EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

Confirmation # 27877415

Page 1

EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

December 14, 2010

4:00 p.m. EST

Operator: Good afternoon. My name is (Ashley) and I will be your conference operator 

today.

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

Regulatory Changes Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to 

prevent any background noise.

After the speakers' remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. If 

you would like to ask a question during this time, simply please press star then 

the number one on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw 

your question, press the pound key. Thank you.

I would now like to turn the call over to Evelyn Washington, Acting Director 

of the Standards and Health Protection Division of EPA. Please go ahead.

Evelyn Washington: Hi. My name is Evelyn Washington. As (Ashley) mentioned, I’m the 

Acting Director here at the Environmental Protection Agency for the 

Standards and Health Protection Division, and I want to welcome you to our 

second Tribal Conference Call on EPA's proposed rulemaking to revise the 

water quality 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

presidential 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 input 
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

Confirmation # 27877415

Page 2

received during the last Tribal listening session we had in August – on August 

19.

For those who are not part of that call on August 19, I just want to give you a 

brief overview of what we're talking about in these Water Quality Standards 

Regulatory revisions.

The Water Quality Standards Regulation governs how states and tribes set 

water quality 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 quality 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 occasionally with tribal standards, which the regulation does not 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 

revisions to consider which we're planning to propose formally in the Federal 

Register in the summer of 2011.

At this point, we're still at the early 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 you 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 ways such as by causing changes in the way adjacent states develop 

their standards. I encourage all tribes whether you currently have standards or 

not to express your views in today's call.
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

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, you 

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 I ask 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 quality standards regulation, instead we will be 

going through some of the specific revisions by providing a brief update on 

what we're considering and then asking specific questions.

If at anytime you have something to say, simply notify the operator by 

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 anybody 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 any 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 Standards 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. EST

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.

Evelyn Washington: It looks like we have one question.

Operator: Your first question comes from the line of (Curtis Francisco).

(Curtis 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 anything 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 

ways of making sure that our participants and our tribal communities are 

involved.

And so that kind of spurs the question, you ask how a tribe would promote 

transparency. My question is how – if a tribe does it and does it according to 

a traditional method within the tribe, (inaudible) not transparent, what other 

provisions of the tribe going to be able to take in discussing this with the tribal 

community.

Fred Leutner: (Curtis), this is Fred Leutner. I'll try to answer your question to make sure I 

understand it anyway. I think your question has to do with the decisionmaking process the tribes use and whether those deliberations would have to 

be made public. Actually, the only thing that has to be made public in the end 

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

regulation requires that you consider any public comments and that any

consideration of those comments be written down. So you’d actually be 

writing a response to all the significant comments that you get. That’s the 

same process that all states go through – and all the 45 tribes that are already

in the process are in the system with TAS are doing that as well.
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

Confirmation # 27877415

Page 5

So it's fairly straightforward. You don’t have to write down everything that 

happens on a tribal council meeting if that’s what you're concerned about.

(Curtis Francisco): Oh, that’s really not my question. I guess, 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, 

you 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 really have a means and a method for that. So I’m kind of curious 

how you would expect tribes to take that information from non-tribal 

members when they're not allowed 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, I think you're talking about a couple of things. One is your ability 

to influence the standards that your state may be adopting. And you're also 

talking about how you communicate to your tribal members.

I think maybe this is something that sounds a little complicated to me. Maybe 

we could take that offline. I'd be happy to talk to you later 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 your – we should have your email address. I'd be 

happy to email you after the call.
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

Confirmation # 27877415

Page 6

(Curtis Francisco): That’s fine.

Evelyn 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 triennial 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 referring 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 tribes or states have to do to actually adopt 

water quality 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.

Evelyn Washington: Right.

Fred Leutner: You know, the TAS strategy – yes, 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 anything that is outside – kind of the outside of that 

realm that tribes are already implementing? I mean, I’m kind of confused on 

the first question. There is a process that when we'd go to the triennial review 
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

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...

Evelyn Washington: Right.

(KenNorton): ...of the updates to our triennial review of our water quality standards 

package.

Evelyn Washington: And actually, 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 quality 

standards regulation and the triennial review process that’s part of that 

regulation. 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 any 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 ways 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 

you 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. EST

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 quality 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 public 

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 appropriately. So I don’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 already in the rule or policy...

Evelyn Washington: Yes.

Eric Rich: ...for the triennial review process.

Evelyn 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. We're 

considering requiring states and tribes take public comment on the scope of 

the triennial review.

So, I guess – 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 in your review process do you involve your public and how 

would this change affect your process? Right now, I think the requirements 

are about the elements of the triennial review but not necessarily the broad 

scope of what would initially be considered as part of that triennial review 

process.

Eric Rich: Could you – can you maybe differentiate or give us – so this will be my final 

comment for the time being, what you 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. EST

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, you know, a state or a 

tribe may only address a certain subset of their waters during the triennial 

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 like 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, there 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 anything on the standards even if it 

hasn’t been put on the table, if you will, by the regulating agency.

Evelyn Washington: It looks like we have 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 you're 

saying basically 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 those, or how that’s going to be – how's that going to be 

because if we're only looking at changing in our triennial review one basin 
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

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 Bulgrin: 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 comments 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 just looking at a certain basin or 

whatever subset of waters you'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 change 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, 

actually we're – you know, we have concerns about this other basin or this 

other subset 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 any 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 notes 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 scope would automatically 

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. EST

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. Because what we heard 

from many stakeholders was that even if they did provide a comment they sort 

of got lost – that there was no response at all. You know, the public would 

have been satisfied if the tribes had said, "We recognize and we acknowledge 

your 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 put it in there on basic – you know, if they

commented something that was outside of the scope of the training review that 

we stated that it would, you know, your 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 I think 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 believe 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.

Evelyn Washington: It looks like we have a couple other questions – comments.

Operator: Your next question comes 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 to 
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

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 Alaska 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 you'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 lands 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, any 

stakeholder process where the state has standards and the tribe because it 

neighbors, you know, a border or because they are covered by 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 any water quality 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. EST

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 you could interact with EPA on a government-togovernment basis.

Richard Kane: And we've done that. I guess, what the problem is at – it went the same route 

it always 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 rely on 

gathering and the state does not even recognize the tribes. So, you 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 behoove me why EPA deals with states when the states don’t 

recognize the other federal governments within their boundaries. You follow 

what I’m saying? I mean – anyway, I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Fred Leutner: OK. Thank you.

Evelyn 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 comments 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 somebody would prefer or to get a certain 

water quality standard that’s been argued against or argued for.

So, I guess, my thinking on this is that if that is going to be the case, there 

should be some type 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 actually
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

Confirmation # 27877415

Page 14

review previous comments on the standards to see if they have something that 

is different now that has not already been addressed. And that is just a 

suggestion.

But I’m really curious how the states feel about expanding the scope of the 

triennial review because if the scope is always 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 comment.

Christina Christensen:Thank you. And again, just to clarify, we're not suggesting that a state or 

tribe would actually be expanding the scope of their triennial review. We're 

just – what we’d be saying is that they should be taking comment and getting 

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 read, it 

says, the state shall from time to time, but at least once every three years, 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 quality standards. And in practice, what 

has happened is that, you know, states and tribes have sort of narrowed it, so 

all what we're doing is saying that 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 applicable water quality standards, then that satisfies 

the regulatory requirements but that we would expect the states and tribes to 

consider those comments.

Evelyn Washington: OK. With that, I’m going to move on to antidegradation.

Antidegradation is a valuable 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 quality 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. EST

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 your regulations?

OK? It looks like – let me just move on and add the second question under 

antidegradation to be part of the mix for the conversation. Actually, it looks 

like we have a couple of comments, so let me stop there.

Operator: And you 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 body that EPA 

deems fishable and swimmable or navigable or whatever you're doing because 

you would have it set higher so there wouldn’t be anything there. You 

wouldn’t be able to have your 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 especially here, from our perspective, 

from the Pueblo of Laguna's water is always protected because that’s where 

we got our drinking water, so we set standards that’s going to be set for 

drinking water quality. 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 of having clean water for irrigation of top land, not virtual 

agriculture but sustainable agriculture for your family, which you're needing 

to feed them and not sell commercially to make a big buck is a different thing, 

and those aren't always addressed.

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

so I see this as a challenge that EPA could be potentially destroying tribal 

sovereignty if this is passed.

Evelyn 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. EST

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 you 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 quality in terms of what we're looking to protect.

We have found that the antidegradation clause has been very powerful in our 

ability to protect our water resources up here. But I would also say that there 

have been lots and lots of discussions at the regional level – among the tribes, 

among the states, and the regional staff in Chicago – about how to actually 

come up with some process or policies that actually do a good job of 

implementing the antideg clause or chapter in your water quality 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 really 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 anything 

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 quality standards program.

Evelyn Washington: Let me ask a follow-up question to that. Do you see a challenge in 

moving from the antideg methods being identified to them being actually

adopted as part of the regulation?

Nancy Schuldt: I guess, I’m not certain specifically what is being proposed in terms of 

changes to antideg. Is that information available somewhere?

Fred Leutner: Well, I think, what we're saying here – first of all, your tribe does have water 

quality standards, which means you probably have adopted an antidegradation 

policy.

Nancy Schuldt: Right.
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

Confirmation # 27877415

Page 17

Fred Leutner: OK. What we're talking about now is the implementation methods, and this is 

probably where you 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 happened was that a state or tribe 

– all they would have to do 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 only would you 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 quality 

standards regulations or code. And that way, everybody would know exactly

how the program would be implemented. It would be put some certainty to 

the regulated community, would give some more confidence to environmental 

advocates that you're going to do what the policy says – that type of thing.

So looking at your situation, have you actually identified any methods yet? 

Are you still in the process of coming up with them? Is that what I’m hearing 

you say?

Nancy Schuldt: I think it would be safe or accurate to say that we have some language 

currently 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 clarity, but it's not an area that has actually been challenged in any 

fashion just yet so we don’t really know how strong or protective or 

enforceable it actually is at this point. So we're still struggling to find that 

right balance.

Evelyn 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 you could provide a couple of examples of antideg implementation 

methods.
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

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 ways of doing it. Some states and tribes use a 

parameter-by-parameter method and others use a water body by water body 

method. So they would, you know, describe in their methods what are the 

decision-making factors for them in assigning high quality water protection.

Another thing 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 activity that might lower water quality and a 

high-quality water. So those are just sort of examples of some things that 

implementation methods might discuss in detail.

You know, many – if you're asking for examples of specific implementation 

methods – yeah, 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.

Evelyn 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 

alternatives analysis 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 analysis, 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 ways, this simply would codify

a lot of our guidance that we've had out for several years where it says that in 

order to allow a lowering of water quality, the state really needs to take into 

consideration whether that lowering of water quality is necessary.

And what many states and tribes have found is that doing that means taking a 

look at some of the alternatives that are available. Maybe there's a way for the 

facility to not discharge anything at all as opposed to lowering the water 
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

Confirmation # 27877415

Page 19

quality or maybe 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 has said over the years.

Evelyn 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 says – so do you 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 

to go out and look at the economic and social development or the best 

alternatives or anything like that? It should be presented during a hearing by

the facility if they want to change the views of the water quality 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 anything.

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 you 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 you 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 problem.

Fred Leutner: The reason it's stated as requiring states and tribes is that ultimately, it's the 

state’s or tribe’ss 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 tribe’s 

decision. In this case, your 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 whether 
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

Confirmation # 27877415

Page 20

they made that case. And our guidance shows different ways you can analyze 

their information to decide whether they have done so. So that’s the way it 

works in many states where they're actively doing a lot of Tier II reviews.

Scott Bulgrin: Thank you.

Evelyn 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 applying 

and implementing their water quality standards. The regulation does not 

specify how to use variances, and as a result, there's a lack of clarity 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.

EPA is considering requiring that every variance have an explicit expiration 

date, after which any 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 years. How would these changes affect your program? If we 

include an outside cap, what would you recommend it be and what is your 

rationale?

And the second question in this area is, one idea that could make variances 

appealing to some people would be for the regulation 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 

appealing 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. EST

Confirmation # 27877415

Page 21

Nancy Schuldt: Hello. I just 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 been 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 not been enforced. I would very much been in favor of seeing it 

strengthened.

Evelyn 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 Bulgrin: Yes. I agree with the previous caller on – if progress milestones were not met, 

how would they be – you know, what would EPA, you know, what would we 

go through to trying to get those matters. It's not being that that these 

milestones were put in as a variance and they did not meet them, which we 

found that that has occurred previously, 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 the previous term. And so once 

the variance goes away, that means the underlying standard takes effect – the 

strong underlying standard that you are giving a variance to in the first place. 

And if the discharger cannot meet that then they'll be – have to go under 

enforcement under the permit program.

So, you 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 years. I don’t know why you would want to have 
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

Confirmation # 27877415

Page 22

a variance for 10 years and especially if they didn’t make it, then you'd have 

to wait like this – then you’d have to wait until the next variance to deny, you 

know, to take it out again. Those five years 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.

Evelyn 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 quality 

standards regarding variances since you asked for a time, and we've adopted 

language. It says a variance is for a fixed term, not to exceed three years. 

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 far as I can tell with any type 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 earlier where states are allowed to 

just reissue variances, ad infinitum, I think that’s something that should, you 

know, be definitely required of states. And quite frankly, when I look at this 

document, I see states and tribes up until question five or question four, I see 

states and tribes. I guess, this all applies to states and tribes but I sure would 

be very interested in how states are reacting to some of the questions that 

we're proposing here.

All right. Thank you.

Evelyn 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. EST

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 sword because I can –

this being used on the state-side as the variance for maybe (tying) a tribe 

water. We can't make quality so we're not going to give the quantity or viceversa.

To make the quantity, we're going to have to lower the quality. And in each 

case, we don’t want the graded water just that we have water in the ditch if 

you can't use it, and it's not – you can't do anything with it. It won't support 

life. What's the point in having water?

From a larger picture, you look at it from the states, 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 dirty, then what's 

the point. Texas is always after New Mexico's water.

But more specifically getting back to my own pueblo, I don’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 making sure that the state, as mentioned 

earlier, don’t just keep giving variances to the, you know, infinite degree and 

they never enforce them. Maybe somebody who's lining the pockets of a 

tribal senate or – not tribal senate but a state legislature or – who's pouring a 

lot of money into state coffers and yet, 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 

saying, "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.

Evelyn Washington: OK. Thank you for that comment.
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

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, of 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 any, 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 works out.

The first question – number seven is, after removing the 101(a)(2) use 

through a UAA, how does your tribe generally identify the appropriate 

designated use? And question eight is, is the process to remove a use the 

same for all designated uses in 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 quality standards now that EPA has approved, 

have you undergone any removals of uses? And if so, you know, it might be 

useful to hear how you've identified the appropriate designated use to replace 

the ones that you've removed? Have you ever actually had that experience 

yet?

Evelyn 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 quickly. We, at the Navajo Nation, have never removed a 

designated use through a UAA or by 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. EST

Confirmation # 27877415

Page 25

Evelyn 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 supply use. How would this impact 

your current practice? Oh, such an evaluation would not be based on 

attainability. How would this impact your 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 your 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 review 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 under 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 

clearly.

Evelyn Washington: 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. EST

Confirmation # 27877415

Page 26

Nancy Schuldt: Yes.

Fred Leutner: Right. And so it'd be something like what – rice gathering or protecting 

wild...

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

wild rice.

Fred Leutner: Yes.

Evelyn Washington: OK. It looks like we don’t have any additional comments in this area, so 

I’m going to move on to our last question area.

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

misunderstanding about what constitutes an EPA Administrator’s 

determination. For example, in some cases, EPA has sent routine letters 

suggesting priorities to states to consider when revising their water quality 

standards. Some courts have construed these kinds of communications to 

states as an official EPA Administrator’s determination that oblige EPA to 

promulgate water quality standards.

In this area, we have one question. We are considering clarifying in the 

regulation that in order to constitute an EPA Administrator’s determination, a 

document must be signed by the Administrator and contain a statement in the 

document that a determination under 303(c)(4)(B) that it is 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 your 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 anyhow. But back to number 10...
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

Confirmation # 27877415

Page 27

Evelyn 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 water, 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 year-round. 

We have many ephemeral waters out here in the arid west, so they are dry 

most of the year, and we definitely do not want people to try to swim in them 

when they actually flow because it's usually very dangerous. So I could see a 

problem with that as per your question number 10.

Evelyn Washington: OK. Thanks.

Operator: And I would like to remind everyone, in order to ask a question, please press 

star then the number one on your telephone keypad.

Evelyn 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 – SHPDcomments@epa.gov. And you can 

submit your comments at anytime.

I think we're looking for – it would probably be most useful to us to receive 

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. EST

Confirmation # 27877415

Page 28

I just want folks also to know that as part of this listening session, it's not part 

of the formal public comment period so we won't be formally 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 your next question 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 I would 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 have 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 you open this 

up here, we have to be very sensitive that, you 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 standards. I'll stop there for now.

Evelyn Washington: Thanks for your comment. I’m glad you're able to join us and comment.

Are there any other comments on any of the areas that we've gone through 

here in terms of what we're thinking about for the proposal on 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. EST

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 arroyo that has 

the consistency of a Wendy's Frosty 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 I don’t think you guys 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 

you're sitting here in the arid southwest.

And for us, it's a common sense, 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 probably less 

than one percent. So kind of a loaded question, I guess, maybe or really 

idiotically stupid. I don't know which way to really take a look at it, but it 

does pose some other questions specifically that relate to other areas on that. 

And it's OK.

Also, tying into that, being in the arid southwest, we have water – arroyos that 

only have water maybe two percent of the year. 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 you – even though you 

got debris flow, which is coming down the arroyo, 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 in here. I see that as a problem 

especially here for (inaudible) or maybe many 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 shallow 

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 I think that it's a big 

problem and that does need further consideration and it’s going to have to –

on an area of the country basis, it can't be something provided by a group of 
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

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, strongly urge you to do 

that.

Evelyn Washington: 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 everything 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 Cabillo: Two comments. The first one, I participated in your first webinar or 

conference call, and one of the questions that was asked then and I’m not sure 

if it's been answered yet is, is there going to be a funding available to tribes

associated with these proposed 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 my 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 Goggles.

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 year? So it goes 

back to the dollar signs. My question – that’s my 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 quality standards. There may be some shifting, some changes but we 
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

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 view 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 water quality standards yet, 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, you know, 

investment you would make. I’m not trying to belittle the amount of 

investment you'll need to make. You do have to – you know, you can talk to 

tribes that have already 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.

Evelyn 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 quality standards program. So we're just trying to put it on the books so 

that the practices that have currently evolved with the lack of specificity in the 

current regulation.

And it looks like we have additional comments.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Eric Morris.

Eric Morris: 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 I also think it's going to 
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

Confirmation # 27877415

Page 32

be a good thing to have them conduct an analysis to determine the least 

degrading alternative to a permitting project. So thank you.

Evelyn Washington: Thank you for your 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 goes, this does not constitute consultation with the 

Pueblo. Talking with the program but consultation is with the tribal council 

and our elected officials. So as far as tribal policy, this does not constitute 

consultation with the tribe.

Evelyn Washington: Thank you for that comment. We have an additional comment.

Operator: You have a follow-up question from the line of Todd Thorn.

Todd Thorn: Hi. I just wanted to speak to your question 10 again. And I guess, 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 will never support fish or swimming depending on 

how we kind of divvy up the beneficial uses.

They certainly contribute downstream 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, maybe we should just do away with the 

beneficial use as part of the regulation and just go with standards because I 

really think that it makes sense to apply the standard where you have waters 

that – where a use could actually be conducted.

Evelyn Washington: OK.

Fred Leutner: I think for the people that have been commenting, particularly about the 

recreation uses in arid areas. I mean, this is not a new issue. There are many
EPA

Moderator: Evelyn Washington

12-14-10, 4:00 p.m. EST

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 by that situation and we've actually had some task forces going 

over the years to try to address how we deal with ephemeral streams and 

intermittent streams and what does it really mean to have aquatic 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 everywhere. 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.

Evelyn Washington: OK. With that, I don’t see any additional comments at this time, so I think 

we're at the end of the call here. So I wanted to thank everybody 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 quality standards revision.

Again, if questions or thoughts or views come to mind after this call, you can 

send us an email at SHPDcomments@epa.gov. And you can submit your 

comments at anytime but it'll be helpful to have them by January 10.

So if there aren't anymore questions at this point, I'd like to thank folks again 

for their participation and we look forward to continuing the consultation 

process through 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. EST

Confirmation # 27877415

Page 34

END