# CHAPTER 2 Issue Category: Overall Rule Pages 2-1 – 2- 86

Response to Public Comments
Water Quality Standard s 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 2-1Chapter 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 2-2Chapter 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 2-3Chapter 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 2-4Chapter 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 2-5Chapter 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 2-6Chapter 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 2-7Chapter 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 2-8Chapter 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 2-9Chapter 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 2-10Chapter 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 2-11Chapter 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 2-12Chapter 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 2-13Chapter 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 2-14Chapter 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 2-15Chapter 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 2-16Chapter 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 2-17Chapter 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 2-18Chapter 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 2-19Chapter 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 2-20Chapter 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 2-21Chapter 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 2-22Chapter 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 2-23Chapter 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 2-24Chapter 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 2-25Chapter 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 2-26Chapter 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 2-27Chapter 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 2-28Chapter 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 2-29Chapter 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 2-30Chapter 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 2-31Chapter 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 2-32Chapter 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 2-33Chapter 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 2-34Chapter 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 2-35Chapter 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 2-36Chapter 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 2-37Chapter 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 2-38Chapter 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 2-39Chapter 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 2-40Chapter 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 2-411.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 2-42Chapter 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 2-43Chapter 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 2-44Chapter 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 2-45Chapter 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 2-46Chapter 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 2-47Chapter 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 2-48Chapter 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 2-49Chapter 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 2-50Chapter 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 ofScience 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 2-51Chapter 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 2-52Chapter 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 2-53Chapter 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 2-54Chapter 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 2-55Chapter 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 2-56Chapter 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 2-57Chapter 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 2-58Chapter 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 2-59Chapter 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 2-60Chapter 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 2-61Chapter 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 2-62Chapter 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 2-63Chapter 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 2-64Chapter 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 2-65Chapter 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 2-66Chapter 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 2-67Chapter 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 2-68Chapter 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 2-69Chapter 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 2-70Chapter 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 2-71Chapter 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 2-72Chapter 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 2-73Chapter 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

2-747.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 2-75Chapter 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 2-76Chapter 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 2-77Chapter 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 2-78Chapter 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 2-796.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 2-806.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 2-81Chapter 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 2-82Chapter 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 2-83Chapter 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 2-84Chapter 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 2-85Chapter 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