EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 1

**EPA Moderator**  **: Evelyn Washington**  **December 14, 2010 4**  **:00 p .m.**  **EST**
Operator : Good afternoon. M y name is (Ashley) and I will be your conference operator

today
. At this time, Iwould like to welcome every one to the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Changes Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent an y background noise. After the speakers' remarks, there will be a question
- and
- answer session. If yo u would like to ask a question during this time, simply please press star then the number one on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw yo ur question, press the pound key . Thank y ou. I would now like to turn the call over to Evel yn Washington, Acting Director of the Standards and Health Protection Division of EPA. Please go ahead. Evely n Washington : Hi. My

name is Evely

n Washington. As (Ashley) mentioned, I’m the Acting Director here at the Environmental Protection Agency for the Standards and Health Protection Division, and Iwant to welcome you to our second Tribal Conference Call on EPA's proposed rulemaking to revise the water qualit y standards regulation. Today's call is part of our consultation process for this rulemaking. Consultation with tribes is important to EPA not only because it's required by pres idential directive but also because you are our partners in environmental protection, and we need to work together on a government
- to - government basis. We appreciate all the input we received so far, including the inputEPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 2 received during the last Tribal lis tening session we had in August

– on August 19
. For those who are not part of that call on August 19 , Ijust want to give y ou a brief overview of what we're talking about in these Water Quality Standards Regulatory

revisions. The Water Qualit y Standard s Regulation governs how states and tribes set water qualit y standards, and it's been in place largely unchanged since 1983. We've been taking a close look at the regulation to see how we can improve its effectiveness in addressing some of the big water q uality challenges the nation is facing. For example, since we've been implementing the 1983 regulation, some important issues have come up again and again, primarily with state standards but occasionall y with tribal standards, which the regulation does n ot address explicitly . And there are also some issues that have been resolved but which have not been put into regulation. We've developed a targeted set of revision s to consider which we're planning to propose formall y in the Federal Register in the summer of 2011. At this point, we're still at the earl y stages of the rulemaking, although we have held some discussions with EPA managers on the scope and the general direction of the proposed rule. However, we are now nearing the time when we will have to put pen to paper and draft the actual proposal. So the purpose of today 's call is to solicit additional views from y ou on some key questions that remain before we complete the written proposal. Our goal remains as it was before to publish a proposal during the summer of 2011. This rulemaking will have a direct effect on tribes that have developed water quality standards under the TAS provisions of the Clean Water Act or those that are developing such standards. It could also indirectly affect tribes in other way s such as by

causing changes in the way adjacent states develop their standards. I encourage all tribes whether yo u currentl y have standards or not to express your views in today 's call.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 3 We posed 11 questions in a document that was sent out with the email notification regarding this conference call. If you have those questions, yo u may want to have them in front of you as we walk through today . But if you don’t have them as we go through each of the areas, I'll be reading the questions in full as Iask for feedback on these areas. I also want you to know that we're recording this call and we'll make the notes from the call part of our public record when we actually issue the proposal in the summer of 2011. So that basically

completes my introductory remarks. I'd like to mention that unlike the call in August, we're not going to be making a general overview presentation about the water qualit y standards regulation, instead we will be going through some of the specific revisions by provid ing a brief update on what we're considering and then asking specific questions. If at an yt ime you have something to say , simply notify the operator b y pressing the star key

followed by

the number one key

on your phone. And I understand that the phones will normally be muted but when the operator calls on you, your line will be open for you to ask a question and then we'll respond to it. We've set aside an hour and a half for this call today . So I guess, at this time, I'd like to check to see whether any body has some general questions about the rulemaking on today 's call. If so, please press the star key followed by the number one key

at this time. OK. As we're, I think, waiting to see whether there are an y questions, at this time, I'd like to have some of the other people here at EPA who will be probably be chiming in at different points during the conference call today , introduce themselves so you can connect names to voices. Christina Christensen : Hi. This is Christina Christensen. I’m in the S tandards and Health

Protection Division here at EPA. Heather Goss : This is Heather Goss. I’m also in the Standards and Health Protection

Division.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 4 Fred Leutner : Hi. This is Fred Leutner. I’m also in the Standards and Health Protection

Division. Shari Barash : And this is Shari Barash, also in the same division. ( Manjali Vlcan ): And Manjali Vlcan in the same division. Evely n Washington : It looks like we have one question. Operator : Your first question comes from the line of (Curtis Francisco)
. (Curt is Francisco) : I was just going over your questions, and you're talking about rulemaking.

And I guess, I just wanted to make more of a statement than an ything else that, you know, all of the tribes that we have here, you've listed

– there's over 50 that are going to be impacted, that are looking at

– that have standards or looking at it. But tribes all across the country over 560 each have different way s of making sure that our participants and our tribal communities are involved. And so that kind of sp urs the question, y ou ask how a tribe would promote transparency . M y question is how

– if a tribe does it and does it according to a traditional method within the tribe, (in audible ) not transparent, what other provisions of the tribe going to be able to t ake in discussing this with the tribal community
. Fred Leutner : ( Curtis ) , this is Fred Leutner. I'll try to answer y our question to make sure I understand it an ywa y. I think y our question has to do with the decision
making process the tribes use and whe ther those deliberations would have to be made public. Actually, the onl y thing that has to be made public in the end

– if your tribe were to get TAS and if y our tribe were to adopt standards

– our regulation requires that you consider an y public comments and that any consideration of those comments be written down . So y ou’d actually be writing a response to all the significant comments that y ou get. That’s the same process that all states go through

– and all the 45 tribes that are already in the proc ess are in the sy stem with TAS are doing that as well.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 5 So it's fairl y straightforward. You don’t have to write down every thing that happens on a tribal council meeting if that’s what you're concerned about. (Curtis Francisco) : Oh, that’s reall y not m y question. Iguess, my more
– my

question is more to the point of dissemination of information within the tribe itself. Here, at the State of New Mexico, tribes often get left out when the state is making a decision on something, and so we find about it oftentimes after the fact. And so, if that’s the same procedure that’s going to be played out and the tribes do it different and we get participation from the tribal community and the state doesn’t get participation, then the state has also have not been transparent, and the follow
- through with the federal government, "Hey , well, yo u need to list all your constituents." If they 're non
- tribal and they 're not here, we don’t

– they

don’t necessarily

have a say

in what we're doing within the tribal boundaries but understanding that water quality is something that goes on tribal boundaries. We don’t reall y have a means and a method for that. So I ’m kind of curious how y ou would expect tribes to take that information from non
- tribal members when they 're not a llowed in to voice an opinion. We have our village meetings every

week to discuss information and disseminate information to tribal members. Fred Leutner : OK. Well, Ithink y ou're talking about a couple of things. One is your ability

to influence the s tandards that your state may be adopting. And you're also talking about how you communicate to your tribal members. I think may

be this is something that sounds a little complicated to me. Maybe we could take that offline. I'd be happ y to talk to you l ater about that. I think... (Curtis Francisco) : That’s fine. Fred Leutner : ... other tribes have solved those problems and we'd be happy to discuss them with you. And I think I got y our
– we should have y our email address. I'd be happy to email you after the call.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 6 (Curtis Francisco) : That’s fine. Evely n Washington : OK. It looks that we have an additional question. Operator : Your next question comes from the line of (Ken Norton )
. (Ken Norton ) : Yes. This is kind of a follow
- up with the previous caller. The agency and tribes developed a TAS document to promote transparency and expedite applications

– water quality standards applications. My understanding that it does

– within that TAS guidance document, there is a provision for transparency and for tri ennial review. I don’t know if there's any
– is the question posed by the panel, is there an additional transparency or can we utilize the TAS document that has recommended procedures? Fred Leutner : The short answer is that the TAS strategy that you're r eferring to... (Ken Norton ) : Yes. Fred Leutner : ...issued in 2008, that refers to just the TAS process

– the process for a tribe to

obtain eligibility

to administer standards programs. (Ken Norton ) : OK. Fred Leutner : It does not talk about what the tribe s or states have to do to actuall y adopt

water qualit y standards. That’s the whole second process. (Ken Norton ) : OK. Fred Leutner : Second

– the second process is the one we're here to talk about today
. Evely n Washington : Right. Fred Leutner : You know, the TAS strategy

– ye s, it does emphasize transparency but we also have to consider it in a context of adopting the standards themselves. (Ken Norton ) : Fred, do you foresee an ything that is outside

– kind of the outside of that

realm that tribes are alre ady implementing? Imean, I’m kind of confused on the first question. There is a process that when we'd go to the triennial reviewEPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 7 and interacting with both the tribal community and the general public that are pretty well outlined in the CFRs. Fred Leutner : Right. (Ken Norton ) : And so my question is as long as we follow those guidances, we should be meeting the intent... Evely n Washington : Right. (Ken Norton ) : ...of the updates to our triennial review of our water quality standards package. Evely n Washington : And actuall y, let me just launch into the first question and just provide sort

of the context. Again, as Fred mentioned, we're talking about the actual water qualit y standards regulation and the triennial review process that’s part of that regulatio n. And this is a topic that piqued several participants ' interest in the August call. The triennial reviews are important because they are the one time when a tribe or state takes a look at their existing standards to see if they make sense as they are or need an y revision. They 're also important to the public and stakeholders since triennial reviews provide an opportunity for the public to provide feedback and input. In our rulemaking, we're considering way s to promote greater public transparency

in the triennial review process. And there are two questions that we want to seek feedback related to triennial review. The first question is, can yo u share with us how your tribe ensures your public is involved in a triennial review? It looks like we have one response. Operator : Your next question comes from the line of Eric Rich.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 8 Eric Rich : Yes , hi. This is Eric Rich, senior hydrologist, Navajo Nation EPA. And I’m

just going to

– I’m going to comment on number one and also kind of follow up on what (Ken) had just mentioned. In our original standards adoption for our surface water qualit y standards at Navajo Nation and also in our last triennial review process, as I recall, we were required to have a public notice obtain all the responses from the p ublic and address them

– each response

– in our package that we submitted to U
. S
. EPA, in particular, to Region 9 for the

– to make sure that, you know, we responded appropriatel y. So Idon’t know where that is in the rule necessarily , although (Ken) did mention the TAS process. But for some reason, I thought that that was alread y in the rule or policy... Evely n Washington: Yes. Eric Rich : ...for the triennial review process. Evely n Washington: Yes, it is part of the regulations for the process. And what we're talking

about here leads into the question in addition to what's already required as part of the regulation for public involvement in the triennial review process . W e're considering requiring states and tribes take public comment on the scope of the triennial review. So, Iguess
– let me just lead into the second question, we can do both questions at the same time depending on how folks want to respond to us. But at what point i n your review process do y ou involve your public and how would this change affect your process? Right now, Ithink the requirements are about the elements of the triennial review but not necessaril y the broad scope of what would initially be considered as part of that triennial review process. Eric Rich : Could you
– can you may be differentiate or give us

– so this will be my final comment for the time being, what y ou mean by scope and what the scope of a triennial review is different from the elements of the triennial review like specific numeric standards. And

– thank you.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 9 Christina Christensen : Sure. This is Christina Christensen at EPA, and I'll try to answer that question. When we refer to the scope, sometimes we found that, y ou know, a state or a tribe may onl y address a certain subset of their waters during the tri ennial review process. So, for example, they may decide that during this triennial review process, we will be looking at all lakes in the state or perhaps a certain basin in the state. And, you know, we understand that this might be due to resource constraints and I think we support that. But what we're interested in is making a change that would say , OK, if a state or tribe wishes to be kind of limiting their triennial review to a certain subset of waters or a certain scope of their waters, we would li ke them to take comment on that. Fred Leutner : In other words, there might be some members of the public who are really

concerned about some other waters, or if you're only looking at

– you're only going to review certain pollutants in your standards, the re may be some people that think, "Gee, they 're talking about dissolved oxygen but I really want to talk about dioxin and there hasn’t, in some cases, been a way for those people to comment on things other than what the state has put on the table in their revision. So we're trying to increase transparency in that way

to enable members of the public to comment on an ything on the standards even if it hasn’t been put on the table, if y ou will, by the regulating agency
. Evely n Washington : It looks like we hav e a comment. Operator : Your next question comes from the line of Scott Bulgrin
. Scott Bulgrin : Yes. My name is Scott Bulgrin . I’m with the Pueblo of Sandia . So y ou're saying basicall y what I’ m getting out of this on the scope is that if you want to expand the scope and if we're just looking at, let’s say , one basin and we have now public comments on all of the basins in

– within our water quality standards, that just

– that’s going to basically

– we're going to have to go back then and just address tho se, or how that’s going to be

– how's that going to be because if we're onl y looking at changing in our triennial review one basinEPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 10 and now, we get comments on every basin, now we got to go back and address all that. Christina Christensen : Let me... Scott B ulgrin : Can we change the whole water quality standards? We might just as well go a full
- blown triennial review every time. Christina Christensen : Right. Let me clarify that. When we say

that we're considering requiring that a state or tribe solicit co mments on the scope of their triennial review, we're not saying that the state or tribe then has to take those public comments and change the scope of their triennial review. I think what we're saying is that you can continue for that triennial review jus t looking at a certain basin or whatever subset of waters y ou're intending to look at, and that’s fine. We just want the public to have a chance to comment on the scope of the triennial review. So in other words, the state or tribe does not need to chan ge the scope of their triennial review in response to those comments, so we would expect them to solicit input from the public and give the public a chance to say , you know, actuall y we're

– you know, we have concerns about this other basin or this other s ubset of waters. But we would not expect the state or tribe to change the scope that they 're intending to be looking at. Fred Leutner : It would be... Scott Bulgrin : But during that time of our triennial review, we have to address an y comments

or written, so if this public comes in and writes comments about all the other basins, we still have to address those somehow either saying that we're not going to address them at this time at the next triennial review or we're going to have

– we still have to take no tes of them and address them. Manjali Vlcan : This is Manjali Vlcan . I think that’s the practical effect of what could happen.

And what we're thinking about is that, when we're saying that the tribe would need to address them, it doesn’t mean that the sc ope would automaticall y change. It just gives assurance to the public that the tribe has considered them and has a plan.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 11 So a perfectly

valid response would be, we are focusing on this basin at this time , and this issue we will focus on in X timeframe
. B ecause what we heard from man y stakeholders was that even if they did provide a comment they sort of got lost

– that there was no response at all . Y ou know, the public would have been satisfied if the tribes had said, "We recognize and we acknowledge yo ur comment but we will address them in X timeframe," but they weren’t even getting that response. What we are trying to do here is just give the public the assurance and a mechanism that they 're being heard. Scott Bulgrin : So that would be acceptable to p ut it in there on basic

– yo u know, if they

commented something that was outside of the scope of the training review that we stated that it would, you know, y our comment has been taken into consideration and will be addressed in a further triennial review, you know, the next time around or whatever. Manjali Vlcan : Yes. I think that if that was the same response, the same comment for four

triennial reviews, I would think that the public will probably have some reason to be upset about it but Ithink that, you know, I think that’s a perfectly valid response to a comment that’s given the first time, you know, on an issue that’s sort of outside the scope. You know, there may

be also situations where there's a comment within the basin that the state doesn’t b elieve is of concern, and then the response could be we do not believe this is a concern because

– blah, blah. Scott Volkren : Right. Thank you. Evely n Washington : It looks like we have a couple other questions

– comments. Operator : Your next question c omes from the line of Richard Kane. Richard Kane : Yes. I’m with the Ekwok Village Council. I was wondering how does this

affect Alaska? Fred Leutner : Richard, at this time, under the way the Clean Water Act is set up, there is, I think, only

one tribe that could be eligible in the entire State of Alaska toEPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 12 adopt water quality

standards under the Clean Water Act. Under the way the federal law works, the tribe has to have a recognized reservation. And I think because of the previous federal law, the Al aska Native Villages Act or whatever it was, there are no reservations that would qualify under the Clean Water Act as being able to get standards. It's unfortunate but that’s the way federal law has evolved. Richard Kane : So what y ou're saying, all the tribes in Alaska just get

– whatever the

–

whatever comes their way , they have no say ? Fred Leutner : Yes . In effect, there are

– the State of Alaska basically adopts water quality standards and it covers any area that is not an Indian country . There are some Indian country

land s there, the individual Indian allotments , so the (Alaska) standards would not apply there. But for the most part, tribes are not able to adopt standards because they do not have delineated formal reservations. Richard Kane : OK. Well, there are allotments in areas where the state changes stuff. What

rights do these allotees have in this process? Fred Leutner : At this time, unless Congress changes something, or unless EPA were to

promulgate standards, there are no water quality standards that would apply for those allotments. Shari Barash : Although

– and this is Shari Barash. You know, just as in, you know, an y

stakeholder process where the state has standards and the tribe because it neighbors, you know, a border or because th ey are covered b y a state standard if that happens to be the case, they can participate as stakeholders to the state process where they

get to comment on the scope of the state's triennial review or comment on just the changes that the state is bringing up through their triennial review or an y water qualit y standards package, so they could serve as the quote public unquote... Richard Kane : Right. Shari Barash : ...as part of that process.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 13 Fred Leutner : But that may

– I think it also make their views known to the EPA regional

office as well because EPA has to review what the state is doing, and so that’s another avenue where yo u could interact with EPA on a government
- to government basis. Richard Kane : And we've done that. I guess, what the problem is at

– it went the same route

it alway s does here, but the state does not recognize any of the tribes, and they do as they

please. And Alaska is a special place where there are gatherers

– tribes that rel y on gathering and the state does not even recognize the tribes. So, y ou know

– and you're going to go back to law. I understand that but... Fred Leutner : Your comment is certainly well noted. Richard Kane : It would be hoove me why EPA deals with states when the states don’t

recognize the other federal government s within their boundaries. You follow what I’m saying? Imean
– any way , I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Fred Leutner : OK. Thank you. Evely n Washington : OK. It looks like we have one more comment then we're going to move

on to the next area. Operator : Your next question comes from the line of Eric Rich. Eric Rich : Hi, I’m back. Regarding the scope and opening up the public comment to the

entire scope of the water quality standards document, what I see taking

– occurring with that is the same comm ents being made over and over from one triennial review to the next by the public perhaps to get a certain body of water designated in a matter that somebod y would prefer or to get a certain water qualit y standard that’s been argued against or argued for. So, Iguess, m y thinking on this is that if that is going to be the case, there should be some ty

pe of document that follows states and tribes water quality standards, which is a list of all public comments to date that should probably be published as part of the public comment so that the public can actuallyEPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 14 review previous comments on the standards to see if they have something that is different now that has not alread y been addressed. And that is just a suggestion. But I’m reall y curious how the states feel about expanding the scope of the triennial review because if the scope is alway s expanded, you need triennial review. It seems like it would just open up the same comments

– no, it just seems like it would be a great undertaking. So that’s my co mment. Christina Christensen: Thank you. And again, just to clarify , we're not suggesting that a state or

tribe would actuall y be expanding the scope of their triennial review. We're just

– what we’d be saying is that they should be taking comment and g etting input from the public on that scope and considering comments from the public. Manjali Vlcan : This is Manjali. One thing to keep in mind is the way the current regs r ead, it say s, the state shall from time to time, but at least once every three y ear s, hold a public hearing for the purposes of reviewing applicable water quality standards. So the regs themselves don’t talk about, you know, narrowing the scope. It talks about applicable water qualit y standards. And in practice, what ha s happened is that, you know, states and tribes have sort of narrowed it, so all what we're doing is sayingthat in order to meet the intent of the regulation, as long as the public is able to comment on the entire scope of the

– on the entire applicable set of applicabl e water quality standards, then that satisfies the regulatory

requirements but that we would expect the states and tribes to consider those comments. Evely n Washington : OK. With that, I ’m going to move on to antidegradation.

Antidegradation is a valuab le tool for protecting and maintaining high quality waters. The current regulation set a national policy of protecting existing uses and preventing the lowering of high water qualit y unless necessary to accommodate important economic and social developments. We have two questions in this area. Let me start with the first one. We are considering requiring that antidegradation implementation method be adopted into state and tribal standards and submit it to EPA rather than identified.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 15 Rather than simply being identified, the method would be subject to EPA review and approval. Could you share the challenges tribes have faced or would face in adopting these methods into y our regulations? OK? It looks like

– let me just move on and add the second questi on under antidegradation to be part of the mix for the conversation. Actuall y, it looks like we have a couple of comments, so let me stop there. Operator : And y ou have a follow
- up question from the line of Curtis Francisco
. Curtis Francisco : Yes. As far as your asking how tribes would face that and share the

challenges, essentially , it could stop any activity on a water bod y that EPA deems fishable and swimmable or navigable or whatever you're doing because yo u would have it set higher so there wouldn’t be any thing there. You wouldn’t be able to have y our livestock watered from there. Potentially , you can all

– potentially would have no water at all because it's being used. So it's kind of a loaded question and the short answer is it's going to have very

dramatic effects on tribes especiall y here, from our perspective, from the Pueblo of Laguna's water is alway s protected because that’s where we got our drinking water, so we set standards that’s going to be set for drinking water qualit y. They're not going to consider letting someone play in it because you might be drinking it later. It's not going to allow people to fish in it because you might got for drinking. We also got the considerations that we have. Recreation is not considered important o f having clean water for irrig ation of top land, not virtual agriculture but sustainable agriculture for your family , which you're needing to feed them and not sell commerciall y to make a big buck is a different thing, and those aren't alway s addressed. So to answer

– the short answer is that it could be dramatic and it could be

– so Isee this as a challenge that EPA could be potentially destro yi ng tribal sovereignt y if this is passed. Evely n Washington : Right. Thanks for the comment. It looks like we have one additional

comment.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 16 Operator : Your next question comes from the line of Nancy Schuldt. Nancy Schuldt : Hello. This is Nancy . I work for the Fond Du Lac Reservation in

Northeastern Minnesota. It’s an interesting question that y ou posed and I think tribes in this region might have a little bit different perspective than tribes in a more arid region where water quantity ranks right up there with water qualit y in terms of what we're looking to protect. We have found that the antidegradation clau se has been very powerful in our ability to protect our water resources up here. But Iwould also say that there have been lots and lots of discussion s at the regional level

– among the tribes, among the states, and the regional staff in Chicago

– about h ow to actuall y come up with some process or policies that actually do a good job of implementing the antideg clause or chapter in your water qualit y standards. And I think that it is still too uncertain and unresolved right now for us to

– I haven’t seen a path forward. That was the one issue that we reall y tried to focus on in our last triennial review. And we ended up not changing it because we felt that at least for the time being, ours were as good as any thing else we saw out there, but it's an area that we are constantly looking to improve and clarify

because we see it as a very powerful part of the processing in having a water qualit y standards program. Evely n Washington : Let me ask a follow
- up question to that. Do y ou see a challenge in

moving f rom the antideg methods being identified to them being actually adopted as part of the regulation? Nancy Schuldt : I guess, I’m not certain specificall y what is being proposed in terms of

changes to antideg. Is that information available somewhere? Fred Leutner : Well, Ithink, what we're saying here

– first of all, y our tribe does have water

quality standards, which means you probabl y have adopted an antidegradation policy
. Nancy Schuldt : Right.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 17 Fred Leutner : OK. What we're talking about now is the imp lementation methods, and this is

probably where y ou got into the in
- depth discussions of exactly how you're going to be implementing antidegradation. And what

– and under our reg to date, what happen ed was that a state or tribe

– all they would have to d o is sort of give us a document that identified to us somehow, how you're going to implement the antidegradation. What this (revision) would do would say , not onl y would yo u identify it to us and make it available to us but you would also adopt it as part of

– or at least adopt the key parts of it

– as an actual water quality standard into your water qualit y standards regulations or code. And that way , every body would know exactly how the program would be implemented. It would be put some certainty to th e regulated community , would give some more confidence to environmental advocates that you're going to do what the policy say s
– that t ype of thing. So looking at y our situation, have y ou actually identified any

methods y et? Are you still in the process of coming up with them? I s that what I’m hearing yo u say ? Nancy Schuldt : I think it would be safe or accurate to say that we have some language currentl y that is in our standards ordinance that speaks to how it will be implemented. But we were looking to make it more specific and to give kind of that clarit y, but it's not an area that has actuall y been challenged in an y fashion just y et so we don’t reall y know how strong or protective or enforceable it actually

is at this point. So we're still struggli ng to find that right balance. Evely n Washington : OK. It looks like we have a couple more comments on this first question

then I'll move on to the second. Operator : Next question comes from the line of Todd Thorn. Todd Thorn : Hi, this is Todd Thorn with the Colville Confederate Tribes. I just thought I'd

ask if y ou could provide a couple of examples of antideg implementation methods.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 18 Heather Goss : This is Heather Goss. I can give you some examples of things that we've seen

based on tribes including their implementation methods. So one thing that a lot of states talk in
- depth about in their implementation methods is how they 're going to identify

their high quality

waters , sometimes called Tier II waters. There's different way s of doing it. Some stat es and tribes use a parameter - by
- parameter method and others use a water body b y water body method. So they

would, y ou know, describe in their methods what are the decision
- making factors for them in assigning high quality water protection. Another thin g would be the high quality water review, so the Tier II review process like what does that consist of and what is

– what are the steps in that process, or for when there's an activit y that might lower water qualit y and a high
- qualit y water. So those are just sort of examples of some things that implementation methods might discuss in detail. You know, man y
– if yo u're asking for examples of specific implementation methods

– ye ah, if you talk to a Region 5 regional office, they could certainly point you towards the ones that exist in that region right now. Todd Thorn : OK. Thanks. Evely n Washington : OK. And I'll move on to the next question, still under the topic of

antidegradation. We are considering requiring states and tribes to conduct an alternat ives analy sis when determining if a lowering of water quality is necessary to accommodate an important economic or social development. We are considering requiring a specific option be chosen as the outcome of the alternatives analy sis, such as the least degrading feasible alternative. How might such requirements affect your tribe's antidegradation review process? Fred Leutner : While you're pondering that question, in many way s, this simply

would codify a lot of our guidance that we've had out for severa l y ears where it say s that in order to allow a lowering of water quality , the state reall y needs to take into consideration whether that lowering of water quality is necessary
. And what man y states and tribes have found is that doing that means taking a look at some of the alternatives that are available. May be there's a way

for the facility to not discharge any

thing at all as opposed to lowering the waterEPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 19 quality or may be there's a way

for them to use a different

– some different management practices. So that’s the kind of thing we're thinking of here is basically codifying a lot of what our guidance ha s said over the ye ars. Evely n Washington : And it looks like we have a comment. Operator : You have a follow
- up question from the line of Scott Bulgrin
. Scott Bulgrin : Yes . I have a question concerning this. What if

– it say s
– so do y ou want

tribes or state to look at the economic or social development of the lowering of the standard? Shouldn’t that be the facility 's job? It shouldn’t be the tribes t o go out and look at the economic and social development or the best alternatives or an ything like that? It should be presented during a hearing by the facility

if they want to change the views of the water qualit y of the tribes or the state. According to what you're saying is that states or the tribes would have to go and do and take it into that consideration. We're leaving the facilities off the hook for doing an ything. Fred Leutner : I think that would be the state ’s or tribe ’ s option to request that information.

The Clean Water Act basically does give , or our current reg does give or put the burden of proof, if yo u will, on the person that wants to lower the water quality . So they

would have to come up with that information. Scott Bulgrin ): Yes
. So yes
– you got. OK. You know, they want it lower. If y ou have a higher standard and they 'd say they like the lower because it's a social or economic development problem, they should be the ones providing you that information on why

it is such a probl em. Fred Leutner : The reason it's stated as requiring states and tribes is that ultimately , it's the

state ’s or tribe ’s s decision. It isn’t the facility 's decision as to whether it's important social and economic development

– it's the state ’s or the tri be ’s decision . In this case, yo ur tribe would have to make that decision whether they made the case or not . (The state or tribe) can require the information or get information somehow from the person who wants to lower the water quality

– the high water quality , but it's ultimately your decision as to whetherEPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 20 they made that case. And our guidance shows different way s y ou can analyze their information to decide whether they have done so. So that’s the way it works in many

states where they 're activel y doi ng a lot of Tier II reviews. Scott Bulgrin : Thank you. Evely n Washington : OK. I’m going to move on to variances. The current regulation allows

states and authorizes tribes to adopt variances as general policies for appl yi ng and implementing their water qualit y standards. The regulation does not specify how to use variances, and as a result, there's a lack of clarit y on the proper use. EPA believes establishing explicit provisions to guide the use of variances would provide regulatory clarity on what an acceptable variance is versus one that isn’t. So I ’m going to try

to take these two questions here at the same time. I’ll read through both of them, and folks can address each one or both as they comment this time. We'll try

a different approach. E PA is considering requiring that every variance have an explicit expiration date, after which an y renewal would need to be re
- justified. In addition, we are considering placing an outside cap on how long the duration may be, say , five , 15, or 20 ye ars. H ow would these changes affect your program? I f we include an outside cap, what would you recommend it be and what is y our rationale? And the second question in this area is, one idea that could make variances appealing to some people would be for the re gulation to require that progress be made towards meeting the water quality standards during a period of the variance. If progress milestones were required as part of the variance implementation, do you think your public would find variances more appealin g or less appealing? And it looks like we have one comment in that area. Operator : You have a follow
- up question from the line of Nancy Schuldt.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 21 Nancy Schuldt : Hello. Ijust wanted to say that I think it's really

important that there'll be a consideration for a timeline for how long a variance can be in place and an expiration date. Not so much for our tribal water quality standards programs as it is pertaining to the state's regulatory program. We've seen over and over again that that industry

has b een able to essentially have unending variances which is not consistent with the Clean Water Act. We've even seen that so
- called schedules of compliance with milestones and timelines for improvements and work towards compliance with the standards have no t been enforced. I would very much been in favor of seeing it strengthened. Evely n Washington : OK. Thanks for your comment. It looks like we have an additional

comment. Operator : You have a follow
- up question from the line of Scott Bulgrin
. Scott Bul grin : Yes . I agree with the previous caller on

– if progress milestones were not met,

how would they

be

– you know, what would EPA, y ou know, what would we go through to trying to get those matters. It's not being that that these milestones were put in a s a variance and they did not meet them, which we found that that has occurred previousl y, you know, in several occasions. Fred Leutner : One way that could play

out is that the variance would not

– could not be renewed unless the milestones were met in th e previous term. And so once the variance goes away , that means the underlying standard takes effect

– the strong underl yi ng standard that y ou are giving a variance to in the first place. And if the discharger cannot meet that then they 'll be

– have to g o under enforcement under the permit program. So, y ou know, there are a lot of consequences that could happen if these kinds of restrictions were placed in the variance. And we're looking at, you know, exactly how those would work and the interaction it would have with the permit process as they

would be implemented. Scott Bulgrin : Then I would suggest if that’s the case, all your most

– your NPDES permits

and all your permits are five y ears. I don’t know why you would want to haveEPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 22 a variance for 10 ye ars and especiall y if they didn’t make it, then you'd have to wait like this

– then y ou’d have to wait until the next variance to deny , you know, to take it out again. Those five ye ars are wasted. I would think that the permit schedule would be the way to go. Fred Leutner : It 's a very good comment. Thank you. Evely n Washington : It looks like we have a couple of additional comments. Operator : The next question comes from the line of Eric Rich. Eric Rich : Yes , hi. Just quickly . I was looking at our language in our water qualit y

standards regarding variances since you asked for a time, and we've adopted language. It say s a variance is for a fixed term, not to exceed three y ears. Variances are not renewable

– excuse me
– but may be reissued upon adequate justification. I think we adopted that from the State of Arizona's language. And in terms of question number six, progress milestones, I think that would definitely be a good idea although we do not have language in our water quality standards as f

ar as Ican tell with any

t ype of milestone language, but there's extensive language as, you know, it has to be a significant economic impact not to install the best available, you know, technology , etc., etc. And then regarding the woman's comment earli er where states are allowed to just reissue variances, ad infinitum, Ithink that’s something that should, you know, be definitel y required of states. And quite frankly, when I look at this document, I see states and tribes up until question five or quest ion four, I see states and tribes. I guess, this all applies to states and tribes but Isure would be very interested in how states are reacting to some of the questions that we're proposing here. All right. Thank you. Evely n Washington : It looks like we have an additional comment. Operator : You have a follow
- up question from the line of Curtis Francisco
.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 23 Curtis Francisco : Yes . My comment on those questions as I agree with the first two sort of comment on it. And it's going to be a double
- edged swo rd because I can

– this being used on the state
- side as the variance for may be (t yi ng) a tribe water. We can't make quality so we're not going to give the quantity or vice
versa. To make the quantit y, we're going to have to lower the quality. And in ea ch case, we don’t want the graded water just that we have water in the ditch if yo u can't use it, and it's not

– you can't do an ything with it. It won't support life. What's the point in having water? From a larger picture, yo u look at it from the stat es, if we lowered

– if the State of New Mexico lowers their water quality standards just so they

can get water to Texas and Texas can't use that water because it's so dirt y, then what's the point. Texas is always after New Mexico's water. But more speci ficall y getting back to m y own pueblo, Idon’t know how exactly that’s going to be something that’s going to be affected. We're in the beginning stages of developing standards. And I think variances are good but I think there's got to be some way of maki ng sure that the state, as mentioned earlier, don’t just keep giving variances to the, yo u know, infinite degree and they never enforce them. May be somebody

who's lining the pockets of a tribal senate or

– not tribal senate but a state legislature or

– wh o' s pouring a lot of money

into state coffers and y et, they 're not worried about tribal constituents. You may have higher standards below that water body , and the water that’s coming into the reservation isn’t going to meet the standard, it’s a way of sayi ng, "OK. Screw you, tribe. We don’t have to do anything so take what we give you and you'll like it." And I see that as a big problem. It's not something that tribes

– and that’s not a comfortable place that tribes want to be in. But all too often, the people in headquarters gives that power to the states and going to screw the tribes over because you don’t consider what tribal needs and wants are. They 're not as big as the state. Evely n Washington : OK. Thank you for that comment.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 24 It looks like at this point, we don’t have additional comments on the area of variances so I’m going to move on to designated uses. With regard to designated uses, Section 101(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act establishes a goal, wherever attainable, o f water quality that provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and recreation in and on the water. If a state or tribe wants to remove one of these goal uses, the regulation requires it to demonstrate that the designated use is not feasible for one of six specific factors. The regulation does not however specify which uses, if an y, must be adopted to replace the uses being removed. So let me

– there are four questions in this area. So let me go with sort of two by two and see if that work s out. The first question

– number seven is, after removing the 101(a)(2) use through a UAA, how does y our tribe generall y identify the appropriate designated use? And question eight is, is the process to remove a use the same for all designated uses i n your tribe, regardless if it's a 101(a)(2) goal use or a non - 101(a)(2) goal use such as public water supply , agriculture, irrigation and such? Fred Leutner : For those tribes that have water qualit y standards now that E PA has approved,

have you undergone an y removals of uses? And if so, y ou know, it might be useful to hear how you've identified the appropriate designated use to replace the ones that y ou've removed? Have y ou ever actually had that experience ye t? Evely n Washington : It looks like we have one comment in this area. Operator : You do have a follow
- up question from the line of Eric Rich. Eric Rich : Yes , just real quickl y. We, at the Navajo Nation, have never removed a

designated use through a UAA or b y other means, I guess. We're supposed to do it through UAA, of course, but we have never removed one. So it's almost a non - issue for us, I guess.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 25 Evely n Washington : OK. Let me pull the other two questions into the mix since people are

thinking about this area of designated uses. Question nine. We are considering requiring in regulation that states and tribes provide documentation or conduct an evaluation in order to remove a non 101(a)(2) use such as a public water suppl y use. How would this impact yo ur current practice? Oh, such an eva luation would not be based on attainability . How would this impact y our current practice? And then question 10. We understand a few states have not classified all of their waters, but I don’t think we are sure about kind of all of the tribes that have standards. Is it true for y our tribe in terms of not

– waters that are not classified? We have heard from some states that it could be beneficial to have EPA specified that all waters must be designated to protect 101(a)(2) goal uses unless demonstrated to be unattainable through a UAA. How would this affect the way

your tribe is administering its standards? Would it be helpful in dealing with an adjacent state that might not have adopted standards for shared waters or for other state waters for which the tribe has an interest? Operator : You have a follow
- up question from the line of Nancy Schuldt. Nancy Schuldt : Yes, hello. I think that this is an example that’s playing out right now in the

State of Minnesota as they're going through a triennial rev iew as they are considering changing a criterion that is important for protecting agricultural use that several of the tribes in Minnesota has incorporated into our water quality standards. The state had taken a different pact and had categorized that und er kind of a generic agricultural use, and I think that it would be really helpful and important that a requirement be made for waters to be classified in this fashion so that the standards could be linked to the designated use more clearl y. Evely n Washin gton : OK. Thank you for that comment. Fred Leutner : So that would be

– you're referring to the non 101(a)(2) use of agricultural

use?EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 26 Nancy Schuldt : Yes. Fred Leutner : Right. And so it'd be something like what

– rice gathering or protecting

wild... Nan cy Schuldt : That’s right. It' s
– in this case, it has to do with the protection of manoomin or

wild rice. Fred Leutner : Yes
. Evely n Washington : OK. It looks like we don’t have an y additional comments in this area, so

I’m going to move on to our last qu estion area. Over the ye ars, there have been recurring instances of confusion or misunderstanding about what constitutes an EPA A dministrat or’s determination. For example, in some cases, EPA has sent routine letters suggesting priorities to states to co nsider when revising their water qualit y standards. Some courts have construed these kinds of communications to states as an official EPA A dministrat or’s determination that oblige EPA to promulgate water quality standards. In this area, we have one ques tion . W e are considering clarifying in the regulation that in order to constitute an EPA A dministrat or’s determination, a document must be signed by the A dministrator and contain a statement in the document that a determination under 303(c)(4)(B) that it i s a determination under 303(c)(4)(B). We think this will allow EPA to provide tribes advice and recommendations in writing about their standards without a concern that such letters will be construed as a determination that obliges the agency to promulgate new or revised standards. How will this affect y our tribe's current practices? It looks like we have a comment. Operator : You have a follow
- up question from the line of Eric Rich. Eric Rich : Yes. I guess, we move a little bit quickly an yhow. But ba ck to number 10...EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 27 Evely n Washington : Sure. Eric Rich : ...you're going to specify that all waters must be designated to protect

101(a)(2) goal uses unless demonstrated to be on the table through UAA. For all the water bodies on the Navajo Nation, we have a minimum set of designated uses which are fish consumption, aquatic wildlife habitat and

– aquatic and wildlife habitat

– excuse me
– and secondary human contact, which is a portion of recreation in and on the water. I believe that recreation in the wate r, most tribes and states usually adopt a full body contact or swimming designated use if that’s you' re interpretation of 101(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act, which I’m reading right now from my copy here. We would not

– we only put in a swimming designated use or a full body contact designated use for water bodies which have water ye ar - round. We have man y ephemeral waters out here in the arid west, so they are dry most of the y ear, and we definitely do not want people to try to swim in them when they

actual ly flow because it's usuall y very dangerous. So I could see a problem with that as per your question number 10. Evely n Washington : OK. Thanks. Operator : And I would like to remind every one, in order to ask a question, please press

star then the number one on y our telephone key pad. Evely n Washington : I guess, as we're waiting to see whether there are any additional comments that folks have , I forgot to mention earlier that after this call, if additional questions or thoughts or view come to mind, you can send us an email and we'll consider your comments. Your email should go to SHPD for Standards and Health Protection Division

– SHPD comments@epa.gov. And you can submit your comments at any time. I think we're looking for

– it would probably be most us eful to us to rece ive the comments by

January 10 , but if you send them later, I think we'll still have time to be able to take a look at them as we write the proposal.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 28 I just want folks also to know that as part of this listening session, it's not part o f the formal public comment period so we won't be formall y responding to comments we receive but we will be reading and considering every comment as we move forward in developing the proposal. It looks like we have a comment. Operator : And y our next que stion comes from the line of Alex Cabillo. Alex Cabillo : Thank you for letting me know how to finally get on and make a comment towards the end here. I came on a little bit late. I just had

– the first comment Iwould like to go back to early on was on the triennial review. One of the things that I think my tribe

– we take these comments outside of the scope of our review. We'll accept them, acknowledge them and respond to the entity asking the question that we've addressed this issue in a way or we h ave not addressed it or it's not a part of the issue, and I'd take it from a position of authority and, you know, just sort of close the door to that process. One of the things I was concerned about is that it seems like if y ou open this up here , we have to be very sensitive that, y ou know, to outside the public is that there are entities that would like to see tribe not have water quality standards, and I can see that this is really gumming up the mess for tribes that are working on establishing standard s. I'll stop there for now. Evely n Washington : Thanks for your comment. I ’m glad you're able to join us and comment.

Are there an y other comments on any of the areas that we've gone through here in terms of what we're thinking about for the proposal o n water quality standards revision? Operator : Again, to ask a question, please press star one . You do have a follow
- up

question from the line of Curtis Francisco
. Curtis Francisco : Yes. I would just want to follow up on question number 10 and you are
– I

just wanted to, you know, reiterate what was represented by the Navajos.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 29 We're in the same kind of boat here. We're on the Colorado plateau, and it doesn’t make a lot of sense to have people trying to swim in an arroy o that has the consistency

of a We ndy 's Frost y unless you want to put politicians in there and that’s a good way

to get rid of them but then they

– it's kind of a question that Idon’t think y ou guy s have looked at adequately . You need to look at different areas of the country . It may be applicable in the Washington State

– the Washington, D.C. area. They ’ve got big rivers, but it’s not really something that makes a lot of sense. And it seems downright stupid when yo u' re sitting here in the arid southwest. And for us, it's a common se nse, you're not going to be in a water body when it's muddy

because it’s going to be having a water that’s coming down and probably you' re going to drown. Your likelihood of survival is probabl y less than one percent. So kind of a loaded question, Igues s, may be or reall y idiotically

stupid. Idon't know which way to really take a look at it, but it does pose some other questions specificall y that relate to other areas on that. And it's OK. Also, tying into that, being in the arid southwest, we have w ater

– arro yos that only have water may

be two percent of the ye ar. A lot of those are where we use shallow groundwater under alluvial aquifers. That alluvial aquifer is what provides all the drinking water for the community . So y ou
– even though you got debris flow, which is coming down the arroy o, it's very turbid. Mother nature does a good job of filtering it out with natural processes sitting into the ground so we can pump that out later to drink it. And I don’t see that that’s actually addressed i n here. I see that as a problem especiall y here for (in audible ) or may be man y other tribes here in the southwest as we won't have good drinking water. We don’t have the best drinking water now, but it's going to be really impact our ability

to get shallo w alluvial drinking water that’s tied to the surface water body, so there's a big impact. I don’t believe honestly

that this is what we get, and Ithink that it's a big problem and that does need further consideration and it’s going to have to

– on an ar ea of the country

basis, it can't be something provided by a group ofEPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 30 sitting in an office not unless they want to get out in the fields and cover a lot of terrain on foot. I don’t

– that idea and I strongly, strongl y urge you to do that. Evely n Washingt on : Yes . I just want to also note that, in here, we're talking about designating

101(a)(2) uses unless it can be demonstrated that it's unattainable. So there is that sort of component of if it doesn’t make sense, if it's unattainable, there's sort of an out. It's not just automatically blanketed e very

thing is going to be 101(a)(2) use. But thanks for the comment. It looks like we have a couple of additional comments. Operator : You have a follow
- up question from the line of Alex Cabillo. Alex Cabill o : Two comments. The first one , Iparticipated in your first webinar or

conference call, and one of the questions that was asked the n and I’m not sure if it's been answered yet is, is there going to be a funding available to tribe s associated with these p roposed changes if it is going to affect? That’s the first question or comment. The second one is that, as a water resource manager from m y tribe, looking out for protection of our standards and our resources, I’m participating in this conference call, webinar

– whatever we call it, but this does not

– cannot be construed as consultation with the Hualapai tribe. That would be my tribal leadership. Those are my two comments. Operator : OK. You have a

– I’m sorry . You have another question from Dean Go ggles. Dean Goggles : Yes. This is kind of a general question. We're one of the large land
- based

tribes in the west, and most of these changes cost money . And how do we fund it when our (section) 106 (grant) keeps shrinking every y ear? So it goes back to the dollar signs. My question

– that’s m y comment. Fred Leutner : Yes , this is Fred Leutner. Just to provide a little perspective on this, our

general view is that the changes that we're talking about here are not going to be a significant addition to what states or tribes have to invest in administering water qualit y standards. There may be some shifting, some changes but weEPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 31 have not actually

– we will be considering comments that we get once the proposal is out there and people can get a real good v iew of exactly what every aspect of it is

– we'll be considering the possible burden on states and tribes to implement these specific changes. But from a perspective of a tribe that has not actually adopted or gone through the TAS process and adopted wat er quality standards y et, I’m not sure that the kinds of adjustments we're making here to this water quality standards regulation would make that much difference to the total, y ou know, investment you would make. I’m not trying to belittle the amount of i nvestment you'll need to make. You do have to

– you know, you can talk to tribes that have alread y gotten standards and you'll find that it takes a good amount of work to

– especially to develop them in the first place. But I’m not sure that the changes we're talking about here would be

– would make a huge difference to that overall investment that you would be making. That’s something we certainly

take comments on when people get a good look at the final proposal. Evely n Washington : Yes . And I guess, I just want to add to the comment that Fred just made

and that a lot of what we're looking at here is actually codifying or writing down, in regulation, practices that are already underway

in managing the water qualit y standards program. So we're just try ing to put it on the books so that the practices that have currently evolved with the lack of specificit y in the current regulation. And it looks like we have additional comments. Operator : Your next question comes from the line of Eric Morris. Eric Mo rris : Yes, hello. This is Eric Morris from the Native Village of White Mountain.

And my comment is that we support both of the proposals on the antidegradation policy
. As an Alaskan village, we are subject to the state's water quality standards, and I would really

like to know what the methods are that they are going to use to implement their antidegradation policy . And Ialso think it's going toEPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 32 be a good thing to have them conduct an anal ys is to determine the least degrading alternative to a permitti ng project. So thank you. Evely n Washington : Thank you for y our comment. It looks like we have a couple of additional

comments. Operator : You have a follow
- up question from the line of Curtis Francisco
. Curtis Francisco : Yes . I just wanted to reiterate on the comment that was raised just a little bit

earlier about consultation. And I also wanted to make the comment that as far as the Pueblo of Laguna g oes , this does not constitute consultation with the P ueblo . T alking with the program but consultatio n is with the tribal council and our elect ed officials. So as far as tribal policy , this does not constitute consultation with the tribe. Evely n Washington : Thank you for that comment. We have an additional comment. Operator : You have a follow
- up quest ion from the line of Todd Thorn. Todd Thorn : Hi. Ijust wanted to speak to y our question 10 again. And Iguess, as a code

administrator, I really

like to be able to explain to the public regulations that make sense. And I guess, I’m kind of onboard with a couple of the previous comments from down in the southwest that we have a lot of streams on the Colville Reservation that w i ll never support fish or swimming depending on how we kind of divv y up the beneficial uses. They certainly contribute downstre am to waters where swimming or fishing could take place. But

– I guess, you know, if we just want the waters to meet a certain water quality

standard, may

be we should just do away with the beneficial use as part of the regulation and just go with standard s because I reall y think that it makes sense to appl y the standard where you have waters that

– where a use could actuall y be conducted. Evely n Washington : OK. Fred Leutner : I think for the people that have been commenting, particularl y about the

recreat ion uses in arid areas. I mean, this is not a new issue. There are manyEPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 33 states that have adopted standards, and we've accepted UAAs that allow for the removing of a recreation use where it just doesn’t make sense. And on the issue of aquatic life uses in arid areas, there are a number of issues that are raised b y that situation and we've actuall y had some task forces going over the ye ars to try

to address how we deal with ephemeral streams and intermittent streams and what does it reall y mean to have aq uatic life in those situations. That’s probably a topic for another call at another time, but we have noted your comments here and we'll make sure that at least when we're putting pen to paper on our preamble that we try to address some of these issues so that people aren't left in the dark as to what we really mean. I don’t think this should be read to mean that we're trying to insist that the goal uses be imposed every where. The UAA process can be

– we've made it pretty clear that the UAA process is there for people to use. It can be simple in many cases. It can be more complex in other cases but it's there to be used where necessary

to ensure that the right standards are in place for all waters of the U.S. Evely n Washington : OK. With that, Idon’t see an y additional comments at this time, so I think we're at the end of the call here. So I wanted to thank every body for participating in today 's call and you've given us valuable information that we're going to spread, and others have said, it's going to be taken into consideration as we proceed with drafting our rulemaking proposal on the water qualit y standards revision. Again, if questions or thoughts or views come to mind after this call, you can send us an email at SHPD comments@epa.gov. And y ou can submit your comments at an yt ime but it'll be help ful to have them by January 10
. So if there aren't an ym ore questions at this point, I'd like to thank folks again for their participation and we look forward to continuing the consultation process thr ough this important rulemaking. Operator : This concludes today 's conference call. You may now disconnect.EPA Moderator: Evelyn Washington 12
- 14
- 10 , 4 :00 p.m. ES T Confirmation # 27877415

Page 34

END