CHAPTER 2 

Issue Category: Overall Rule 

Pages 2-1 – 2-86

Response to Public Comments

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions

August 2015

40 CFR Part 131

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606

This document is part of a larger document.
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

1 - OVERALL RULE 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

1.A - GENERAL SUPPORT 

Comment ID 0112.001.001 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: NA 

This package of rule changes has tremendous potential to improve the lives of the public at the state and tribal level. 

The EPA lays out a highly compelling case that unclear aspects of the Clean Water Act have been exploited by states 

and organizations looking to save money at the expense of less clean water. As with many massive pieces of 

legislation, the CWA has proven to be obsolete in some areas, including the ones that were noted in the proposed rule 

changes in the Federal Register. It only makes sense for the EPA to put in place these changes which will help bring 

transparency to the water quality standards update process at the state level, as well as impose greater power for the 

federal government to oversee any efforts by states that fall short of federal standards. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

Comment ID 0118-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Lakkad Manish 

Organization: NA 

Water Quality Standards ;Clarifications 

Proposal: State and Tribe should revise the Water Quality Standards based on highest attainable Use. 

The Environment Protection Agency abides change in the federal WQS (Water Quality Standard) for the Clean Water 

Act. The reason for change is to bring improvement in the regulations effectiveness in maintaining the physical 

,chemical and biological integrity of the water .The various key program are addressed in proposed rule , such as 

Administrator's determinations ,designated uses, a ,triennial views, antidegradation, variances to Water Quality 

Standards .The Clean Water Act has proved to be the basic structure for providing regulations on the discharge of the 

pollutants in the water. The aim of the congress by proposing this act is to maintain and restore the biological, chemical, 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

and physical integrity of the of the water of nation and to provide protection to wildlife ,shell fish and fish as well as for 

the recreation purpose in and on the water. 

My concern regarding changes in the water quality standards is supportive because , it is an inevitable step towards the 

protection of the aquatic life and for maintaining the water quality. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

Comment ID 0123-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Chin Ryan 

Organization: NA 

The proposed rule would allow the EPA to improve the effectiveness of regulations related to federal water quality 

standards (WQS), specifically clarifying and more precisely defining certain requirements, regulations, and minimum 

guidelines including but not limited to WQS, designated uses, triennial reviews, antidegradation, etc. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

Comment ID 0123-A1.001.004 

Author Name: Chin Ryan 

Organization: NA 

I support EPA's proposed rule and have specifically outlined why I believe such a rule is both correct and important, as 

well as responding to EPA's request for comments on its different possible alternatives moving forward with specific 

clarifications and implementations, and suggesting a possible consideration and method when appropriate. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-2 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Comment ID 0123-A1.001.023 

Author Name: Chin Ryan 

Organization: NA 

CONCLUSION 

I support EPA's proposed rule for the above described reasons. I believe the proposed rule important in clarifying, as 

specifically addressing new concerns that have arisen that did not exist when the CWA and WQS were first enacted 

decades ago. I appreciate the explanation and laying out of different viable alternatives in the EPA's decision to move 

forward with the proposed rule, and the request for comments on which would be suitable. 

I thank the EPA for opportunity to comment on this proposed rule and its time in considering my comment. I look 

forward to its response. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

Comment ID 0124-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Davis K. 

Organization: NA 

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on EPA's proposed changes to the current Water Quality Standards 

regulations, and I am submitting the following comment in general support thereof. The regulated industries responsible 

for the bulk of point source water pollution speak frequently and fervently in opposition to any attempt by EPA to 

regulate discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States. Unquestionably, corporate self-interest is the 

singular core of industry opposition to any such regulation. This fact necessitates EPA regulations aimed at prevention 

or mitigation of manmade environmental harm, specifically discharge of pollutants into U.S. waters. I therefore support 

any attempt by EPA to strengthen or otherwise improve regulations geared at reduction of harmful pollutant discharge 

into our nation's waters. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-3 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Comment ID 0127-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Sawtelle Andrew 

Organization: NA 

This comment is submitted in response to the Federal Register Notice, published on September 4, 2013, seeking 

comments on the EPA's proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 131. The revisions seek to clarify existing regulations 

concerning water quality standards (WQS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The deadline for comments mentioned in 

the Notice was December 3, 2013, but comments are due online via regulations.gov by January 2, 2014. I support the 

proposed regulations, which are the result of years of directed consultation regarding the revision process and collected 

feedback from state and tribal partners, and are a wise and carefully considered response to recurring issues with the 

existing regulations. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

2.a 

Comment ID 0127-A1.001.009 

Author Name: Sawtelle Andrew 

Organization: NA 

Overall, the proposed revisions allow state and tribal partners to retain the flexibility and discretion in implementing 

WQS that they have traditionally exercised under the CWA, while addressing some of the chronic issues that have 

resulted from varied interpretation of the regulations implementing the CWA. The revisions align the purpose and 

explicit requirements of the regulations more closely to the stated goals of the CWA. 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on EPA's proposed revisions to the WQS regulations. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

Comment ID 0130-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Schregardus Donald 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-4 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Organization: Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary (Energy, Installations and Environment) 

DoD supports EPA's efforts to update and clarify the WQS. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

Comment ID 0154-A2.001.002 

Author Name: McGee Beth 

Organization: Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

The EPA has proposed revisions to several important sections of the WQS regulations, including designated uses, 

triennial reviews, antidegradation, variances to WQS, and compliance schedule authorizing provisions. We strongly 

support revisions and improvements to all these components. As EPA notes in the proposed rule, most of these 

regulations were established in 1983 and the science, the legal foundation, our thinking and experience regarding water 

quality protection, has advanced and matured since that time. While supporting changes to all these provisions, we 

have, however, focused our comments on what we believe to be the most important provision - the implementation of 

the Clean Water Act's antidegradation policy. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

Comment ID 0154-A2.001.007 

Author Name: McGee Beth 

Organization: Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

We thank EPA for initiating these long-overdue revisions to the water quality standards regulations. We encourage EPA 

to strengthen and clarify these regulations with the intent of achieving the objectives of the CWA. It has been 30 years 

since these regulations were promulgated, now is the time to look back at the program's successes and failures and 

learn from them, with the goal of making revisions that will help fulfill the CWA vision of protecting and restoring the 

Nation's waters. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-5 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

Comment ID 0155-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Ortiz Ryan 

Organization: Wind River Environmental Quality Commission 

The Wind River Environmental Quality Commission (WREQC) appreciates the opportunity to submit the following 

comments on the EPA's Water Quality Standards Clarifications Proposed Rule. Although the Water Quality Standards 

Clarifications do not directly affect us because we do not yet have federally-approved standards, WREQC supports 

these proposed changes. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

Comment ID 0164-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Allmon Eric
 

Organization: Lowerre, Frederick, Perales, Allmon & Rockwell on behalf of Clean Water Action et al.
 

Commenters appreciate EPA's efforts to add transparency to the development and implementation of state water 

quality standards. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

Comment ID 0170-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Faggert Pamela
 

Organization: Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
 

We support some aspects of the proposed Water Quality Standards (WQS) Clarifications; 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-6 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

Comment ID 0179-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Spotts David 

Organization: Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

The PFBC believes that the proposed language to the topic areas of Designated Uses, WQS Variances, 

Antidegradation, Triennial Reviews, Administrator's Determination and the Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provision 

sections will improve clarity and effectiveness of the Clean Water Act (CWA). As a state resource agency, the PFBC 

works with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to insure that the Commonwealth's aquatic 

resources are protected as mandated and authorized in the CWA. The PFBC agrees that the proposed changes will 

require greater accountability in the regulatory environment in order to manage water resources. Greater accountability 

in regulation should provide improved maintenance and restoration to the nation's water resources. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

Comment ID 0183-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Rich Eric 

Organization: Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is proposing six areas of clarification to 40 CFR Part 131. 

None of these proposals should interfere with current or future USEPA approval of the Navajo Nation Surface Water 

Quality Standards. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

Comment ID 0187-A1.001.002 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-7 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Author Name: Allmon Eric 

Organization: Lowerre, Frederick, Perales, Allmon & Rockwell on behalf of Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club 

Commenters appreciate EPA's efforts to add transparency to the development and implementation of state water 

quality standards. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

Comment ID 0199-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Rogers Gilbert 

Organization: Southern Environmental Law Center, Alabama Rivers Alliance, and North Carolina Conservation Network 

The Southern Environmental Law Center ("SELC") submits the following comments on behalf of itself, Alabama Rivers 

Alliance, and the North Carolina Conservation Network in response to the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") 

Sept. 4, 2013 Federal Register notice that it is revising federal Water Quality Standards ("WQS") Regulations. [FN1] 

According to the Federal Register notice, the proposed changes will address policy and technical issues that have 

arisen since federal WQS regulations were first adopted in 1983 and will "assure greater public transparency, better 

stakeholder information, and more effective implementation" of the WQS program. [FN2] 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking, and other than the proposed changes to Administrator 

determination provisions, we are generally supportive of the changes that EPA has proposed. In some instances, EPA 

should further strengthen the proposed regulations to better protect water quality and fulfill its obligations under the 

Clean Water Act ("CWA"). In addition to our comments below, we endorse comments on this rule change submitted to 

EPA by Earthjustice on behalf of other water protection groups. 

[FN1] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed Rule: Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications, 78 

Fed. Reg. 54,518 (Sept. 4, 2013). 

[FN2] Id. at 54,521. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-8 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Comment ID 0229-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Tillison Naomi 

Organization: Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians 

The objectives of the CWA are "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's 

waters." The Tribe supports clarifications of WQS regulations that help move the Nation forward and meet the 

objectives of the CWA, and we believe that the background narratives and proposed rules significantly help meet the 

objectives of the CWA. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

Comment ID 0242-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Allmon Eric
 

Organization: Lowerre, Frederick, Perales, Allmon & Rockwell on behalf of Clean Water Action et al.
 

Commenters appreciate EPA's efforts to add transparency to the development and implementation of state water 

quality standards. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

Comment ID 0256-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Shepherd Hal 

Organization: The Center for Water Advocacy 

While legislation is still the best solution to this problem, the Proposed Rule is a very important first step for restoring 

protections to many of these waters. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-9 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

Comment ID 0259-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Naylor Char 

Organization: Puyallup Tribe of Indians 

To improve our ability to protect and restore the lower Puyallup River as well as work with the State of Washington who 

regulates waters upstream, we encourage EPA to move forward with this rulemaking. Although we do not agree with all 

the aspects of the proposed rulemaking, we believe overall the proposed rule does target changes that will improve our 

ability to maintain and restore the chemical, physical and biological integrity of tribal waters by clarifying and simplifying 

key portions of the existing WQS regulation. We agree that the regulations are out- dated with the core being developed 

30 years ago and therefore do not adequately protect human health and the environment, particularly with regard to 

Reservation waters that are typically situated at the terminus of rivers where the synergistic effects of combinations of 

pollutants and cumulative effects are greatest. The proposed rule will lead to improved water quality standard 

development, implementation and compliance as well as improving the ability of watersheds to adapt and respond to 

the impacts of climate change. 

EPA's proposed national rule addresses the following key policy changes: 

1) amending §131.22 adding a requirement that an Administrator's Determination must be signed by the Administrator 

or his duly authorized delegate, and must include a statement that the document is a determination for purposes of 

section 303(d)(4)(B) of the Act; 

2) ensuring states and tribes are striving to meet the highest attainable water quality goals even where Clean Water Act 

goals are unattainable; 

3) ensuring states and tribes consider updating their WQS to reflect the EPA's latest criteria recommendations; 

4) enhancing state and tribal implementation of antidegradation policies and helping better maintain and protect high 

quality waters; 

5) providing regulatory flexibility and boundaries to allow states and tribes to achieve water quality improvements before 

resorting to a use change; and 

6) clarifying that, in order to issue compliance schedules, states and tribes must first authorize compliance schedules in 

their WQS regulations. 

With the exception of number one above regarding Administrator's Determinations, we agree generally that elements 

two through six above would provide clarity and specificity to the existing national WQS rule. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-10 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.a 

1.B - GENERAL OPPOSITION 

Comment ID 0119-A1.001.014 

Author Name: Lemke Lee 

Organization: Georgia Mining Association 

Conclusion 

In closing, GMA genuinely appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to EPA on this critically important issue, 

and respectfully requests withdrawal of this flawed Proposed Rule given the bias apparent in its drafting. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

Comment ID 0131-A1.001.007 

Author Name: Rager David 

Organization: Sanitation District Number 1 of Northern Kentucky 

SD1 appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposal, as any changes to the federal water quality 

standards regulations will influence operation, management, and capital improvement planning for storm water and 

wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure that our region has invested in for decades. We have identified 

several issues that we believe must be resolved to improve the proposed revisions to the federal water quality 

standards regulations. These issues are summarized below. We request that EPA withdraw this rulemaking until the 

agency: (1) delineates its statutory authority for mandating these additional procedures and requirements for state water 

quality standard programs; and (2) publishes draft estimates of the economic burden that this proposed rulemaking 

imposes on states and municipalities and has also considered independent cost estimates. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-11 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

12.c 

Comment ID 0133-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Phillips Sanford 

Organization: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has reviewed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 

(EPA's) proposed rule on Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarification, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606 that 

focuses on six key areas including administrator determination, designated uses, triennial review, antidegradation, 

WQS variances, and permit-based compliance schedules. 

While LDEQ supports the clarification regarding the administrator determination and permit based compliance 

schedules, LDEQ has concerns regarding proposed changes to designated uses, triennial review, antidegradation, and 

WQS variances and does not fully support these proposed changes. LDEQ has outlined comments on these six key 

areas for proposed clarification under this rule in the attached. LDEQ appreciates the opportunity to review and 

comment on this proposed rule. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

1.a 

Comment ID 0134-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Shea III Quinlan 

Organization: Edison Electric Institute 

EEI appreciates that EPA wants to update its water quality standards regulations to reflect experience gained with the 

standards since the current regulations were adopted in the 1980s and to address issues that have been raised in prior 

litigation. However, as discussed below, EPA's proposed rule raises two primary concerns. First, the proposed 

regulatory changes are likely to lead to increased, not decreased litigation, by imposing new litigable duties on States, 

EPA, and the regulated community. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-12 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

4.e 

5.e 

5.k 

6.b 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.m 

8.m 

9.e 

Comment ID 0145-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Shea III Quinlan 

Organization: Edison Electric Institute 

EEI appreciates that EPA wants to update its water quality standards regulations to reflect experience gained with the 

standards since the current regulations were adopted in the 1980s and to address issues that have been raised in prior 

litigation. However, as discussed below, EPA's proposed rule raises two primary concerns. First, the proposed 

regulatory changes are likely to lead to increased, not decreased litigation, by imposing new litigable duties on States, 

EPA, and the regulated community. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

4.e 

5.e 

5.k 

6.b 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-13 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

7.m 

8.m 

9.e 

Comment ID 0151-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Tate Michael 

Organization: Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment wishes to commend the Environmental Protection Agency for its 

willingness to consider comments on its September 4, 2013 proposed rulemaking to clarify the federal water quality 

standards regulation. While clarification is a laudatory goal of the proposal, we must say that we are hesitant to 

welcome additional regulation on ourselves through this rulemaking. First, additional regulation requirements will incur 

additional demand on staff resources to implement the clarifying features of the proposal. Second, the tortuous pathway 

established by our regulation development procedures guarantees modifying the existing water quality standards 

regulation will not be a turnkey process. Once again, that process will demand considerable staff resources to shepherd 

the proposed changes through administrative and legal review channels, thus we want to ensure the benefits attained 

are at least commensurate with effort expended. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

12.a 

Comment ID 0157-A1.001.021 

Author Name: Harpole Chad 

Organization: Kentucky Chamber of Commerce 

Conclusion 

The Chamber believes the proposed rule represents an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority over state policies 

for evaluating water values and uses and establishment of state water quality standards. As such, the Chamber urges 

EPA to withdraw the proposal, which is unauthorized and unnecessary. The Chamber appreciates the opportunity to 

provide these comments. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-14 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0158-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

The KDOW is concerned that several aspects of this proposed rule will be difficult or impossible for States to implement 

as written. The proposed WQS regulation could detrimentally impact the States, requiring substantially greater State 

resources to implement redirecting resources away from water quality improvements toward increased administrative 

activities. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

12.a 

Comment ID 0160-A2.001.014 

Author Name: West Jeff 

Organization: Xcel Energy 

EPA is well aware that the Clean Water Act does not include any provision to require or enforce best management 

practices for nonpoint source controls. EPA's proposal could be misinterpreted to impose such a requirement. 

Therefore, EPA should modify its proposal as follows: 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

7.e.ii 

8.f.i 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-15 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Comment ID 0166-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

The KDOW is concerned that several aspects of this proposed rule will be difficult or impossible for States to implement 

as written. The proposed WQS regulation could detrimentally impact the States, requiring substantially greater State 

resources to implement redirecting resources away from water quality improvements toward increased administrative 

activities. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

12.a 

Comment ID 0168-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Walker Roger 

Organization: Regulatory Environmental Group for Missouri 

COMMENTS 

1. General Comments 

REGFORM has two general comments: 

A. "Regulatory Clarifications." 

EPA is proposing significant substantive changes, usurping traditional State authority and increasing the stringency of 

the Clean Water Act - all under the title: "Regulatory Clarifications." We believe the title inappropriately masks the true 

nature of the proposal and likely discouraged many individuals and groups from reading the proposed rule at all 

because it was entitled, "Clarifications." In addition, we believe Congress fully intended to create a federal/state 

partnership in which States retain primary responsibility to determine and plan the designated use(s) of its water 

resources. This proposal is a direct assault on that congressional intent. 

Recommendation: Withdraw the proposed rule and rename the action to accurately reflect the effort being undertaken. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-16 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0168-A1.001.012 

Author Name: Walker Roger 

Organization: Regulatory Environmental Group for Missouri 

In closing, REGFORM genuinely appreciates the opportunity to comment to EPA on this important issue. While we 

have made numerous comments on individual issues, we also respectfully request that due to the significant impact of 

the stated "Clarifications" on existing state and tribal implementations of the Clean Water Act it is our position that the 

proposed rule does not achieve its stated purpose and should be withdrawn. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0175-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Canton Steven 

Organization: GEI Consultants on behalf of Wharf Resources (USA), Inc. and the International Copper Association, Ltd. 

We have identified several issues that we believe must be resolved before proceeding any further on the proposed 

revisions to the federal water quality standards regulations. These issues are summarized below. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-17 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Comment ID 0180-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Hobson Chris 

Organization: Southern Company 

However, as described in more detail below, Southern Company believes that additional revisions need to be made 

before EPA finalizes the Proposal. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

Comment ID 0184-A2.001.026 

Author Name: Curley Ed 

Organization: The Western Coalition of Arid States 

The Clean Water Act does not include any provision to require or enforce best management practices for nonpoint 

source controls. EPA's proposal could be misinterpreted to impose such a requirement. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

7.e.ii 

8.f.i 

Comment ID 0189-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Margaret Watkins Nancy Schuldt 

Organization: Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Environmental Program and Grand Portage Band of Chippewa 

Environmental Department 

Though parts of the rule show positive steps towards actualizing the promises of the CWA, the proposed rule does not 

comprehensively address existing implementation problems. In fact, some language in the proposed rule that appears 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-18 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

to allow deviation from progress towards the "fishable and swimmable" goals and requirements of the CWA. We 

recommend that EPA reconsider the proposed rule to include requirements that will be protective of existing water 

quality and not allow more degradation of water resources. Preserving high quality water resources is essential in 

preserving the health and welfare of tribal citizens who rely on these resources for subsistence. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

4.e 

5.e 

5.k 

6.b 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.m 

8.m 

9.e 

Comment ID 0195-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Norton Ken 

Organization: National Tribal Water Council 

The proposed rule does take some positive steps towards advancing the promises of the CWA in a few areas, but does 

not comprehensively address current problems with the development and implementation of WQS. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0197-A1.001.003 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-19 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Author Name: Garrison Naoh 

Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council 

While several of the proposed changes or clarifications in the Proposed Rule have the potential to further the goals and 

requirements of the Clean Water Act, the majority of the Proposed Rule is either unclear and requires substantial 

revision to avoid confusion or adverse impacts, or is directly contrary to the Act's stated goals. We urge EPA to 

reconsider the Proposed Rule and to strengthen requirements for adopting, updating, and implementing water quality 

standards. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

4.e 

5.e 

5.k 

6.b 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.m 

8.m 

9.e 

Comment ID 0197-A1.001.018 

Author Name: Garrison Naoh 

Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council 

CONCLUSIONS 

For the foregoing reasons, EPA should substantially revise the Proposed Rule, and should specifically eliminate the 

proposed changes to 40 C.F.R. § 131.22(b) stating that for a document to constitute an Administrator's Determination, it 

must be signed and contain a statement that it is a determination for purposes of section 303(c)(4)(B) of the Clean 

Water Act. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-20 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

4.b 

Comment ID 0200-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Covar Zak 

Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

In general, the TCEQ's comments express concern with three of the six key areas in EPA's proposed regulation: state 

triennial review of WQS; antidegradation implementation; and WQS variances. The TCEQ is concerned that the 

proposed changes could interfere with the effectiveness of the existing TCEQ water quality management processes. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

Comment ID 0201-A1.001.005 

Author Name: Godfrey Mike 

Organization: Alabama Power 

• Many if not all of EPA's proposed changes in the Draft Rule will likely lead to more, not less, litigation because they 

place new litigable duties on States and tribes,[FN1] as well as the regulated community. For example, requiring States 

to define what constitutes the "highest attainable use" under the designated uses standard invites third parties to 

challenge States' conclusions and second-guess what constitutes the "best available data" that informed the States' 

ultimate determinations. Requiring States to justify why they did not amend their water quality criteria during a triennial 

review to incorporate any new or updated EPA criteria issued pursuant to Section 304(a) of the CWA is another 

example of a new litigable duty. EPA should more thoroughly evaluate each of its proposed changes in the Draft Rule 

and amend any regulation it can to best avoid and/or minimize the potential said standards may have to increase 

litigation. 

[FN1] For simplicity, Alabama Power has referred to "states and tribes" as "States" throughout the remainder of these 

comments. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-21 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

5.e 

6.b 

6.f 

6.g 

Comment ID 0202-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Frederick Kevin 

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division 

The WDEQ/WQD is aware that the core of the current regulation has been in place since 1983 and that revisions are 

necessary to clarify certain aspects of the rule and address issues that have arisen since the rule was first adopted. The 

WDEQ/WQD believes that some of the proposed revisions are helpful clarifications, some of the proposed revisions are 

unnecessary, and other aspects of the rule need additional clarification and revision. The WDEQ/WQD is concerned 

that several aspects of the proposed rule will be difficult to implement as they are currently written or they lack sufficient 

detail to implement effectively, and that the additional regulatory requirements in the proposed revisions will take 

resources away from restoring and maintaining the nation's waters toward administrative activities. 

In the following comments, the WDEQ provides several recommendations that, if implemented, will greatly improve the 

proposed rule. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

12.a 

Comment ID 0203-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Christman Jim 

Organization: Hunton & Williams on behalf of Utility Water Act Group 

EPA proposes the following changes to the water quality standards rules: 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-22 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

1. Determinations that federal water quality standard is necessary. EPA's obligation to create a new or revised water 

quality standard when "necessary to meet the requirements of" the Clean Water Act under § 303(c)(4)(B) would be 

triggered only if the EPA determination 

a. is signed by the EPA Administrator and 

b. says expressly that it is a determination for § 303(c)(4)(B) purposes. 

2. Designated Uses 

a. Highest Attainable Use. When a state performs a use attainability analysis (UAA), it must adopt the "highest 

attainable use" (HAU) (that is, the "closest" to the fishable, swimmable uses specified in § 101(a)(2)) that is attainable 

now or in the future, using the six factors [FN2] in § 131.10(g). 

b. The six factors of § 131.10(g) must be used only when a UAA is required under § 131.10(j), not for other revisions of 

uses - that is, only when a state is showing that a fishable, swimmable use, or a subcategory of fishable, swimmable 

uses, is not attainable. 

c. A UAA is not required when a state designates a fishable, swimmable use for the first time, removes a use that is not 

a fishable, swimmable use, or adopts a subcategory that has criteria as stringent as before. 

3. Triennial Reviews. During every triennial review, the state would have to review any new or updated EPA criteria and 

decide whether state water quality criteria needed to be changed. 

4. Antidegradation 

a. States would have to publish their methods for implementing their antidegradation policies. 

b. High quality (Tier 2) waters could be identified either parameter-by-parameter or waterbody-by-waterbody. 

c. A waterbody could not be excluded from Tier 2 protection because not all fishable, swimmable uses were being 

attained. 

d. To find that lowering high water quality is necessary, the state would have to consider alternatives and choose a 

practicable alternative that is less degrading, if there is one. 

5. Variances 

a. Variances would last no longer than ten years, though they could be renewed. 

b. No variance could be granted if technology-based effluent limits required by the Act could achieve the designated 

use and criteria. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-23 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

6. Compliance Schedules 

a. There would be compliance schedules for water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) only if state law 

authorized compliance schedules. 

b. Compliance schedules would be part of "water quality standards" subject to EPA approval. 

c. Compliance schedules would be only for water quality standards adopted after July 1, 1977. 

UWAG agrees with some of these proposals but finds serious problems in several of them, as explained below. 

[FN2] The six factors are (1) naturally occurring pollutants; (2) natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low flows or water 

levels; (3) human-caused conditions or pollutants that cannot be remedied; (4) hydrological modifications like dams that 

cannot feasibly be removed; (5) physical conditions related to natural features; and (6) substantial and widespread 

economic and social impact. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

Comment ID 0206-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Foster Kelly 

Organization: Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. and Waterkeeper Organizations 

Sound interpretation and implementation of the CWA through EPA rulemaking and state delegated programs is 

essential to restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Water 

quality standards are the core regulations under the CWA that the public depends on to ensure our nation's waters are 

swimmable, drinkable and fishable. Any modification to water quality standards must be undertaken with extreme care 

to ensure that there will be no weakening of CWA protections for human health and the environment. Because water 

quality standards are implemented through widely divergent state programs, the federal standards must be clear, and 

any ambiguity that could lead to less stringent programs must be eliminated. 

Although the Proposed Rule does include some amendments that will strengthen the existing water quality standards, 

other proposals lack clarity and are inconsistent with the goals and requirements of the CWA. Without significant 

changes, many of the proposed amendments to 40 C.F.R. Part 131 will likely lead to confusion in the interpretation and 

implementation of CWA requirements. Our specific comments and concerns with the Proposed Rule are outlined more 

fully in the following sections. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-24 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

4.e 

5.e 

5.k 

6.b 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.m 

8.m 

9.e 

Comment ID 0209-A1.001.014 

Author Name: Gilzow Floyd 

Organization: Missouri Public Utility Alliance 

Again, we thank EPA for the opportunity to comment on these clarification, but believe they do little to improve water 

quality in the United States, while at the same time further wasting the limited resources of state environmental 

agencies, making it substantially more difficult for cities to comply with the law in a meaningful way, and unnecessarily 

raising wastewater treatment rates for the end users of the system. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

12.a 

Comment ID 0210-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Connelly Kent 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-25 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

While the regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have a long history, significant issues 

remain unaddressed. The Coalition notes, for example, that the proposed rulemaking fails to make the case to support 

the proposed revisions. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0210-A1.001.004 

Author Name: Connelly Kent 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

EPA needs to revise the regulations to drop best management practices which have already been adopted at the state 

level and to revise those standards that will fail to reflect conditions in the arid west. The Coalition comments track the 

order in which they were presented in the Preamble. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

6.g 

7.e.ii 

8.f.i 

8.m 

8.g.v 

Comment ID 0210-A1.001.012 

Author Name: Connelly Kent 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

4. Conclusion 

The Coalition asks that EPA: (1) state in its final rulemaking that EPA's actions are directly tied to Section 303 of the 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-26 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

CWA and are not discretionary in nature; (2) delete any requirements for best management practices regarding 

nonpoint source controls in Sections 131.12 and 131.14; and (3) add the option of a Pollutant Minimization Plan to 

Section 131.14. Finally, we request a detailed written response to our comments prior to issuance of a final rule. 

Thank you for consideration of these comments. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

4.c 

4.d 

7.e.ii 

8.f.i 

8.g.ii 

8.g.v 

8.m 

Comment ID 0214.001.001 

Author Name: Welcker Zach 

Organization: Kalispel Tribe of Indians 

Fish caught within and around Kalispel Indian Reservation waters are not safe to eat even in moderate amounts. This 

means that Kalispel people must either abandon their traditional diet or accept the elevated health risks that accompany 

traditional fish consumption. This is unacceptable to our membership, not to mention millions of other Americans who 

would be eating more fish from our nation's waters were it safe to do so. It is also a choice that fish consumers should 

not have to make under the Clean Water Act, which sets as "the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the 

navigable waters be eliminated by 1985." Under EPA's leadership, this goal has been turned on its head and 

transformed into a pollution entitlement program. As the proposed revisions will expand this entitlement program 30 

years after all discharges were to have been eliminated, the Kalispel Tribe does not support them. 

The proposed revisions are fundamentally a misguided attempt to ease the financial burden on point source 

dischargers. Rather than creating new "compliance" off-ramps for these dischargers, EPA needs to use its existing tools 

more effectively. This means comprehensive TMDLs for impaired waterways, including enhanced BMPs for non-point 

sources and appropriate compliance schedules for point sources. EPA should also more aggressively use its full legal 

authorities to remedy past releases of hazardous substances. Variances are only necessary because EPA and the 

states have not adequately implemented their TMDL obligations under the Clean Water Act. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-27 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

12.a 

Comment ID 0215-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Callaway Casi 

Organization: Mobile Baykeeper 

Sound interpretation and implementation of the CWA through EPA rulemaking and state delegated programs is 

essential to restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Water 

quality standards are the core regulations under the CWA that the public depends on to ensure our nation's waters are 

swimmable, drinkable and fishable. Any modification to water quality standards must be undertaken with extreme care 

to ensure that there will be no weakening of CWA protections for human health and the environment. Because water 

quality standards are implemented through widely divergent state programs, the federal standards must be clear, and 

any ambiguity that could lead to less stringent programs must be eliminated. 

Although the Proposed Rule does include some amendments that will strengthen the existing water quality standards, 

other proposals lack clarity and are inconsistent with the goals and requirements of the CWA. Without significant 

changes, many of the proposed amendments to 40 C.F.R. Part 131 will likely lead to confusion in the interpretation and 

implementation of CWA requirements. Our specific comments and concerns with the Proposed Rule are outlined more 

fully in the following sections. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

4.e 

5.e 

5.k 

6.b 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.m 

8.m 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-28 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

9.e 

Comment ID 0229-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Tillison Naomi 

Organization: Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians 

However, aspects of the proposed rule appear to not be aligned with the objectives of the CWA and may result in 

further unnecessary degradation of the Nation's waters. 

For that reason, we have the following comments: 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

4.e 

5.e 

5.k 

6.b 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.m 

8.m 

9.e 

Comment ID 0230-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Ettinger Albert 

Organization: One of the counsel for the Environmental Law and Policy Center et al. 

We believe that several of the proposed rules and other changes to 40 C.F.R. 131, at least with improved wording, will 

clarify existing rules or otherwise further the goals of the Clean Water Act. Unfortunately, most of the proposed rules are 

either unclear and require substantial changes to avoid confusion or are contrary to the Clean Water Act's ("CWA's") 

goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-29 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

We address the proposed rules and amendments in the order in which they are addressed in the discussion of the 

proposal entitled "Program Areas for Proposed Regulatory Clarification." (78 FR 5452138) 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

4.e 

5.e 

5.k 

6.b 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.m 

8.m 

9.e 

Comment ID 0234-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Andes Fredric 

Organization: Federal Water Quality Coalition 

In these comments, the FWQC will address each of EPA's proposed regulatory changes. In general, we do not see an 

urgent need for major revisions to the WQS regulations and this rulemaking is not compelled by the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) or subject to any judicial deadline. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0240-A2.001.003 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-30 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Author Name: Turner Jr. James 

Organization: Murray Energy Corporation 

We have identified several issues that we believe must be resolved before proceeding any further on the proposed 

revisions to the federal water quality standards regulations. These issues are summarized below. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

Comment ID 0243-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Daniels Zane 

Organization: Ohio Coal Association 

Ohio Coal generally objects to many of the changes in the Proposed Rule. Far from being a mere "regulatory 

clarification," the Proposed Rule represents a fundamental change from USEPA's historic regulatory regime, eliminates 

local control and discretion mandated by the CWA's spirit of cooperative federalism, and imposes unduly burdensome 

restrictions and conditions on the people and companies operating in compliance with the CWA on a daily basis, 

including the members of Ohio Coal. To that end, Ohio Coal offers the following specific comments for consideration: 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

12.a 

Comment ID 0243-A2.001.007 

Author Name: Daniels Zane 

Organization: Ohio Coal Association 

Thus, far from being a clarification, the Proposed Rule muddies the waters surrounding designated uses and UAA. The 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-31 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Proposed Rule adds a needless level of federal regulation to a system that is more effectively implemented, in keeping 

with the CWA, at the state level. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0250-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Batterton Carol 

Organization: Water Environment Association of Texas, Texas Association of Clean Water Agencies, and Texas Water 

Conservation Association 

General comments 

As stated in our previous comments dated September 16, 2010, the proposed revisions, with the exception of the 

section on "Administrator's Determinations that New or Revised WQS Are Necessary", are unnecessary and 

inappropriate. All of these issues are already adequately addressed in existing regulations. In some cases, what is 

proposed goes beyond the scope of the water quality standards program, or the proposal provides detailed mandates 

for implementation methods that are the purview of the State in the structure of the Clean Water Act. The more detailed 

programmatic requirements in these proposed revisions, in particular, have the potential to impede rather than assist 

States in providing effective and efficient measures to protect and enhance water quality. 

To the best of our knowledge, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), EPA Region VI, and Texas 

permittees are all generally supportive of the Texas programs in the areas of the establishment of designated uses, 

triennial review of water quality standards, implementation of the antidegradation program variances, and the use of 

compliance schedules in permits issued pursuant to the NPDES program. The proposed revisions to the Part 131 

regulations will not enhance these programs and have the potential to impede their effective implementation. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0251-A2.001.002 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-32 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Author Name: Wigal Jennifer 

Organization: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

DEQ is submitting specific comments focused on the rules proposed by EPA. However, DEQ notes that these revisions, 

in and of themselves, are insufficient to address the many challenges Oregon's and other states' water quality 

standards programs face. The extraordinary timeframes to develop, adopt and receive action by EPA and the resources 

being required to obtain such a result are not producing the administrative or environmental outcomes that should be 

reasonably expected by the public. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

12.a 

Comment ID 0252-A2.001.004 

Author Name: Fry Eric 

Organization: Peabody Energy 

Additional WQS requirements, particularly in the case of the proposed antidegradation revisions, will result in extensive 

job losses and a reduced capability for industry to compete. Increasing the number of requirements, requirements that 

will in most cases be difficult to meet, will result in a rise in the number of lawsuits that would actually deter from 

States/Tribes and regulated stakeholders' mission protect the environment. If finalized as proposed, EPA's frequent use 

of the term "ensure" would require a level of proof virtually impossible to meet. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

4.e 

5.e 

5.k 

6.b 

6.f 

6.g 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-33 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

6.h 

7.m 

8.m 

9.e 

12.a 

Comment ID 0255-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Quaempts Eric 

Organization: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

The CWA, and the rules that apply it, must ultimately lead to less pollution, and cleaner waters. The Act promised much 

and delivered on many of these promises, but there is still more to be done. While the proposed rule language contains 

some welcome refinements, there are also some elements that raise questions and concerns. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

Comment ID 0257-A1.001.005 

Author Name: Harpole Chad 

Organization: Kentucky Chamber of Commerce 

Finally, there does not appear to be any urgent need for the proposed substantial expansion of the Water Quality 

Standards Regulatory Program. As EPA noted, the existing regulations have been in effect since 1983. As we have 

experienced in Kentucky, EPA has not been shy about using its review and approval authority for water quality 

standards to push states to adopt more stringent water quality criteria and antidegradation methodologies where EPA 

believes state proposals were not sufficiently protective. Accordingly, there does not appear to be any reason that 

revised water quality standards should be adopted at this time. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-34 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Comment ID 0257-A1.001.023 

Author Name: Harpole Chad 

Organization: Kentucky Chamber of Commerce 

Conclusion 

The Chamber believes the proposed rule represents an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority over state policies 

for evaluating water values and uses and establishment of state water quality standards. As such, the Chamber urges 

EPA to withdraw the proposal, which is unauthorized and unnecessary. The Chamber appreciates the opportunity to 

provide these comments. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0261-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Bartlett Drew 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

We also appreciate EPA's goal to provide greater clarity to the federal WQS regulations, while maintaining needed 

flexibility. However, we are concerned that there are still key components of the proposal that remain vague, particularly 

regarding EPA' expectations for States to run an approvable program. We are also concerned that the lack of clarity 

invites further litigation on a variety of topics, most notably State antidegradation policies. 

There are, of course, elements of the proposal that we support. Our comments are organized by section, noting 

elements of the proposal that we support, listing our specific concerns, and providing recommendations to provide 

greater clarity to the regulation. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-35 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

7.m 

Comment ID 0263-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Gretchen Watkins Larry Wawronowicz 

Organization: Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians 

The objective of the CWA is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's 

waters." The Tribe supports clarifications of WQS regulations that help move the Nation forward and meet the objective 

of the CWA. However, aspects of the proposed rule appear to not be aligned with the purpose of the CWA and may 

result in further unnecessary degradation of the Nation's waters. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

4.e 

5.e 

5.k 

6.b 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.m 

8.m 

9.e 

Comment ID 0264-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Chard-McClary Shellie 

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators 

States are directly impacted by the proposed changes to the federal WQS regulation. During the public comment 

period, state and interstate managers attended EPA Office of Water (OW) informational webinars on the proposed 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-36 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

rulemaking, as well as a 1.5 day Workshop to discuss, with OW's Office of Science and Technology, key elements of 

the proposed rule. ACWA appreciates EPA's willingness to discuss this proposal with its state co-regulators. These 

discussions have helped states better understand the Agency's concerns and the rationale behind various proposed 

provisions. While some state concerns have been alleviated by these discussions, and EPA is likely to be able to 

improve understanding in the final rule, states are concerned that some aspects of this proposed rule will be very 

difficult to implement as written, could detrimentally impact the proposed benefits, and in some cases, redirect 

resources away from water quality improvements towards administrative activities. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

2.d 

12.a 

Comment ID 0264-A2.001.004 

Author Name: Chard-McClary Shellie 

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators 

In this letter, ACWA provides several recommendations that states believe, if adopted, will improve the rule and help 

reduce unintended consequences. We would like to note that the feedback and comments below are not necessarily 

shared by every state surface water program, and we strongly encourage EPA to carefully consider the individual 

state/interstate comments that it receives. ACWA looks forward to continued dialogue with the Agency on this 

"regulation to regulate states." 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

Comment ID 0268-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Bell Nina 

Organization: Northwest Environmental Advocates 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-37 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

II. PROGRAM AREAS FOR PROPOSED REGULATORY CLARIFICATIONS 

A. Introduction 

In this section of the preamble, as in others, EPA alleges its proposals will "lead to environmental improvements in 

water quality." Id. However, there is little in the proposed regulations that is intended to lead to improvements and very 

few places in the preamble where EPA has explained the logic behind this sweeping statement. In general, the 

proposed rules constitute an opportunity for EPA to: (1) avoid litigation by environmental organizations; (2) enhance 

opportunities for states to adopt regulatory loopholes; and (3) demonstrate EPA's continuing commitment to giving 

states discretion to avoid key CWA requirements. That there are some aspects of these proposed rules sprinkled 

throughout that do not give states carte blanche to virtually do away with the water quality prong of the CWA is not the 

same as a set of rules that will actually lead to water quality improvements. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

Comment ID 0268-A2.001.064 

Author Name: Bell Nina 

Organization: Northwest Environmental Advocates 

We support revising the rules to ensure that all aspects of the Hanlon memorandum regarding compliance schedules, 

cited above, be incorporated into EPA's rules. Understanding that some of the elements discussed in that memo are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking, we recommend at a minimum that EPA add the citations included in redlined edits 

above, as cited by Mr. Hanlon. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for consideration of our comments. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

Comment ID 0274-A2.001.002 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-38 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Author Name: Yeaton Violet 

Organization: Region 10 Regional Tribal Operations Committee 

The Tribal Caucus appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications 

Rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010- 0606 ("Proposed Rule"). The Tribal Caucus supports the efforts of the 

Proposed Rule to strengthen the existing water quality standards, however, we are concerned that some of the 

proposals lack clarity and are inconsistent with the goals and requirements of the Clean Water Act. We believe that 

revision of the proposal is necessary to avoid problems in the interpretation and implementation of the Clean Water Act 

Specifically, the Tribal Caucus has the following concerns: 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

4.e 

5.e 

5.k 

6.b 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.m 

8.m 

9.e 

Comment ID 0278-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Hornback Chris 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

As such, NACWA members will be impacted by the changes being proposed and while we recognize EPA's desire to 

clarify elements of its WQS regulations to ensure greater consistency in implementation, there are some concerns with 

the revisions EPA is currently considering. 

NACWA has actively tracked efforts in this area since EPA first contemplated WQS regulation changes in a July 1998 

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. NACWA provided extensive comments on that proposal and weighed in on 

the Agency's July 30, 2010 notice soliciting initial stakeholder input on the issues addressed in the current proposal. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-39 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Consistent with its September 22, 2010 comments on the July 2010 notice, NACWA does not see an urgent need for 

regulatory changes to address the issues EPA has laid out in the proposal. NACWA understands that many of the 

changes are intended to facilitate more consistent implementation among the states, but EPA should instead work to 

address those implementation issues directly with its state partners rather than attempting to achieve more consistency 

through additional regulatory requirements. 

To the extent that EPA proceeds to finalize these provisions, NACWA offers the following comments on the six areas 

addressed in the Agency's proposal. NACWA also suggests one additional element be added on water quality trading. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0280-A2.001.023 

Author Name: Aspatore Amanda 

Organization: National Mining Association 

NMA therefore encourages EPA to reconsider the proposed changes listed above, and to preserve the important role of 

the states in CWA implementation. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.b 

1.b: Section A 

1.b: Section B 

3.a 

1.C - OTHER GENERAL 

Comment ID 0122-A1.001.005 

Author Name: Araujo Jaeleen 

Organization: Sealaska Corporation 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-40 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

3. Rulemaking Via Preamble 

In the Preamble to the proposed rules, EPA seeks to establish the mandatory elements that states would "need to 

address, at a minimum," in their anti-degradation implementation plans. Id., Subpart E(4). EPA acknowledges that, 

while some of these requirements are based on existing law, others (not based on the existing anti-degradation rule) 

are also being added "by this action." These requirements, however, are not included in the proposed rules themselves. 

Sealaska Corporation respectfully suggests that failing to promulgate these new requirements as rules, but rather 

burying them in a Preamble, violates the Administrative Procedures Act. See Iowa League of Cities v. EPA, 711 F.3d 

844, 874 (8th Cir. 2013). It is also poor regulatory drafting, and worse public policy. Indeed, Sealaska believes that the 

ambiguities created by these new "quasi-rules" counsel against their adoption in any form. 

For example, the anti-degradation rule requires States to find that the activity is needed to accommodate "important 

social or economic development." The new Preamble "rule" states that States shall perform "a social and/or economic 

analysis" in addition to the alternatives analysis. Is this language merely intended to paraphrase the existing 

antidegradation rule's "important...development" requirement, or is this one of those admitted instances where 

requirements not found in the existing rule are being added via the Preamble? And, if it is one of the latter, what does it 

mean? 

This requirement (as well as all of the others in this subpart) purport to be mandatory, and therefore constitute a rule. 

An agency should never use one rule to paraphrase another, since courts customarily presume that each part of a 

statute or rule has its own independent significance. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 173 (2001). This could 

conceivably lead some to conclude that a "social and/or economic analysis" demands something of a NEPA-like 

comprehensive look at virtually everything good and bad about a project-something that would be far beyond the limited 

economic finding required by the anti-degradation rule itself. 

Sealaska would accordingly urge EPA not to compromise and confuse a worthwhile rulemaking effort by mudding the 

waters with vague ersatz rulemaking in the Preamble. 

Sealaska appreciates the consideration that we know EPA will give to our comments. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section B 

7.g.ii 

Comment ID 0128-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Boon Richard 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-41 
 

1.c 

Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Organization: California Stormwater Quality Association 

A. General Comment 

Overall, the proposed clarifications appear to be more specifically directed to the application of Water Quality Standards 

(WQS) to traditional point sources and not to point sources that are more diffuse in nature such as municipal 

stormwater. To avoid confusion, USEPA should expressly acknowledge that some of these proposed regulations might 

not directly apply to MS4 permits. For example, the variance and compliance schedule provisions appear to be related 

numeric water quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs), which are not typically applicable to stormwater dischargers. 

Furthermore, with this proposed rulemaking, USEPA has the opportunity to provide regulatory clarity with respect to the 

relationship between MS4 permits and WQS, which is important considering the nature of discharges from MS4s. There 

is a need for regulatory flexibility when WQS are applied to reflect the nature of municipal stormwater discharges. 

Unfortunately, as the regulations currently exist they do not clearly indicate that WQS should not be applied to municipal 

stormwater in the same manner as they are otherwise applied to traditional point sources. The lack of such clarity 

inhibits innovative approaches to MS4 programs. Including the distinction between MS4 discharges and point source 

discharges in the application of the proposed regulations would help move MS4 programs forward and provide a 

stronger framework for the development of watershed approaches to stormwater management, including the integrated 

management approaches currently supported by USEPA. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c: Section C 

Comment ID 0129-A2.001.004 

Author Name: Steidel Robert 

Organization: AquaLaw PLC on behalf of Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies, Inc. 

This limited rulemaking proposal is appropriate for two reasons. First, the water quality standards program works well, 

and more extensive or broader changes are simply not needed. Second, as EPA notes repeatedly in the proposal, 

water quality standards are carved out in the Clean Water Act (CWA) as primarily a responsibility of the states. This 

structure has worked well, allowing states to fashion standards and standards application programs in ways that work 

best for their waters. 

For these reasons, we commend EPA for its limited and generally well-thought out proposal, and we encourage the 

Agency to avoid any significant broadening in the substance or scope of its proposal as a result of public comment. 

Our specific comments follow in the order in which the Preamble presents them. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-42 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

1.c: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0131-A1.001.006 

Author Name: Rager David 

Organization: Sanitation District Number 1 of Northern Kentucky 

Finally, SD1 is concerned that the proposed rulemaking could make it more difficult for municipalities to take advantage 

of integrated planning for wastewater and storm water. This new approach for Clean Water Act compliance was 

developed after many years of discussions between EPA, US Conference of Mayors, Association of Clean Water 

Agencies, National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, the National Association of Clean Water 

Agencies, and others. SD1 supports this new approach and many of the elements are embodied in SD1's Consent 

Decree, which requires the development of watershed plans and consideration of adaptive management when 

establishing capital improvement plans. The water quality standards requirements in the proposed rulemaking appear to 

be a regulatory construct that could create significant additional hurdles (extensive alternative analysis and scientific 

and engineering studies) and potential roadblocks (additional opportunities for litigation). This could discourage 

municipalities from engaging in integrated planning and stall rather than encourage progress towards improving the 

environment. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

1.c: Section C 

Comment ID 0133-A2.001.022 

Author Name: Phillips Sanford 

Organization: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

b. LDEQ finds the relationship between the terms "uses" and "designated uses" confusing as presented in the proposed 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-43 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

rule, the agency requests clarification in the rule on these terms 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section B 

Comment ID 0134-A1.001.004 

Author Name: Shea III Quinlan 

Organization: Edison Electric Institute 

A brief response to each category of proposed rule changes follows. In addition, EEI is a member of the Federal Water 

Quality Coalition and the Utility Water Act Group and incorporates by reference the comments filed by those 

organizations. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0145-A2.001.004 

Author Name: Shea III Quinlan 

Organization: Edison Electric Institute 

A brief response to each category of proposed rule changes follows. In addition, EEI is a member of the Federal Water 

Quality Coalition and the Utility Water Act Group and incorporates by reference the comments filed by those 

organizations. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-44 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Comment ID 0148-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Rice Patrick 

Organization: Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

NDEQ supports all the comments presented by ACWA in their forthcoming letter. We would like to take this opportunity 

to comment on a few aspects of the proposed rule that we wish to highlight. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0148-A2.001.006 

Author Name: Rice Patrick 

Organization: Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

As stated above, NDEQ agrees with all the comments from ACWA and wishes to be on the record as supporting them. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0150-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Heisig-Mitchell Jamie 

Organization: Hampton Roads Sanitation District 

The comments follow those provided by the Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies (VAMWA). HRSD 

supports the VAMWA comments in their entirety. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-45 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0152-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Stevens Bruce 

Organization: Indiana Coal Council, Inc. 

The ICC is a member of the National Mining Association and the Federal Water Quality Coalition and hereby 

incorporates their comments by reference. The ICC also incorporates and supports the comments of member 

companies. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0153-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Bishop Jonathan 

Organization: California State Water Resources Control Board 

The State Water Board supports EPA's effort to clarify the federal WQS regulations and its goal to promote national 

uniformity in the implementation of the CWA. As discussed below, however, the State Water Board is concerned that 

certain proposed changes may inadvertently introduce confusion in the manner in which the regulations are interpreted 

and, more importantly, detrimentally impact current water quality protections and needlessly increase the costs of 

implementing the regulations. The State Water Board provides its comments below (in the order presented in the 

preamble) and, where possible, provides recommendations to omit or reduce adverse implications of the proposed 

changes. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

1.c: Section B 

12.a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-46 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Comment ID 0157-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Harpole Chad 

Organization: Kentucky Chamber of Commerce 

Additionally, the Chamber strongly disagrees that the Proposed Rule is merely providing "clarification" of requirements 

relating to water quality standards. The proposed new concepts regarding establishment of "highest attainable use," 

designation of waters for antidegradation purposes, evaluation and implementation of "non-degrading and minimally 

degrading practicable alternatives," and limitations on and additional criteria for use attainability analyses and variances 

create new substantive requirements and standards that the Chamber has not been able to trace back to any 

authorizations set forth in the Act. Accordingly, labeling the proposed regulations as clarifications in the Public Notice is 

misleading. The new proposals, if adopted, will almost certainly be used by EPA, not only in the review and approval or 

disapproval of proposed state water quality standards, but to force changes in existing water quality standards where 

EPA finds the programs do not live up to EPA's policy choices for protecting the use and value of state waters. 

Finally, there does not appear to be any urgent need for the proposed substantial expansion of the Water Quality 

Standards Regulatory Program. As EPA noted, the existing regulations have been in effect since 1983. As we have 

experienced in Kentucky, EPA has not been shy about using its review and approval authority for water quality 

standards to push states to adopt more stringent water quality criteria and antidegradation methodologies where EPA 

believes state proposals were not sufficiently protective. Accordingly, there does not appear to be any reason that 

revised water quality standards should be adopted at this time. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section B 

3.a 

5.k 

7.m 

8.m 

Comment ID 0159-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Smithee Derek 

Organization: Oklahoma Water Resources Board 

As a participating member in the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA), the OWRB fully endorses 

ACWA's letter to you regarding the water quality standards regulatory clarifications. My staff and I have provided input 

in the development of this letter and participated in the development of the ideas presented there. I encourage EPA's 

consideration of these comments. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-47 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

In addition to the comments made by ACWA, I would like to add an additional overarching concern regarding this 

proposed rulemaking. The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a state and federal partnership in developing water 

quality standards. As a state partner, the concept of co-regulation is at the heart.of what we do. During the process of 

this federal rulemaking, the state partners have felt as if our voice has been relegated to one of stakeholder only. We 

must return to a true partnership of co-regulation in order to successfully move forward in the management of our 

aquatic resources. 

We appreciate your consideration of our comments, those presented here as well as those from ACWA. We look 

forward to continued discussion on this rule. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

1.c: Section B 

2.d 

3.a 

Comment ID 0160-A2.001.002 

Author Name: West Jeff 

Organization: Xcel Energy 

In addition to our company-specific comments below, Xcel Energy is a member of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), 

which is also submitting comments on the proposed rule and we support those comments, as well as comments 

submitted by the Federal Water Quality Coalition of which EEI is a member. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0167-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Anderson Paul 

Organization: Paul G. Anderson, LLC On behalf of the Lower Fountain Metropolitan Sewage Disposal District 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-48 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Introduction 

As a general matter the District supports efforts to make regulations such as the proposed rule to give water quality 

management entities like the District more certainty as to what is expected and what standards apply. Within the past 

few years the State of Colorado ("Colorado") has addressed several of the issues through formal rulemaking that the 

proposed rule attempts to clarify. Although the proposed rule indicates in various places that it is not necessarily 

requiring states to take certain actions, the District's concern is that the proposed rule may lead to Colorado amending 

its regulations and/or initiating new rulemaking proceedings in light of the EPA's clarifications, all of which the District 

likely will have to address at a significant cost. The District also believes certain explanations and/or interpretations 

provided in the proposed rule go beyond mere clarifications. Finally, the absence of an economic impact analysis of the 

proposed rule on small to medium-sized entities like the Lower Fountain gives the District great concern. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

1.c: Section B 

3.a 

12.b 

Comment ID 0168-A1.001.010 

Author Name: Walker Roger 

Organization: Regulatory Environmental Group for Missouri 

8. Part 131 Door Opening. 

The WQS rulemaking proposed by EPA would make substantial changes to existing water quality standards 

regulations. By proceeding in this fashion, the EPA has opened the door to provide comments on Part 131 as a whole 

as all provisions of Part 131 are impacted through the rulemaking. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section C 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-49 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Comment ID 0178-A2.001.024 

Author Name: Burnell Barry 

Organization: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

We also endorse the comments submitted to EPA by the ACWA. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0187-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Allmon Eric 

Organization: Lowerre, Frederick, Perales, Allmon & Rockwell on behalf of Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club 

Those comments are again set forth in this letter. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0191-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Hirst Barbara 

Organization: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

NJDEP generally supports ACWA's comments reflective of national concerns and in addition we offer the following 

specific comments on the proposed WQS: 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-50 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0191-A2.001.011 

Author Name: Hirst Barbara 

Organization: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

NJDEP participated in the ACWA workshop and agrees with ACWA's comments as they pertain to New Jersey, and 

with the clarifications noted above. Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to the Water Quality Standards 

Regulatory Clarifications; Proposed Rule: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606. Please contact me at (609) 633-

1441 if you have any questions. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

2.d 

Comment ID 0192-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Reeder Thomas 

Organization: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

Like other states, NC DWR will be directly impacted by the proposed changes to 40 CFR § 131. NC DWR has actively 

participated in the Office of Water (OW) informational webinars, and in a 1.5 day joint Workshop hosted by Association 

of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA). This workshop provided an excellent opportunity to discuss with OW's Office of 

Science and Technology key elements of the proposed rule and to voice ideas and concerns with other state coregulators. North Carolina supports comments and suggestions that were submitted by ACWA on behalf of the 

represented state and interstate water program directors, and, like ACWA, North Carolina remains apprehensive that 

some parts of this proposed rule will be very difficult to implement as currently written. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

2.d 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-51 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Comment ID 0194-A1.001.024 

Author Name: Stonestreet Robert 

Organization: West Virginia Chamber of Commerce 

The Chamber appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments. The Chamber also joins in the comments submitted 

by the West Virginia Coal Association, Utility Water Act Group, and Federal Water Quality Coalition. If you have any 

questions, please feel free to contact me. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0195-A1.001.004 

Author Name: Norton Ken 

Organization: National Tribal Water Council 

Further, there are some components of the proposed rule that are contrary to advancement of the goals and 

requirements of the CWA, and the NTWC recommends that EPA reconsider those portions of the proposal to include 

stricter requirements, so that tribal programs will be able to effectively protect their water resources, either through our 

own federally authorized programs or in partnership with states and the EPA. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section B 

3.a 

4.e 

5.e 

5.k 

6.b 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.m 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-52 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

8.m 

9.e 

Comment ID 0196-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Bostic Jason 

Organization: West Virginia Coal Association 

In addition to this filing, WVCA endorses the comments filed by the National Mining Association and the West Virginia 

Chamber of Commerce on this proposed rulemaking. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0198-A1.001.016 

Author Name: Card Bethany 

Organization: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

MassDEP has identified several issues and needed clarifications. Some of the revisions would provide clarification and 

support flexible, practical approaches to achieving water quality improvements. MassDEP appreciates the opportunity 

to comment and hopes that EPA will take MassDEP's comments into account when drafting final regulatory revisions. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0200-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Covar Zak 

Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is providing comments on the proposed revisions to the 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-53 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

federal Water Quality Standards (WQS) Rule. Regarding the proposed revisions, TCEQ would like to emphasize the 

importance of applying the resulting regulations with reasonable flexibility, in order to accommodate the various 

approaches that have proven effective in each state's and tribe's water quality management program. Concerns and 

suggestions regarding the key revisions are attached. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0200-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Covar Zak 

Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

TCEQ appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA's proposed revisions to the existing federal WQS rule. We urge 

EPA to consider our comments and to continue discussions with the states to ensure that any newly adopted provisions 

afford states maximum flexibility to ensure existing state water quality management programs are not negatively 

impacted. If you have comments or questions concerning the enclosed comments, please contact Kelly Holligan, 

Director, Water Quality Planning Division at (512) 239-2369 or by e-mail at Kelly.Holligan@tceq.texas.gov. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0201-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Godfrey Mike 

Organization: Alabama Power 

Furthermore, Alabama Power endorses the comments of the following organizations with whom the Company is in 

some way affiliated: (1) Southern Company, Alabama Power's parent company; and (2) The Utilities Water Act Group, 

an informal association of electric utilities with an interest in Clean Water Act ("CWA") issues. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-54 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0201-A1.001.004 

Author Name: Godfrey Mike 

Organization: Alabama Power 

Comments 

Alabama Power appreciates EPA's efforts to attempt to clarify a number of its existing water quality regulations. 

However, Alabama Power believes additional revisions to the Draft Rule are necessary prior to its final issuance. 

Alabama Power has organized its comments by the six topics set out in the Draft Rule and addresses each in the order 

they appear in the Federal Register notice. The following three concerns apply equally to each of these six topics, 

however, and are therefore briefly set out here as general comments that apply to all of the changes EPA has proposed 

in the Draft Rule: 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0202-A2.001.021 

Author Name: Frederick Kevin 

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division 

Preamble Language on Beneficial Uses 

Section II(A), page 54520 of the Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 171, uses the term "beneficial uses" to describe Clean 

Water Act designated uses. The term "beneficial uses" are most often associated with uses to which water rights apply, 

typically under western state water law. The WDEQ/WQD believes it would help minimize confusion and emphasize the 

distinction between the Clean Water Act designated uses and surface water rights beneficial uses to avoid use of the 

term "beneficial" when referring to designated uses for Clean Water Act purposes. 

General Comments 

The WDEQ/WQD also recommends that for future rule revisions, that the EPA include the full text of the regulation as 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-55 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

well as the proposed changes to the regulation, rather than "only the provisions affected by the revisions" so that 

entities do not need to refer to two documents to have the complete version of the regulation. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section B 

Comment ID 0208-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Foster Wade 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

TFI also has joined, and adopts by reference herein, the comments submitted by the Agricultural Nutrient Policy Council 

("ANPC"). It provides these additional comments separately to raise additional points, as well as to expand on certain of 

ANPC's points. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0208-A1.001.024 

Author Name: Foster Wade 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

CONCLUSION 

TFI appreciates your consideration of these comments on EPA's Proposed Rule and the importance of reaching 

appropriate revisions. As noted, TFI supports the specific recommendations of ANPC in that effort, and incorporates 

them by reference. Please contact me by phone at (202) 515-2701 if you would like to further discuss our comments. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-56 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0212-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Norton Kelly 

Organization: Arizona Mining Association 

In addition, the AMA supports the comments regarding the proposal being submitted separately by the National Mining 

Association ("NMA"). The AMA comments supplement the broader NMA comments, focusing on issues specific to 

Arizona and the arid southwestern United States. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0213-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Coyne Kevin 

Organization: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

DEP shares many of the concerns outlined in the January 2, 2014 ACWA letter. We strongly urge EPA to review and 

consider the ACWA comments, recommendations, and proposed language. Specifically, DEP strongly urges EPA to 

consider the comments that pertain to the following topics: 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0217-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Hale Michelle 

Organization: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

While ADEC appreciates EPA's work on these draft regulations, we must point out that EPA is under no legal obligation 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-57 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

to accomplish these revisions. EPA is, on the other hand, under a legal obligation under the CWA to take action on 

state WQS revisions within 90 days. In many cases, states have waited years for EPA action on state WQS revisions. 

We recommend that EPA propose changes that would allow for automatic EPA approval of any state WQS revisions 

that are more stringent than the states' previous standards. EPA should include language to the effect of "any standard 

that is more stringent than a previous standard is assumed to meet the requirements of the Act if no action is taken by 

the Administrator within 90 days." This would be consistent with the Alaska Rule in 65 FR 24644, because while the 

CWA § 303(c)(3) requires EPA to 'approve' a standard, 'approving by silence' can still constitute an 'approval.' This 

would free up EPA time to review other state regulations updates in a more timely manner. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

1.c: Section C 

Comment ID 0220-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Anderson Paul 

Organization: Paul G. Anderson, LLC On behalf of the Lower Fountain Metropolitan Sewage Disposal District 

Introduction 

As a general matter the District supports efforts to make regulations such as the proposed rule to give water quality 

management entities like the District more certainty as to what is expected and what standards apply. Within the past 

few years the State of Colorado ("Colorado") has addressed several of the issues through formal rulemaking that the 

proposed rule attempts to clarify. Although the proposed rule indicates in various places that it is not necessarily 

requiring states to take certain actions, the District's concern is that the proposed rule may lead to Colorado amending 

its regulations and/or initiating new rulemaking proceedings in light of the EPA's clarifications, all of which the District 

likely will have to address at a significant cost. The District also believes certain explanations and/or interpretations 

provided in the proposed rule go beyond mere clarifications. Finally, the absence of an economic impact analysis of the 

proposed rule on small to medium-sized entities like the Lower Fountain gives the District great concern. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

1.c: Section B 

3.a 

12.b 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-58 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Comment ID 0221-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Coyne Kevin 

Organization: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

DEP shares many of the concerns outlined in the January 2, 2014 ACWA letter. We strongly urge EPA to review and 

consider the ACWA comments, recommendations, and proposed language. Specifically, DEP strongly urges EPA to 

consider the comments that pertain to the following topics: 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0222-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Modeer David 

Organization: Western Urban Water Coalition 

EPA has proposed changes to key program areas of its existing WQS regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 131 to improve 

regulatory clarity and lead to environmental improvements in water quality. The Proposed Rule requests comments on 

revisions in the following six areas: (1) Administrator's determination that new or revised WQS are necessary, (2) 

designated uses, (3) triennial reviews, (4) antidegradation, (5) WQS variances, and (6) compliance schedule authorizing 

provisions. WUWC first provides its general comments, then sets forth specific comments on designated uses, 

antidegradation, and WQS variances. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0222-A1.001.004 

Author Name: Modeer David 

Organization: Western Urban Water Coalition 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-59 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

GENERAL COMMENTS 

WUWC has the flowing general comments on the Proposed Rule: 

Climate Change. It appears that none of the proposed changes, with specific reference to highest attainable uses 

(HAUs), antidegradation reviews or the grant of variances, take into account the implications of climate change. 

Certainly there is no mention of how these programs may be impacted by differing hydrologic and/or temperature 

regimes. This is disconcerting given EPA's recent publication of its Climate Change Adaptation Plan for public comment 

and the implications of climate change on regulatory programs. EPA should reconsider the Proposed Rule taking into 

account the potential impacts of climate change and provide more, rather than less, flexibility in meeting WQS. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section C 

Comment ID 0231-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Sanderson Stuart 

Organization: The Colorado Mining Association 

CMA supports and incorporates by reference the comments of Peabody Energy and the National Mining Association on 

these matters. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0231-A2.001.005 

Author Name: Sanderson Stuart 

Organization: The Colorado Mining Association 

There is a level of uncertainty built into the proposal which would allow EPA to deny State submittals or require more 

information before approval. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-60 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0231-A2.001.006 

Author Name: Sanderson Stuart 

Organization: The Colorado Mining Association 

Additional WQS requirements, particularly in the case of the proposed antidegradation revisions, will result in extensive 

job losses and a reduced capability for industry to compete. Increasing the number of requirements, requirements that 

will in most cases be difficult to meet, will result in a rise in the number of lawsuits that would actually deter from 

States/Tribes and regulated stakeholders' mission protect the environment. If finalized as proposed, EPA's frequent use 

of the term "ensure" would require a level of proof virtually impossible to meet. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

1.c: Section B 

7.m 

8.m 

10.a 

12.a 

Comment ID 0232-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Grayum Mike 

Organization: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

EPAs proposed rule revision will affect the work of Washington tribes to revise and implement Washington's human 

health criteria, and therefore EPA must craft clarifying language to support timely adoption and implementation to 

protect the tribes' rights. 

EPAs proposed rule revisions have a direct effect on the work of western Washington tribes to ensure timely adoption 

of revised human health criteria (HHC). The tribes have worked tirelessly over the last 3 plus years to adopt a Fish 

Consumption Rate that is more reflective of current (suppressed) and historical tribal member practices in Washington. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-61 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

The prospect of revising and adopting new HHC, however, has been controversial and resulted in delays and proposed 

exemptions in rulemaking. [FN1] The numerous twist and turns in the rulemaking process indicate two important roles 

that EPA must maintain: 1) federal intervention may be necessary to complete rulemaking; and 2) federal oversight of 

HHC and compliance tools rules will be needed to ensure that both criteria and implementing provisions actually result 

in water quality improvement. 

Given the direct intersection of federal rules with the work of the tribes in Washington state, EPA must be mindful that 

alterations to national rules could serve to either undermine or support the current efforts to improve water quality in 

Washington. For example, proposed federal rules governing "determinations" could limit EPA regional efforts to clarify 

need for new HCC in Washington. The following comments provide additional details on how EPA can implement 

federal trust obligations to ensure that proposed federal rules can support as opposed to countervail the effort of the 

tribes. 

[FN1] Cite NWIFC letters or press 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

1.c: Section B 

4.b 

6.g 

Comment ID 0232-A2.001.009 

Author Name: Grayum Mike 

Organization: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

Again, we thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on EPA proposed regulatory clarifications. These 

proposed rule changes come at a time of intensive regional debate on the subject of water quality regulations and rule 

development. Tribal governments are committed to providing leadership in creating water quality rules that are 

progressive in their protection of human health and are both purposeful and creative in application. While these 

discussions are complex, both politically and technically, to be successful, they must be anchored by strong federal 

rules aimed at protecting the quality of the waters on which we all depend. Should you have any questions on these 

comments, please do not hesitate to contact our offices at (360) 438-1180. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-62 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0233-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Pippy John 

Organization: Pennsylvania Coal Alliance 

Because the Alliance is a member of the National Mining Association, we hereby incorporate NMA's comments on this 

matter by reference. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0235-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Lumley Babtist 

Organization: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

The waters of the Pacific Northwest have suffered from intense human use: impoundments by hundreds of dams, toxic 

inputs from agriculture and industry, riparian reshaping by municipal developments, and extraction of water for 

consumptive use. Fortunately, Oregon recognized that tribal people are disproportionally affected by adverse water 

quality since they consume larger quantities of fish than other groups of people. The state revised its water quality 

standards to reflect higher fish consumption rates, enacting the most protective state standards in the nation, resulting 

in closer scrutiny of toxic into Oregon waters. This was a positive step toward meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act, 

and EPA's final decision in this rulemaking should support this progress in Oregon and elsewhere. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0236-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Weigel Brian 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-63 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

We sincerely appreciate the thoughtful effort EPA has invested into clarifying Water Quality Standards. In assembling 

this comment letter, we had subject matter experts review the proposed revisions, attend webinars, and reference our 

state standards, implementation plans, and guidance documents. Here we have identified several points that we 

strongly support, and other areas that which we need additional clarification. The examples and plain-language 

preamble EPA provided are quite useful. We also offer some examples of special cases or situations that which beg 

further clarification or discussion of the proposed revisions. We hope that our comments, questions, and examples help 

make further progress on our shared goals. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

2.d 

Comment ID 0237-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Tucker James 

Organization: Idaho Power Company 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") recently published a proposed rule to clarify water quality 

standards regulations and has solicited comments on the proposed rule. By Notice published in the Federal Register, 

September 4, 2013 78 Fed. Reg. 54518, the initial deadline for comments on the proposed rule was December 3, 2013. 

EPA extended the comment period by 30 days to January 2, 2014 by notice published in the Federal Register on 

November 27, 2013 at 78 Fed. Reg. 70905. In response, the Idaho Power Company submits these comments on EPA's 

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0238-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Gonet Phillip 

Organization: Illinois Coal Association 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-64 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

The ICA is a member of the National Mining Association (NMA) and hereby incorporates their comments on this matter 

by reference. The ICA also incorporates herein and supports the comments of its member companies, including but not 

limited to Murray Energy and Peabody Energy. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0239-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Easterly Thomas 

Organization: Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

IDEM is a participating member in the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) and fully endorses ACWA's 

letter to you regarding the water quality standards regulatory clarifications. My staff has provided input and participated 

in the development of the ideas presented in that letter. I encourage EPA's consideration of ACWA's comments. 

In addition to those comments made by ACWA, I would like to emphasize an additional overarching consideration 

relative to this proposed rulemaking. The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a state and federal partnership in 

developing water quality standards. It is therefore imperative that any changes to the federal regulations governing the 

development and implementation of water quality standards respect this partnership and allow flexibility to states to set 

their own priorities considering state specific conditions. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

1.c: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0239-A2.001.004 

Author Name: Easterly Thomas 

Organization: Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

IDEM requests U.S. EPA's consideration, as you evaluate the comments you receive on this rule, for ensuring states 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-65 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

have flexibility in applying variances and other tools, such as use attainability analyses and antidegradation 

implementation procedures, that may be impacted by the proposed clarification set forth in the proposed rulemaking. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0249-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Calamita F. Paul 

Organization: General Counsel on behalf of The Wet Weather Partnership et al. 

As an introductory matter we applaud the Agency's decision to narrowly focus the proposed changes to the WQS 

regulation to just six principal (proposed) changes. This limited rulemaking proposal is appropriate for two particular 

reasons. First, the water quality standards program works well, and more extensive or broader changes are simply not 

needed. Second, as EPA notes repeatedly in the proposal, water quality standards are carved out in the Clean Water 

Act (CWA) as primarily a responsibility of the states. This structure has worked well, allowing states to fashion 

standards and standards application programs in ways that work best given the wide variety of state-specific factors. 

For these reasons, we encourage the Agency to avoid any significant broadening in the substance or scope of its 

proposal as a result of public comment. If EPA decides to address any other issues, we believe an additional public 

comment period would be warranted on those newly proposed changes. 

Our specific comments follow in the order in which the Preamble to the proposed rule presents them. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

1.c: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0250-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Batterton Carol 

Organization: Water Environment Association of Texas, Texas Association of Clean Water Agencies, and Texas Water 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-66 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Conservation Association 

If some States have not appropriately implemented the existing regulations, we suggest that the solution to this is not to 

issue redundant regulations or micromanage the programs in all States but, rather, to work with the specific States that 

are deficient. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0250-A2.001.012 

Author Name: Batterton Carol 

Organization: Water Environment Association of Texas, Texas Association of Clean Water Agencies, and Texas Water 

Conservation Association 

As noted in these examples above, Texas, and it can be assumed other states, are already implementing methods that 

address the issues raised by EPA in this proposed rulemaking. Any rules revisions should not seek uniformity among 

state programs for the sake of uniformity alone, but rather retain these existing effective approaches. In addition, rules 

revisions should allow states as much flexibility as possible to craft program details to meet the individual challenges of 

each state. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0251-A2.001.004 

Author Name: Wigal Jennifer 

Organization: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

DEQ supports the comments submitted by the Association of Clean Water Administrators on behalf of the states and 

will not repeat those comments in this letter. Oregon DEQ submits the following comments and requests that EPA 

consider these comments and suggested revisions as it finalizes these rules. We would be pleased to discuss with you 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-67 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

further any point raised. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0252-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Fry Eric 

Organization: Peabody Energy 

There is a level of uncertainty built into the proposal which would allow EPA to deny State submittals or require more 

information before approval. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0254-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Hoffman Ray 

Organization: Seattle Public Utilities 

SPU supports Ecology's current effort to revise Washington State water quality regulations to allow a wider array of 

implementation tools, including variance timeframes that recognize the limits of technological feasibility and complex 

scientific and technological challenges. The tools are essential in the face of legacy and ubiquitous pollutants in the 

water column and sediments, particularly in urban areas. The tools are being discussed by Ecology in tandem with 

significantly more stringent human health criteria for toxics. Ecology is considering options "to provide flexible and 

predictable regulatory tools that help entities comply with new source control requirements or discharge limits" while 

working effectively toward controlling sources of pollutants. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-68 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0257-A1.001.004 

Author Name: Harpole Chad 

Organization: Kentucky Chamber of Commerce 

Additionally, the Chamber strongly disagrees that the Proposed Rule is merely providing "clarification" of requirements 

relating to water quality standards. The proposed new concepts regarding establishment of "highest attainable use," 

designation of waters for antidegradation purposes, evaluation and implementation of "non-degrading and minimally 

degrading practicable alternatives," and limitations on and additional criteria for use attainability analyses and variances 

create new substantive requirements and standards that the Chamber has not been able to trace back to any 

authorizations set forth in the Act. Accordingly, labeling the proposed regulations as clarifications in the Public Notice is 

misleading. The new proposals, if adopted, will almost certainly be used by EPA, not only in the review and approval or 

disapproval of proposed state water quality standards, but to force changes in existing water quality standards where 

EPA finds the programs do not live up to EPA's policy choices for protecting the use and value of state waters. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section B 

3.a 

5.k 

7.m 

8.m 

Comment ID 0259-A2.001.010 

Author Name: Naylor Char 

Organization: Puyallup Tribe of Indians 

EPA has both a fiduciary and trust responsibility to ensure state and tribal water quality standards are sufficiently 

protective of human health and the environment and tribal treaty- reserved resources. To accomplish this task, revisions 

to the 30-year old federal regulations are sorely needed. We implore EPA to act swiftly and decisively to make the 

changes requested herein. 

We thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposed regulatory rules. If you have any questions regarding 

these comments, you can contact myself at (253) 680-5520 or Bill Sullivan, Natural Resources Director, at (253) 573-

7850. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-69 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0260-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Drazowski Barry 

Organization: Izaak Walton League Minnesota Division et al. 

The Minnesota Clean Water Groups join in the comments submitted by Earthjustice and incorporate them by reference. 

In addition, we would more particularly raise concerns about proposed rules that undermine Clean Water Act 

constraints on a state's authority to remove a water quality standard not explicitly promulgated to protect a Section 

101(a)(2) use. The EPA proposed rule would facilitate removal of and variance from standards enacted as agricultural, 

industrial or drinking water uses rather than "for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and . . . 

recreation in and on the water" pursuant to Section 101(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act. Minnesota's experience suggests 

that EPA's proposed rule would cause actual harm to fish, aquatic organisms and wildlife. 

Minnesota rules set limits on sulfates, total dissolved salts and specific conductivity in sections of the state's WQS 

pertaining to industrial and agricultural uses. Like many other states, Minnesota has not enacted (and may never have 

the political will to enact) standards that further limit these pollutants for the express purpose of protecting aquatic life. 

Our experience correlates discharge of these constituents and impairment of downstream wild rice, fish, and aquatic 

macroinvertebrates. Facilitating variances from or removal of non-101(a)(2) uses would result in real world impairment 

of Clean Water Act Section 101(a)(2) goals. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

5.h 

8.c 

8.g.iv 

Comment ID 0270-A1.001.010 

Author Name: Todd Andrew 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-70 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Organization: Colorado Water Quality Control Commission 

The Commission also noted that the proposed changes fail to take into consideration the implications of climate change 

on water quality, despite EPA's recent publications indicating that the implications of climate change should be a 

consideration in regulatory program actions. The Commission believes that potential implications of climate change 

should be taken into account in both this, and future, EPA water quality standard proposals.. Thank you for the 

opportunity to provide comment on EPA's proposed revisions to its water quality standards rules. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section C 

Comment ID 0272-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Jennifer Chavez Janette Brimmer 

Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of 28 Environmental Organizations. See pages 23-27 

The proposed rule is a small positive step in advancing the promises of the Clean Water Act in a few areas, but largely 

falls short of what is truly needed to address current problems with the development and implementation of water 

quality standards. Further, there are some components of the proposed rule that are contrary to advancement of the 

goals and requirements of the Clean Water Act and the Water Protection Groups urge EPA to reconsider those portions 

of the proposal to include stricter requirements. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section B 

3.a 

4.e 

5.e 

5.k 

6.b 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.m 

8.m 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-71 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

9.e 

Comment ID 0272-A2.001.028 

Author Name: Jennifer Chavez Janette Brimmer 

Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of 28 Environmental Organizations. See pages 23-27 

CONCLUSION 

The Water Protection Groups are encouraged by the fact that EPA has taken the opportunity to provide additional detail 

to states for carrying out their obligations under the Clean Water Act, but urge the EPA to confront the larger problems 

that are truly interfering with proper implementation of the requirements of the Act-particularly the problems with 

triennial review and the overuse and misunderstanding of variances from water quality standards. EPA's obligations 

under the Act to provide oversight and a backstop are of utmost importance and a failure of EPA to fulfill its role means 

a breakdown of the Act. The Water Protection Group support many (although not all) of EPA's proposals here, but 

encourage EPA to advance protection of our nation's waters with a more thorough and determined approach to how 

states are implementing the water quality standards requirements of the Clean Water Act. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

1.c: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0275-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Reeves Sarah 

Organization: Colorado Monitoring Framework 

As a group, CMF has several general comments that are important to the membership as a whole, as some of the 

changes being considered to the Water Quality Standards Rule could have serious consequences to the flexibility 

provided to states with primacy to implement the requirements of the Clean Water Act. It is the recognition of the 

variability across the nation in geology, hydrology, and climate that makes such flexibility at the state level so important. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-72 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

1.c: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0279-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Coyne Kevin 

Organization: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

DEP shares many of the concerns outlined in the January 2, 2014 ACWA letter. We strongly urge EPA to review and 

consider the ACWA comments, recommendations, and proposed language. Specifically, DEP strongly urges EPA to 

consider the comments that pertain to the following topics: 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

Comment ID 0283-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Thorme Melissa 

Organization: Downey Brand Attorneys LLP on behalf of several clients 

A. Background Information 

We appreciate that U.S. EPA acknowledges that many of the provisions in the previous and currently proposed 

regulations are interpretations of the requirements under the Clean Water Act. This acknowledgement will assist U.S. 

EPA in finding additional flexibility where certain water quality planning actions are not specifically prescribed or 

prohibited under the Act so that improved water quality may be achieved through the adoption of more precise and 

accurate water quality goals and standards, by allowing variances and compliance schedules, and through a better 

prioritization of control actions recognizing that limited resources are available. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.c 

1.c: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-73 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

1.D - FORM LETTER 1 

Comment ID 0132.001.001 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: NA 

I am writing to urge the EPA to strengthen Clean Water Act regulations to protect our nation's high quality waters, 

eliminate unnecessary variances, and update water quality standards in a meaningful and timely way. 

I support the EPA's proposal for a parameter by parameter approach to identifying "high quality" waters (Tier II waters) 

for antidegradation purposes. This approach ensures that waters that are better than any given water quality standard 

will be protected for those standards and cleaned up for the others. The EPA should abandon any effort to retain the 

failed ‘water body' approach, which simply allows unnecessary and further degradation. 

States are required to review and update their water quality standards every three years, yet many states are falling far 

behind their schedules, failing to incorporate the best science and meaningful public participation. I urge the EPA to use 

its authority under Section 303 to ensure that states are reviewing and updating, with effective public participation, their 

water quality standards every three years. EPA has authority under the Clean Water Act to require states to adopt 

criteria, and we agree with EPA's proposal to make the obligation to do so clear in this rulemaking. 

Variances from water quality standards, such as Use Attainability Analysis (UAAs), are not necessary and they fail to 

protect clean water. Variances are not an "aid" to states to meet water quality standards but an excuse to avoid them. 

I support EPA's proposal for compliance schedules, but believe that EPA's proposal does not go far enough in 

addressing problems with the use of compliance schedules by states and permittees. The EPA should limit compliance 

schedule to the length of a permit or 5 years. This is consistent with Clean Water Act and regulatory requirements for 

permits. 

Thank you. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.d 

6.a 

6.d 

6.f 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 

6.c 

2-74 
7.d.ii 

Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

6.g 

6.h 

7.a 

8.b 

9.d 

Comment ID 0136-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Elton Wallace 

Organization: NA 

I am very concerned about the rate of progress in halting the discharge of toxic pollutants into our waters and 

inadequate measures to prevent degradation of our cleanest waters. Therefore, I urge you to strengthen Clean Water 

Act regulations to protect our nation's high quality waters, eliminate unnecessary variances, and update water quality 

standards. 

I support your proposal for a parameter-by-parameter approach to identifying "high quality" waters (Tier II waters) for 

antidegradation purposes. This approach will help ensure that waters that are better than any given water quality 

standard will be protected for those standards and cleaned up for the others. Please abandon any effort to retain the 

‘water body' approach, which permits unnecessary further degradation. 

Although states are required to review and update their water quality standards every three years, many states are not 

meeting their schedules and are failing to incorporate the best science and meaningful public participation. Please use 

your authority under Section 303 to ensure that states are reviewing and updating their water quality standards every 

three years with appropriate public participation. I support EPA's proposal to make the states obligation to adopt criteria 

clear. 

In addition, I believe that variances from water quality standards, such as Use Attainability Analysis (UAAs), are 

unnecessary and contribute to failure to protect clean water. 

I support your proposal for compliance schedules but am concerned that it is not sufficient to address problems with the 

use of compliance schedules by states and permittees. EPA should limit compliance schedules to the length of a permit 

or 5 years. 

Thank you for considering my comments. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-75 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

1.d 

6.a 

6.c 

6.d 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.a 

7.d.ii 

8.b 

9.d 

Comment ID 0137-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Flowers Bobbie 

Organization: NA 

I am writing to urge the EPA to strengthen Clean Water Act regulations to protect our nation's high quality waters, 

eliminate unnecessary variances, and update water quality standards in a meaningful and timely way. 

Variances from water quality standards, such as Use Attainability Analysis (UAAs), are not necessary and they fail to 

protect clean water. Variances are not an "aid" to states to meet water quality standards but an excuse to avoid them. 

I support EPA's proposal for compliance schedules, but believe that EPA's proposal does not go far enough in 

addressing problems with the use of compliance schedules by states and permittees. The EPA should limit compliance 

schedule to the length of a permit or 5 years. This is consistent with Clean Water Act and regulatory requirements for 

permits. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.d 

6.a 

9.d 

8.b 

7.a 

Comment ID 0138-A1.001.001 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-76 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Author Name: Albers Catherine 

Organization: NA 

For the EPA to have any effect in protecting our environment, it must strengthen the Clean Water Act regulations to 

protect those waters in our nation which are still high quality, return the suffering waters to clarity and purity, and update 

water quality standards in a meaningful and timely way. 

I support the EPA's proposal for a parameter by parameter approach to identifying "high quality" waters (Tier II waters) 

for antidegradation purposes. This approach ensures that waters that are better than any given water quality standard 

will be protected for those standards and cleaned up for the others. The EPA should abandon any effort to retain the 

failed ‘water body' approach, which simply allows unnecessary and further degradation. 

States must be compelled to conform to the required review and update of their their water quality standards every 

three years, punished for falling behind and held to the standards set forth in the regulations. They must incorporate the 

best science and meaningful public participation. I urge the EPA to use its authority under Section 303 to ensure that 

states are complying and I agree with EPA's proposal to make the obligation to do so clear in this rulemaking. 

Variances from water quality standards, such as Use Attainability Analysis (UAAs), are unnecessary and they fail to 

protect clean water. Variances are not an "aid" to states to meet water quality standards but an excuse to avoid them. 

That's why they call them "variances" not "practices." 

I support EPA's proposal for compliance schedules, but believe that EPA's proposal does not go far enough in 

addressing problems with the use of compliance schedules by states and permittees. The EPA should limit compliance 

schedule to the length of a permit or 5 years. This is consistent with Clean Water Act and regulatory requirements for 

permits. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.d 

6.a 

6.c 

6.d 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.a 

7.d.ii 

8.b 

9.d 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-77 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Comment ID 0139-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Mickowski Patrice 

Organization: NA 

I am writing to urge you to further strengthen the new, upcoming Clean Water Act regulations. 

I support the EPA'sproposal for a parameter by parameter approach to identifying and protecting Tier II waters. 

However, I feel the EPA should abandon any effort to retain the failed ‘water body' approach, which simply allows 

unnecessary and further degradation. 

I also urge the EPA to use its full authority under Section 303 to ensure that ALL states are effectively reviewing and 

updating their water quality standards every three years -- on time -- no exceptions. 

And finally, I support the EPA proposal for compliance schedules, but believe these schedules should be limited to the 

length of a permit or 5 years -- making them consistent with the Clean Water Act and regulatory requirements for 

permits. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.d 

6.c 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.a 

7.d.ii 

9.d 

Comment ID 0140-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Schmitt Donna 

Organization: NA 

I am writing to urge the EPA to strengthen Clean Water Act regulations to protect our nation's lakes and streams. 

As a resident of the Great Lakes State, I know personally how challenged our fresh water resources are by continued 

pollution. Please do take measures to strengthen this rule before it is made final. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-78 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

I support the EPA's proposal for a parameter by parameter approach to identifying "high quality" waters (Tier II waters) 

for antidegradation purposes. 

I urge the EPA to use its authority under Section 303 to ensure that states are reviewing and updating, with effective 

public participation, their water quality standards every three years. 

Variances from water quality standards, such as Use Attainability Analysis (UAAs), are not necessary and they fail to 

protect clean water. 

I support EPA's proposal for compliance schedules, but believe that EPA's proposal does not go far enough in 

addressing problems with the use of compliance schedules by states. The EPA should limit compliance schedule to the 

length of a permit or 5 years. This is consistent with Clean Water Act and regulatory requirements for permits. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.d 

6.c 

6.d 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.a 

7.d.ii 

8.b 

9.d 

Comment ID 0141-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Clements Jane 

Organization: NA 

I am writing to urge the EPA to strengthen the Clean Water Act regulations to protect our nation's high quality waters, 

eliminate unnecessary variances, and update water quality standards in a meaningful and timely way. 

I AM WRITING SO MY GRANDCHILDREN WILL HAVE CLEAN WATER. 

States are required to review and update their water quality standards every three years, yet many states are falling far 

behind their schedules, failing to incorporate the best science and meaningful public participation. I urge the EPA to use 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-79 
6.c 

Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

7 its authority under Section 303 to ensure that states are reviewing and updating, with effective public participation, 

their water quality standards every three years. EPA has authority under the Clean Water Act to require states to adopt 

criteria, and we agree with EPA's proposal to make the obligation to do so clear in this rulemaking . 

I support EPA's proposal for compliance schedules, but believe that EPA's proposal does not go far enough in 

addressing problems with the use of compliance schedules by states and permittees. The EPA should limit compliance 

schedule to the length of a permit or 5 years. This is consistent with Clean Water Act and regulatory requirements for 

permits. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.d 

6.a 

6.d 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.a 

8.b 

9.d 

Comment ID 0142-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Kaplan Phyllis 

Organization: NA 

This is to urge that you strengthen Clean Water Act regulations, even more than the EPA now proposes to do, since the 

compliance schedule should last only as long as the permit. 

In addition, not only should the presently high-quality waters be protected, but also the dirty ones should be "cleaned" --

i.e., by ceasing to dirty them. 

Thank you! 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.d 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-80 
6.c 

Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

9.d 

7.a 

Comment ID 0143-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Wellman James 

Organization: NA 

I am writing to urge the EPA to strengthen Clean Water Act regulations to protect our nation's high quality waters, 

eliminate unnecessary variances, and update water quality standards in a meaningful and timely way. 

States are required to review and update their water quality standards every three years, yet many states are falling far 

behind their schedules, failing to incorporate the best science and meaningful public participation. I urge the EPA to use 

its authority under Section 303 to ensure that states are reviewing and updating, with effective public participation, their 

water quality standards every three years. EPA has authority under the Clean Water Act to require states to adopt 

criteria, and we agree with EPA's proposal to make the obligation to do so clear in this rulemaking. 

I support EPA's proposal for compliance schedules, but believe that EPA's proposal does not go far enough in 

addressing problems with the use of compliance schedules by states and permittees. The EPA should limit compliance 

schedule to the length of a permit or 5 years. This is consistent with Clean Water Act and regulatory requirements for 

permits. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.d 

6.a 

6.d 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.a 

8.b 

9.d 

Comment ID 0144-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Septoff Alan 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-81 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Organization: NA 

I am writing to urge the EPA to strengthen Clean Water Act regulations to protect our nation's high quality waters, 

eliminate unnecessary variances, and update water quality standards in a meaningful and timely way. 

I support the EPA's proposal for a parameter by parameter approach to identifying "high quality" waters (Tier II waters) 

for antidegradation purposes. This approach ensures that waters that are better than any given water quality standard 

will be protected for those standards and cleaned up for the others. The EPA should abandon any effort to retain the 

failed ‘water body' approach, which simply allows unnecessary and further degradation. 

States are required to review and update their water quality standards every three years, yet many states are falling far 

behind their schedules, failing to incorporate the best science and meaningful public participation. I urge the EPA to use 

its authority under Section 303 to ensure that states are reviewing and updating, with effective public participation, their 

water quality standards every three years. EPA has authority under the Clean Water Act to require states to adopt 

criteria, and we agree with EPA's proposal to make the obligation to do so clear in this rulemaking. 

Variances from water quality standards, such as Use Attainability Analysis (UAAs), are not necessary and they fail to 

protect clean water. Variances are not an "aid" to states to meet water quality standards but an excuse to avoid them. 

I support EPA's proposal for compliance schedules, but believe that EPA's proposal does not go far enough in 

addressing problems with the use of compliance schedules by states and permittees. The EPA should limit compliance 

schedule to the length of a permit or 5 years. This is consistent with Clean Water Act and regulatory requirements for 

permits. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.d 

6.a 

6.c 

6.d 

6.f 

6.g 

7.a 

7.d.ii 

8.b 

9.d 

Comment ID 0163.001.001 

Author Name: Lish Christopher 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-82 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

Organization: NA 

I strongly urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to strengthen Clean Water Act regulations to protect our 

nation's high quality waters, eliminate unnecessary variances, and update water quality standards in a meaningful and 

timely way. 

"Our duty to the whole, including to the unborn generations, bids us to restrain an unprincipled present-day minority 

from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wildlife and the larger 

movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose and method." 

-- Theodore Roosevelt 

I support the EPA's proposal for a parameter by parameter approach to identifying "high quality" waters (Tier II waters) 

for antidegradation purposes. This approach ensures that waters that are better than any given water quality standard 

will be protected for those standards and cleaned up for the others. The EPA should abandon any effort to retain the 

failed 'water body' approach, which simply allows unnecessary and further degradation. 

"As we peer into society's future, we--you and I, and our government--must avoid the impulse to live only for today, 

plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material 

assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to 

survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow." 

-- Dwight D. Eisenhower 

States are required to review and update their water quality standards every three years, yet many states are falling far 

behind their schedules, failing to incorporate the best science and meaningful public participation. I urge the EPA to use 

its authority under Section 303 to ensure that states are reviewing and updating, with effective public participation, their 

water quality standards every three years. The EPA has authority under the Clean Water Act to require states to adopt 

criteria, and we agree with EPA's proposal to make the obligation to do so clear in this rulemaking. 

"Then I say the Earth belongs to each generation during its course, fully and in its own right, no generation can contract 

debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence." 

-- Thomas Jefferson 

Variances from water quality standards, such as Use Attainability Analysis (UAAs), are not necessary and they fail to 

protect clean water. Variances are not an "aid" to states to meet water quality standards but an excuse to avoid them. 

"Every man who appreciates the majesty and beauty of the wilderness and of wild life, should strike hands with the 

farsighted men who wish to preserve our material resources, in the effort to keep our forests and our game beasts, 

game-birds, and game-fish--indeed, all the living creatures of prairie and woodland and seashore--from wanton 

destruction. Above all, we should realize that the effort toward this end is essentially a democratic movement." 

-- Theodore Roosevelt 

I support EPA's proposal for compliance schedules, but believe that EPA's proposal does not go far enough in 

addressing problems with the use of compliance schedules by states and permittees. The EPA should limit compliance 

schedule to the length of a permit or 5 years. This is consistent with Clean Water Act and regulatory requirements for 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-83 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

permits. 

"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it 

tends otherwise." 

-- Aldo Leopold 

Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Please do NOT add my name to your mailing list. I will learn about 

future developments on this issue from other sources. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.d 

6.a 

6.c 

6.d 

6.f 

9.d 

7.a 

7.d.ii 

8.b 

6.h 

Comment ID 0286-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Mizera Christopher 

Organization: 

I am writing to urge the EPA to strengthen Clean Water Act regulations to protect our nation's high quality waters, 

eliminate unnecessary variances, and update water quality standards in a meaningful and timely way. 

I support the EPA's proposal for a parameter by parameter approach to identifying "high quality" waters (Tier II waters) 

for antidegradation purposes. This approach ensures that waters that are better than any given water quality standard 

will be protected for those standards and cleaned up for the others. The EPA should abandon any effort to retain the 

failed ‘water body' approach, which simply allows unnecessary and further degradation. 

States are required to review and update their water quality standards every three years, yet many states are falling far 

behind their schedules, failing to incorporate the best science and meaningful public participation. I urge the EPA to use 

its authority under Section 303 to ensure that states are reviewing and updating, with effective public participation, their 

water quality standards every three years. EPA has authority under the Clean Water Act to require states to adopt 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-84 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

criteria, and we agree with EPA's proposal to make the obligation to do so clear in this rulemaking. 

Variances from water quality standards, such as Use Attainability Analysis (UAAs), are not necessary and they fail to 

protect clean water. Variances are not an "aid" to states to meet water quality standards but an excuse to avoid them. 

I support EPA's proposal for compliance schedules, but believe that EPA's proposal does not go far enough in 

addressing problems with the use of compliance schedules by states and permittees. The EPA should limit compliance 

schedule to the length of a permit or 5 years. This is consistent with Clean Water Act and regulatory requirements for 

permits. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.d 

6.a 

6.c 

6.d 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.a 

7.d.ii 

8.b 

9.d 

Comment ID 0287-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Dunham Christopher 

Organization: 

I am writing to urge the EPA to strengthen Clean Water Act regulations to protect our nation's high quality waters, 

eliminate unnecessary variances, and update water quality standards in a meaningful and timely way. 

I support the EPA's proposal for a parameter by parameter approach to identifying "high quality" waters (Tier II waters) 

for antidegradation purposes. This approach ensures that waters that are better than any given water quality standard 

will be protected for those standards and cleaned up for the others. The EPA should abandon any effort to retain the 

failed ‘water body' approach, which simply allows unnecessary and further degradation. 

States are required to review and update their water quality standards every three years, yet many states are falling far 

behind their schedules, failing to incorporate the best science and meaningful public participation. I urge the EPA to use 

its authority under Section 303 to ensure that states are reviewing and updating, with effective public participation, their 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-85 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Overall Rule 

water quality standards every three years. EPA has authority under the Clean Water Act to require states to adopt 

criteria, and we agree with EPA's proposal to make the obligation to do so clear in this rulemaking. 

Variances from water quality standards, such as Use Attainability Analysis (UAAs), are not necessary and they fail to 

protect clean water. Variances are not an "aid" to states to meet water quality standards but an excuse to avoid them. 

I support EPA's proposal for compliance schedules, but believe that EPA's proposal does not go far enough in 

addressing problems with the use of compliance schedules by states and permittees. The EPA should limit compliance 

schedule to the length of a permit or 5 years. This is consistent with Clean Water Act and regulatory requirements for 

permits. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

1.d 

6.a 

6.c 

6.d 

6.f 

6.g 

6.h 

7.a 

7.d.ii 

8.b 

9.d 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-86