead. 

Linda Shead: Yes, thank you. This is also related to the designated uses on slide 13. My 

concern is that there's a perception that the state is using use attainability 

analysis as a way to remove streams from the 303(d) list because they have so 

many and they're trying to find a way to trim that down. And I understand the 

workload issue. On the other hand the goal is clean water, so I have a 

question about how you are deeming a stream as being a use of being 

unattainable and secondly that you are ensuring that there's some kind of 

oversight that it is not being used as a way to just trim down the 303(d) list 

instead of trying to achieve water quality. Thank you. 

Grace Robiou: Operator, I just want to acknowledge that we are taking good notes on the 

comments that are being provided despite the fact that we’re not responding, 

because this is more of a comment session. So I want to make sure that 

people know that we are listening. 

Operator: Thank you ma’am. And your next comment comes from the line of Bud Hart. 
Page 19 

Bud Hart: Hello yes this is Bud Hart in Colorado. Has EPA given any consideration to 

the conflicts between the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act 

and those compliance schedules for emerging contaminants? 

Christina Christensen: Thank you that’s a concern that we will consider as we move ahead with 

our rulemaking. 

Bud Hart: Thank you. 

Operator: Your next comment comes from the line of Lincholn Loehr. 

Lincholn Loehr: Howdy, I just had a question on the antidegradation or something to consider 

for antidegradation implementation. I’d like you to consider how that 

program will work in the context of general permits. 

Christina Christensen: Yes, thank you, we have heard that, and it is something we will consider 

when we move ahead. 

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Jerry Black. 

Jerry Black: Hi, this is Jerry Black from Oklahoma. First of all, I think that all 

implementation methods should be reviewed and approved by EPA. In 

addition several states have several state agencies which are specific to 

industries and or activities that they regulate. The implementation methods 

for Oklahoma differs depending upon activities that they regulate. 

In addition,some of these implementation methods are not adequate to prevent 

antidegradation of surface waters for both numerical and narrative work 

quality criteria. And analytical methods neutralize and verify in the surface 

water for meeting the water quality criteria should be methods that are 

approved by EPA, not only approved but also reviewed. 

That some of this areas are narrative standard and for example for oil 

(inaudible) they should maintain to prevent visible sheens of oil or gobs of oil 

and grease in and over the waters. In addition there's another narrative 

standard that solids that are not natural sources such as iron that would come 
Page 20 

out of the discharge not be existing and I think that those standards should be 

held to prevent antidegradation for implementation methods. 

Thank you and have a good day. 

Operator: Your next comment comes from the line of Samantha Brown. 

(Mike Afgard): Hello this is (Mike Afgard) speaking on Samantha’s behalf. This is with 

respect to antidegradation. If streams haven’t been properly tested they 

automatically are listed as high quality streams. And I think that’s going to 

create a problem just simply with respect to your desire for implementation. 

I suspect that that’s why a lot of these implementation plans have not been 

carried out because it’s a very liberal list of high quality streams because there 

has not been enough money or effort placed in properly testing the streams to 

identify their intended use. 

Operator: Your next comment comes from the line of Bill Payne. 

Bill Payne: Hello I understand that the regulations are not going to be changed on other 

than the six areas. However I would like for EPA to consider the possibility 

of how to address water quality standard applicability in assembled and/or fed 

water streams because quite often they don’t apply, there's no way to correctly 

apply them, and therefore they're basically applied incorrectly. 

And I know that’s been a concern at conferences I've been to where EPA’s 

been present so I would like to hope that EPA would give that some 

consideration. Thank you. 

Christina Christensen: Thank you. 

Operator: Your next comment comes from the line of (Betty Steffenger). 

(Betty Steffenger): Yes. Hello and thank you. I guess my comment is this. In California we 

have a very strong state water board with a very extensive permitting process, 

waiver process, things like that, and I heard the comments during the 

presentation when we’re going through the slides on antidegradation that 
Page 21 

some states are not implementing and following that EPA standards and 

there's some confusion about the implementation. 

It sounds like that portion of this whole rule package that deals with 

antidegradation is to get everybody on the same page, and I guess my 

comment and my fear is that in states that have already met or exceeded the 

EPA standards that when it sees a fall out and a promulgation of more states 

standards that may not be necessary as a result of this. 

What we’d like to see of course is that those states that are not being current 

or not following standards work with EPA to go ahead and get up to those 

standards. But the states that are meeting or exceeding those standards, we 

see this portion of the proposed rules as not being necessary. 

Operator: Your next comment comes from the line of Jon Tack. 

Jon Tack: I have a few questions, and I think I can keep them pretty quick. The first is 

on Administrator’s determinations. If a rule is going to be adopted, clarifying 

this it’s important that any disapproval of a water quality standard meet that 

criteria and that it’s clear that it moves us toward the process of promulgation, 

or down that road and it would satisfy the requirements to get there. 

If EPA would like to clarify the procedure for variances, I would just point to 

the federal standards for Canada and Puerto Rico, which contain a variance 

procedure that calls for the variance to go into the permit rather than be 

adopted though a separate water quality standard. I think that EPA got it right 

there, and any future rule should conform to what you’ve done in the past. 

I guess lastly, the core decision on public comment says that public comments 

are required to be part of the package to show that public participation was 

received and considered. I think there needs to be clarification as to how that 

public comment is treated at the EPA review level. 

Whether the state is expected to disprove all comments or mainly consider all 

comments, in whether EPA is going to revisit those issues and make up their 

own individual determination or just review it for the purposes of determining 

whether the state has considered the comment. 
Page 22 

That’s all I have. 

Operator: Your next comment comes from the line of Rachel Conn. 

Rachel Conn: Yes, I was hoping that there would be some clarity provided by EPA as to 

guiding states on requiring public participation in the antidegradation process 

in tier two, it would be used specifically. And as part of that, to require states 

to have written antidegradation analysis that could be reviewed by members 

of the public. 

Operator: Your next comment comes from the line of Greg Goblick. Sir if you’ve 

placed your phone on mute please unmute your phone at this time. Your next 

comment comes from the line of Lee Garrigan. 

Steve Brown: Hi, this is Steve Brown. I’m going to try to do this this time without cutting 

myself off. I’m on Lee’s phone right now. The question I wanted to ask a 

minute ago is whether there is anything in the uses portion of EPA’s rule that 

was intended to allow states to change their designated uses? 

Christina Christensen: I just want to respond to that. We currently have ways in which states can 

evaluate their uses and refine them as needed through the UAA process or 

through adopting a new sub category. None of those components will change. 

So those tools will still be available. 

Operator: Your next comment comes from the line of John Royal. 

(Bosic McClair): This is (Bosic McClair). We’ve got some situation with our MS4 system and 

MPDS Primitive system which currently the regulations that are being 

promulgated both at the state and the federal level appear to be requiring us to 

meet the designated uses in RMS4 system such as roadside digits, storm 

water, ponds, that sort of thing, which I find hard to believe that that’s the 

intent of EPA since these systems are intended to transport storm water to 

treatment systems that will remove the pollutants. 
Page 23 

So I would hope that EPA would consider adding specific language to exempt 

MS4 systems, in general or, if depending on the expansion of MPDS system 

MPDS systems, specifically from the (midtrain) criteria. And that’s it. 

Operator: And your next comment ... 

Grace Robiou: I want to respond to that comment. I guess I’m struggling to understand or to 

figure out if that’s within the scope of this rulemaking and, if you think so, 

under what theme would it be addressed? 

(Bosic McClair): Yes, it would be under the designated uses. Currently under your definitions 

131.3 as of water quality standards are applied to all designated use for all the 

waters of the United States. And Army Corp is currently using the wet 

connection to go up stream through our MS4 system as any wet connection 

becomes a water of the United States. 

Which then means that these criteria would apply to the MS4 system under 

that theory. We would then be expected to supply shellfish harvesting, 

wildlife, et cetera in every roadside ditch which isn’t going to happen but 

proving that would be untenable. So I think the designated uses section would 

be a good place to make it clear what the regulation was trying to apply to. 

Grace Robiou: OK, thank you, that helps. 

(Bosic McClair): OK. 

Operator: Your next comment comes from the line of Samantha Brown. 

Samantha Brown: Yes, this is with respect to uses. There's a lot of talk about utilizing a use 

attainability analysis, but the problem that exists is that is obtaining 

permission to actually go through UAA. So I was wondering if there would 

be the potential of creating some type of guidance on applying for a UAA or 

utilization of a UAA. 

Quite often the regulators won't permit it. 

Operator: And again if you would like to make a comment please do so by pressing star 

and the number 1 on your telephone keypad. 
Page 24 

Grace Robiou: While you think of further comments to provide to us I’d like to cover slide 

number 19 which is our last slide in our presentation. If you have any 

additional thoughts or views after this call there are a couple ways to proceed. 

You can communicate with us by sending us an e-mail to the e-mail address 

shown on the slide and for those of you that don’t have the slide in front of 

you the e-mail address is shpdcomments@epa.gov. I repeat 

shpdcomments@epa.gov. 

Or you could write a letter to the address shown on the slide which is Thomas 

J. Gardner, Office of Science and Technology, and the mail code is important. 

It’s 4305T, Office of Water, USEPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC, 20460. 

Any written comments you choose to submit would be most useful within two 

weeks—by September 3—although we talked about extending that a little bit 

but really no longer than September 10. Since these are very early listening 

sessions, we will not be responding in writing to your views, but they will be 

put on the public record in our docket. The docket is Headquarters-OW-2010-

0606, and for those of you who are unfamiliar with how the EPA docket 

works any comments provided will be available to the public at the 

regulations.gov website. 

So it looks like we may have a couple more comments. I'll turn it to the 

operator again. 

Operator: Thank you ma’am. Again if you would like to make a comment please press 

star then the number 1 on your telephone keypad. Your next comment comes 

from the line of Gerald Greene. 

Gerald Greene: Hi, again. In the effort of transparency we’d like to consider how moving 

forward on these legs could essentially provide greater input by the 

stakeholder community in the decisions of states and tribes. In other words, 

we do have a problem with some of our states and tribes not considering the 

comments of significant numbers of stakeholders and finding other issues that 

they feel are more appropriate. 
Page 25 

In particular, both the triennial reviews and use attainability analysis we often 

feel that the use attainability analysis are warranted and our local regulatory 

agencies may not agree. There should be some provision if a significant 

number of the stakeholders convey this request that it should be considered at 

the local arena. Thank you. 

Operator: And, again if you would like to make a comment please press star and the 

number 1 on your telephone keypad. Your next comment comes from the line 

of Philip Parsons. 

Philip Parsons: I have a question about your comments today regarding designated uses and 

your explanation of slide 13. My question is this, it appears from what you 

said today that to retain a lower use that’s been approved by EPA in Florida, 

where I’m from, we have a number of class four agricultural canals and they 

are different criteria for those canals than for the class three recreation 

propogation of wildlife. 

And, if I understood your comments, and perhaps I didn’t, your intent is to 

require a use attainability analysis to retain those uses. This isn’t a question of 

lowering or raising, but retaining. Is it your intent to require a use attainability 

analysis if the state intends to retain the lower use? 

Christina Christensen: The way our regulation is currently worded is that if a state is removing a 

101 (a)(2) use, and not adopting a 101 (a)(2) use to begin with, then a use 

attainability analysis is required. And we’re not changing that portion of the 

reg. 

Philip Parsons: I understand, but if you want to retain, in our case a class four use, by the 

change in the regulation going to require going to require a use attainability 

now? Because you’re not changing the use at all, you’re just continuing the 

use as it now exists. Are you going to require a use attainability analysis 

under these changes you’re contemplating? 

Christina Christensen: A use attainability analysis, I don’t think, would necessarily be required at 

that exact moment. However, our regulation would require that the state or 

tribe review their uses every three years, and if the use that was previously 
Page 26 

non-attainable is now attainable, our regulation requires that designated use be 

revised. 

Philip Parsons: OK, that’s consistent with your current practice. 

Christina Christensen: Yes. 

Philip Parsons: Thank you. 

Operator: Again, if you would like to make a comment, please press star then the 

number 1 on your telephone keypad. Your next comment comes from the line 

of Ann Coan. 

Ann Coan: My question was sort of similar to the last person regarding use attainability 

and things like culverts under 14 lane highways. In some cases you have to 

wonder if it’s worth the resources to have to do the study to prove that you 

don’t have and won't have shellfish or fish or whatever. 

Operator: And your next comment comes from the line of Scott Thomas. 

Scott Thomas: Hi, I’m going to steal a turn here, because I don’t work for the state regulatory 

agency or the state at all in the private sector but it strikes me that the thing 

that you do going forward with this proposal, you’re potentially imposing 

some significant new obligations on the state in terms of the amount of work 

required to do a full blown training review. 

I know at least my state, Arizona, there are pretty significant budget and 

personnel restraints right now at the state DEQ and probably really for a 

couple of years until the recession ends. I just wonder if, it’s defiantly not in 

your proposal but I wonder if that three year cycle to do all this stuff is 

entirely reasonable under the circumstances. 

Whether, in other words, maybe the three years should be five years if you’re 

going to make the state go back and look at every designated use to determine 

whether, every water to determine whether use should be changed. Every new 

scientific criteria comes up in the EPA, et cetera. So I throw that out for what 

it’s worth. 
Page 27 

Grace Robiou: Our proposal at this juncture doesn’t consider changing the requirement in our 

regulations that states conduct triennial reviews. So are you suggesting that 

we consider that, consider changing that? I don’t ... 

Scott Thomas: I guess I am, but I think you’ve been talking to the states, and if the states 

aren’t raising that concern to you than I’m probably speaking out of school. 

But it seems to me that’s something you ought to think about if you’re going 

to go ahead with everything you’ve proposed. 

Christina Christensen: I've got two thoughts; one is that the Clean Water Act actually requires 

triennial review in the three year cycle so that’s where it would have to be 

changed to change that. I think probably maybe more to the heart of your 

comment is that what we’re intending to talk about here is that they open up 

their scope to comment. 

It’s not that states would have to review everything in their water quality 

standards every three years. There are some states that use a rotating basin 

approach, and under this proposal that would still be OK as long as there was 

a time and a place where that was put out to the public and the public got the 

comment on whether there was something else outside of a particular basin, 

for example. 

So it’s not that states couldn’t operate in ways to manage their resources like 

they do now, it’s just in addition to that providing if you’re not going to open 

the entire scope up to review providing an opportunity for comment on what 

else people would like to see reviewed. 

Again if you would like to make a comment please press star then the number 

1 on your telephone keypad. 

Grace Robiou: Operator while we wait for further comments I want to remind people that this 

line is open until 2:30 so we will stay here and receive and obtain your 

comments up till that time. I would also like to remind people that we have a 

second listening session scheduled for this Thursday, August 26 at 1 pm 

Eastern Standard Time. 
Page 28 

So if you have further questions that might be another opportunity to provide 

comments which may allow you to think some more about what you, between 

now and then, what you want to comment on. So it seems like we have 

another comment so I'll turn it back to the operator. 

Operator: Your next comment comes from the line of Betty Yee. 

Betty Yee: I have a clarifying question on slide 13. Previously you had said that (CC’s) 

intent was only to provide revisions in these particular areas. Is the purpose of 

slide 13 not generally the use of the only to specify what happens in an event 

of a UAA for 101 (a)(2) use? 

Christina Christensen: That is one area in the realm of uses that we’re considering making 

revisions to. 

Betty Yee: So your shop comments on the more general category of having EPA look at 

definitions of uses and how the UAA process works? 

Christina Christensen: Yes if you’d like to submit a written comment or share something with us 

now, we’d be happy to hear that. 

Betty Yee: OK, I was just trying to establish what the scope of this particular area was. 

Thank you. 

Operator: Your next comment comes from the line of Jerry Black. 

Jerry Black: This is Jerry Black again from Oklahoma. The additional comment that I’d 

like to have is that notice that streams have already been cleaned according to 

implementation standards or policies that are being used right now that these 

streams and water quality bodies being reexamined to make sure that they 

meet the new or the approved and ones that have been approved by the EPA 

to make sure that it’s been adequately cleaned up and that discharges are not 

harming the official uses. Thank you. 

Operator: Again if you would like to make a comment please press star then the number 

1 on your telephone keypad. 
Page 29 

Christina Christensen: Are there any clarifying questions from the earlier part of our presentation 

that people may not have had a chance to ask? 

Operator: If you would like to ask a clarifying question you may also do so by pressing 

star then the number 1 on your telephone keypad. Your first question or 

comment comes from the line of Fred Andes: 

Fred Andes: Actually I have one clarifying question, but I was also going to raise a couple 

of comments. The clarifying question was on variances. The statements you 

make about insuring proper use of variances just for the possibility of 

inappropriate use are very vague. I’m not really sure what's referred to. There 

either instances where variances have been abused, used inappropriately, and 

if so where are those and how specifically are the agencies thinking of 

directing them? 

That’s my clarifying question. I don’t know if you want to address that then I 

can make my other couple of comments. 

Christina Christensen: Sure, I'll address that first part right now. I think as an example of how a 

variance might be listed was something that I mentioned in the earlier part of 

the call—that variances often may be just renewed over and over again 

without really leading to any kind of environmental improvements in a 

waterbody. 

That’s one example of something that we would hope to address by putting 

some conditions on variances. Another example is that we've also seen 

variances in places that don’t have a 303(c) water quality standards approval 

action associated with them. 

So those are some of the situations that we would hope to improve on by 

putting some expectations for variances into your regulations. 

Grace Robiou: Christina, I would like to add that variances are, if I’m not mistaken, a single 

word currently in our regulations. We would like to be able to explain them 

better so that they can be more used when they're appropriate to be used. 
Page 30 

Christina Christensen: And we’d be happy to hear your views and comments on some of the 

boundaries you might put on variances or that you might like to see. 

Fred Andes: OK. Thank you. The other comment in the final view area, one of them was 

the EPA was paying a lot of attention as to whether states are adequately 

considering comments. Would EPA governance impose any obligation on 

itself to consider comments in approving state water quality standards? In fact 

there's no opportunity for public comments when EPA approved a state water 

quality standard, only when it disapproved. 

So one thing I think ought to be considered is what's the due process of 

requirements when EPA reviews and approves a state water quality standard 

and how can it provide adequate stakeholder input in that circumstance 

instead of just approving without any opportunity for people to interact with 

the agency. 

The other thought I had on final review was that EPA chooses to be very 

interested in having states consider whether their criteria are protective of 

usage, and that’s good, but that should also go the other way. The state should, 

if they're going to review the criteria for protective usage, also consider 

whether they are now more stringent than needed to protect the usage whether 

the criteria are more stringent than needed to protect the usage or what if the 

standards are non-attainable? 

It’s a full review they should be doing and not just in one direction only, thank 

you. 

Christina Christensen: Thank you. 

Operator: And your next comment comes from the line of Anne Coan. 

Anne Coan: I’m looking at 13 also in your possible changes. If I understand this correctly, 

basically states will have to go back and look at every waterbody they have 

now or segment to determine if they are at the highest attainable use with 

those uses, I’m assuming being the highest attainable that you have listed 

propagation of shellfish, wildlife, recreation, and the others. 
Page 31 

And therefore that the only way to put in something that’s less than the goal 

that’s stated at the top would be to expend resources to prove that a culvert or 

some other waterbody cannot meet the standard. And I am extremely 

concerned about the amount of resources that this will entail that could, in 

fact, be better used on water quality protection and not quality assessment. 

Christina Christensen: Thank you, and I think that there's a couple options that we could possibly 

consider. For example, we could consider that states and tribes must look at 

the highest attainable use only when removing a designated use. Or we could 

say that the states and tribes should consider highest attainable use for all 

waters at all times. 

These are just some of the options that we might consider, but we understand 

that your concern is one of resources and we’ll certainly make a note of that. 

Operator: Your next comment comes from the line of Linda Roeder. 

Linda Roeder: Hi, I just wanted to clarify. I wanted to get the spellings of your names and 

your titles, please. 

Grace Robiou: Sure. My name is Grace Robiou, and I’m the chief of the National Water 

Quality Standards Branch in the Office of Water. 

Christina Christensen: My name is Christina Christensen, and I’m a staff member in the National 

Water Quality Standards Branch. 

Linda Roeder: Thank you. 

Operator: And your next question or comment comes from the line of Greg Sindt. 

Greg Sindt: Hi, this is Greg Sindt from Iowa. On page 16 I have a question about the 

second bullet point—schedule authorizing provisions what is meant by that? 

What's the scope for that? 

Christina Christensen: What was your question again? 

Greg Sindt: On the second bullet on slide 16. 
Page 32 

Christina Christensen: Right. 

Greg Sindt: It says specifying compliance schedule authorizing provisions must be 

adopted, is this a procedural definition of what entails in a compliance 

schedule? 

Grace Robiou: We don’t intend it to be. I think the concept is to clarify, as part of our water 

quality standards regulations, that compliance schedule authorizing provisions 

must be adopted as part of the standard. And therefore must be reviewed and 

approved by EPA. 

I think currently compliance schedule authorizing provisions may be reviewed 

and approved as standards. 

Christina Christensen: Our current relation doesn’t speak to them in particular, but that’s the 

current practice. 

Grace Robiou: So this is kind of codifying what we believe is our current thinking and 

procedure. 

Operator: And your next question or comment comes from the line of Hope Taylor. 

Miss Taylor, your line is open. Your next question comes from the line of 

Lauren Kalisek. 

Lauren Kalisek: Hi, this is Lauren Kalisek in Austin and I was just wondering on the 

antidegradation scope if you guys already had in mind what you consider to 

be minimum elements that you all would want to put into, or that you all 

would want to see in the implementation methods? 

Christina Christensen: Sure I think one example of a minimum element is the process a state or 

tribe has in place for identifying high quality waters. Second minimum 

element example could be the process for a tier two review. These are the 

kinds of things that we would really be interested in hearing (small) views if 

you have any suggestions on what you’d like to see as a minimum element. 
Page 33 

Operator: And again if you would like to ask a question or make a comment please press 

star then the number 1 on your telephone keypad. Your next question or 

comment comes from the line of Hope Taylor. 

Hope Taylor: Sorry I muted myself inadvertently before. I just wanted to make a very 

affirming comment that especially in the area of antidegradation, variances, 

and triennial review, your previous scoping of obviously incorporated a lot of 

understanding from public advocates, probably nationally that share my view 

that those have been very problematic in terms of realized in the Gulf of the 

Clean Water Act and a lot of the sort of subsidiary comments that you’ve 

made have recognized those problems and frustrations. I just really wanted to 

thank you for identifying those. 

And in my written comments I will give some more examples as to how that’s 

played out on our state level. But I know many of my national colleagues 

have expressed the same concerns. Thanks. 

Christina Christensen: Thank you. 

Operator: And again if you’d like to make a comment or ask a question, please press star 

then the number 1 on your telephone keypad. And there are no further 

questions or comments at this time. 

Grace Robiou: Operator I think we want to stay here until 2:30 ... 

Operator: Yes ma’am. 

Grace Robiou: To give people an opportunity to have other comments as they come to mind, 

and then we’ll wrap it up. 

Operator: Yes ma’am. Again if you’d like to make a comment or ask a question, please 

press star then the number 1 on your telephone keypad. Your next question or 

comment comes from the line of Don Parrish. 

Don Parrish: Yes maybe a tough question. As you guys look at what you’ve proposed here 

have you determined where additional litigation may spring from final agency 
Page 34 

action within these proposals? How much more should we expect, and how 

many have you done a lawsuit evaluation here? 

Grace Robiou: Well, we certainly have a lot of lawsuits coming. I think it’s a good comment, 

and we’ll think about that. Thank you. 

Operator: Your next comment comes from the line of Jennifer Hecker. 

Jennifer Hecker: Hi, I just wanted to echo the affirming comments that were made previously. 

We’re out of Florida, and we see this action that EPA has taken as very 

needed in order to uphold the antidegradation provisions, the Clean Water 

Act. I did want to encourage EPA to make sure that as it’s reviewing 

Florida’s proposed designated use reclassification that it’s currently in review 

by Region 4 that they ensure that these provisions are being accounted for and 

addressed and whatever is approved by EPA. 

Christina Christensen: Thank you. 

Operator: Again if you’d like to make a comment or ask a question, please press star 

then the number 1 on your telephone keypad. Your next question or comment 

comes from the line of Bill Payne. 

Bill Payne: Yes, this kind of plays off the comment a couple of comments ago about 

litigation. But it has to do with economic analysis. I believe an economic 

analysis has to be done on any new regulation if I understand it correctly. But 

I was wondering if you’ve done any yet and have a feel for how much 

additional cost this is going to place upon either permit fees or the states? 

Christina Christensen: Thank you, I just want to say that right now we’re still in the early stages 

of this proposal so we don’t have an estimate to provide you with. But we are 

working to develop cost estimates, in particular the direct cost to states and 

tribes to implement these changes. So we’ll make this available as part of the 

proposal. 

Bill Payne: Thank you. 
Page 35 

Operator: Again if you’d like to make a comment or ask a question, please press star 

then the number 1 on your telephone keypad. Your next question or comment 

comes from the line of Annette Feliberty. 

Annette Feliberty: Good afternoon, and I'll be talking on behalf of (Alexander Theraby). We 

have a question regarding the compliance schedule and outside (influences). 

We want to try to clarify if what you meant is that, in the water quality 

standards regulations, we have to reference the possibility that the states try 

hard to include probation regarding compliance schedules and that these 

provisions has to be approved by EPA as part of the water quality standard 

regulation. 

Christina Christensen: Yes that is what we’re moving ahead with. 

Operator: And your next question or comment comes from the line of Lee Garrigan. 

Steve Brown: This is Steve Brown speaking on Lee’s phone. Over the past two years or so 

ECOS and EPA had worked to determine the appropriate cost to include in the 

cost analysis as you determine what EPA’s rules cost states to implement. But 

I’m sorry to report that we were unable to come to agreement on that. A 

number of factors that we believe legitimately cost the state to implement 

EPA rules are not being included in the rule analysis, and we’re going to keep 

a very close eye on whether or not you include those items in your cost 

determination. 

Christina Christensen: Thank you, and we encourage you to send us a written comment maybe 

outlining what you’d like to see included. 

Steve Brown: OK, we will. Thank you. 

Operator: Again if you’d like to make a comment or ask a question, please press star 

then the number 1 on your telephone keypad. Your next question or comment 

comes from the line of Jennifer Hecker. 

Jennifer Hecker: Since we have time I thought I’d ask an additional question about this 

economic impact assessment. Is the EPA going to try to assess the lost 

tourism and waterfront real estate values that occur from degraded water 

quality or anything to account for the fact that there are cost endured form 
Page 36 

poor water quality that should be weighed against any economic costs from 

implementing this additional regulation to improve water quality? 

Christina Christensen: Well, like I said earlier we’re still trying to develop our estimate of how 

much this might cost so if that’s something you’d like us to consider we’d 

encourage you to send us a written comment to that effect. 

Jennifer Hecker: Great, we will. 

Operator: Again if you’d like to make a comment or ask a question, please press star 

then the number 1 on your telephone keypad. 

Grace Robiou: All right. Thank you, everyone for participating in today’s call. These were 

very valuable comments and insights into the reg provisions that we’re 

considering for the changes to the water quality standards program. We will 

certainly be taking these into consideration as we proceed with these 

rulemaking. 

We, again, as a friendly reminder we have another public listening session this 

Thursday at 1 pm Eastern Standard Time and I think this concludes our 

session today. 

Thank you, everybody. 

Operator: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This concludes today’s conference call. 

You may now disconnect. 

END