CHAPTER 2 

Issue Category: Miscellaneous

Pages 2-1451 – 2-1700

Response to Public Comments

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions

August 2015

40 CFR Part 131

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

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

14 - MISCELLANEOUS 

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

14.A - BACKGROUND 

Comment ID 0119-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Lemke Lee 

Organization: Georgia Mining Association 

The Georgia Mining Association (GMA) is pleased to submit these comments on EPA's proposed rule regarding the 

Water Quality Standards Regulations. GMA represents 46 mining companies with operations in Georgia and 170 

associated companies which service the mining industry in Georgia. Our mining members and associate members 

provide over 10,000 jobs in Georgia and produce mineral products with a value of over $1.8 billion annually. 

All of GMA's members share a common objective to provide industrial minerals in the most efficient, economical, and 

environmentally responsible manner possible. The mining industry prides itself on its reclamation accomplishments and 

its environmental stewardship. 

The GMA and its members look forward to working with the EPA and Georgia's Environmental Protection Division 

(EPD) to ensure that mining remains environmentally and economically sound. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

12.a 

Comment ID 0121-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Whirley Gregory 

Organization: Virginia Department of Transportation 

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule to amend 40 C.F.R. Part 131 entitled "Water Quality 

Standards Regulatory Clarifications" was published in the Federal Register on September 4, 2013. The following key 

program areas are addressed in the proposed rule: (1) the EPA Administrator's determination that new or revised water 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1451
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

quality standards are necessary, (2) designated uses for water bodies, (3) requirements of triennial reviews of state and 

tribal water quality standards (WQS), (4) antidegradation implementation, (5) WQS variances, and (6) provisions 

authorizing the use or permit based compliance schedules. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) provides 

the following comments on the proposed changes to the key program areas: 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0122-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Araujo Jaeleen 

Organization: Sealaska Corporation 

Below are the comments of Sealaska Corporation ("Sealaska") on Subpart E of the above referenced water docket 

(Anti-Degradation Implementation). Sealaska is the Alaska Native Regional Corporation for Southeast Alaska 

established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act ("ANCSA") It will own approximately 360,000 acres of land 

in our region, and an additional almost 300,000 acres of subsurface underlying the surface estate owned by ANCSA 

village and Urban Corporation in Southeast Alaska, all granted pursuant to ANCSA to enable Sealaska to meet the 

economic and social needs of the some 20,000 Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian Native (Indian) tribal member 

shareholders of our corporation. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0123-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Chin Ryan 

Organization: NA 

INTRODUCTION 

My comment is in reference to the proposed rule "Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications" published in Vol. 

48, No. 171 of the Federal Register, submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1452
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

My name is Ryan Chin and I am a current student studying law. I respectfully submit these comments in response to 

the Federal Register Notice, published on September 4, 2013, seeking comments on the Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA) proposed rule "Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications." 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0123-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Chin Ryan 

Organization: NA 

I have read the entire proposed rule as well as the relevant sections of the Clean Water Act, specifically emphasizing 

the sections for Water Quality Standards. I have also conducted research into relevant cases interpreting different 

sections of the CWA and the CWA's intent and purpose. Further, I have interned with the legal department of a state 

environmental agency and dealt directly with water issues and the relevant law, having worked on assignments 

involving the state's implementation of the NPDES permit program, worked on research and study of designated uses 

of different water bodies in the state and WQS, and as well as conducting my own personal research into cases and 

judicial review defining the term "point source." 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0125-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Rambler Terry 

Organization: San Carlos Apache Tribe 

The San Carlos Apache Tribe ("Tribe"), its Tribal Council, and its Environmental Protection Agency Law and other 

public service agencies, appreciate the opportunity to submit comments concerning the proposed changes to federal 

water quality standards. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1453
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

The Tribe submits the following comments as addressed in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, part 131, of September 4, 

2013. 

Water is sacred to Apaches. It is the source of our life, and flows through our veins. Our elders tell us that God created 

enough water for all of us - if we share it. But we must also share the responsibility of protecting this invaluable 

resource, and safeguarding its purity. To this end, last month, the Tribal Council approved our own Water Quality 

Standards, under the direction and guidance of our capable Tribal Environmental Protection Agency. Our standards 

meet and exceed those of the current federal standards. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0125-A1.001.004 

Author Name: Rambler Terry 

Organization: San Carlos Apache Tribe 

Please direct all initial communications with the San Carlos Apache Tribe to Loretta Stone, Director of The San Carlos 

Apache Tribe Environmental Protection Agency: telephone 928-475- 22218; fax 928-475-2268; email: 

scatepa@scatcom.net 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0126-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Barry Marie 

Organization: Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 

The Washoe Environmental Protection Department (WEPD) appreciates the opportunity to provide the following 

comments on proposed revisions to the water quality standards regulation 40 CFR part 131. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1454
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0127-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Sawtelle Andrew 

Organization: NA 

I am a second-year law student at the City University of New York School of Law and am planning on pursuing a career 

in environmental law. This semester I am taking a course in environmental administrative law, with an emphasis on 

opportunities for public participation. Having extensively discussed the rulemaking process, we are also submitting our 

own comments for proposed rules with open coment periods. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0128-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Boon Richard 

Organization: California Stormwater Quality Association 

The California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA [FN1] ) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the 

Proposed Rulemaking for Water Quality Standards (WQS) Regulatory Clarifications proposed by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). A significant part of CASQA's mission focuses on the unique legal and 

regulatory standards that apply to municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Many of the comments in this letter 

are written from the MS4 perspective, and are designed to address the applicability of the rules to MS4 discharges. 

[FN1] CASQA is comprised of stormwater quality management organizations and individuals, including cities, counties, 

special districts, industries, and consulting firms throughout California. Our membership provides stormwater quality 

management services to more than 23 million people in California. CASQA was originally formed in 1989 as the 

Stormwater Quality Task Force to recommend approaches for stormwater quality management to the California State 

Water Resources Control Board. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1455
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0128-A1.001.017 

Author Name: Boon Richard 

Organization: California Stormwater Quality Association 

CASQA appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this proposed rulemaking. Should you have any questions, 

please contact CASQA Executive Director Geoff Brosseau, at 650 365 8620. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0129-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Steidel Robert
 

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

On behalf of the Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies, Inc., enclosed please find comments regarding 

EPA's proposed changes to the federal water quality standards regulation. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0129-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Steidel Robert
 

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

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1456
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

The Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies (VAMWA) is an environmental organization comprised of 

the owners and operators of highly-regulated publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) commonly referred to as 

municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). VAMWA members serve over 95% of Virginia's sewered population. 

VAMWA's mission is the advancement of water quality based on sound science and good public policy. Through 

VAMWA, Virginia's localities and authorities-including many of nationally recognized, award-winning utilities-work 

together to keep abreast of and to contribute to the science and policy of wastewater treatment. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0130-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Schregardus Donald 

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

This letter provides the Department of Defense (DoD) comments on the proposed regulatory clarifications to the Water 

Quality Standards (WQS). The comments were prepared by the DoD Clean Water Act Services Steering Committee 

(CWA SSC), which represents the Departments of the Navy, Air Force, and Army as well as several DoD components 

and agencies. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0130-A1.001.004 

Author Name: Schregardus Donald 

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

DoD appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed clarifications to the WQS. If you 

have any questions concerning these comments, please contact the CW A SSC chair, Ms. Lindsay Nehm at 703-695­

5179 or via email at lindsay.nehm@navy.mil. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1457
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0131-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Rager David 

Organization: Sanitation District Number 1 of Northern Kentucky 

As the second largest public sewer utility in Kentucky, Sanitation District No. 1 of Northern Kentucky (SD1) is 

responsible for the collection and treatment of Northern Kentucky's wastewater, as well as regional storm water 

management. Our service area covers approximately 220 square miles and encompasses more than 30 municipalities 

and unincorporated communities in Boone, Campbell and Kenton counties. SD1 understands EPA is proposing 

changes to the water quality standards regulations in 40 CFR 131 to help implement the Clean Water Act (CWA). 

These changes were published in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 171 on September 4, 2013. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0131-A1.001.022 

Author Name: Rager David 

Organization: Sanitation District Number 1 of Northern Kentucky 

SD1 appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed rulemaking. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0134-A1.001.001 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1458
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Author Name: Shea III Quinlan 

Organization: Edison Electric Institute 

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments on EPA's proposed Water 

Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606, 78 Fed. Reg. 54517 (Sept. 4, 2013) (proposed 

rule). 

EEI is the association of U.S. investor-owned electric companies. Our members provide electricity for 220 million 

Americans, operate in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and directly employ more than 500,000 workers. With 

more than $85 billion in annual capital expenditures, the electric power industry also is responsible for millions of 

additional jobs. 

Reliable, affordable, and sustainable electricity powers the economy and enhances the lives of all Americans. EEI 

members build and operate power plants and other facilities that generate, transmit, and distribute electricity to 

customers. In constructing and operating these facilities, EEI members often must obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) 

permits from EPA or from States delegated to implement the Act's permit programs, and those permits are directly 

affected by water quality standards adopted by EPA or by States subject to EPA review. Accordingly, EEI members 

have a strong interest in any proposed changes to EPA's regulations governing the EPA and State water quality 

standards programs. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

12.a 

Comment ID 0134-A1.001.019 

Author Name: Shea III Quinlan 

Organization: Edison Electric Institute 

If you have any questions about these comments, please contact either C. Richard Bozek at rbozek@eei.org or 

202/508-5641 or Henri Bartholomot at hbartholomot@eei.org or 202/508-5622. 

Response 

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

14.a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1459
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0135-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Hofmann John 

Organization: Brazos River Authority 

The Brazos River Authority (BRA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Proposed Rulemaking for 

Water Quality Standards (WQS) Regulatory Clarifications proposed by the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA). A portion of BRA's business focuses on the operation of municipal wastewater treatment facilities 

(WWTFs). The comments in this letter are written from the WWTF perspective, and we are primarily concerned with 

specific clarifications related to WQS variances and permit-based compliance schedules. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0145-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Shea III Quinlan 

Organization: Edison Electric Institute 

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments on EPA's proposed Water 

Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606, 78 Fed. Reg. 54517 (Sept. 4, 2013) (proposed 

rule). 

EEI is the association of U.S. investor-owned electric companies. Our members provide electricity for 220 million 

Americans, operate in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and directly employ more than 500,000 workers. With 

more than $85 billion in annual capital expenditures, the electric power industry also is responsible for millions of 

additional jobs. 

Reliable, affordable, and sustainable electricity powers the economy and enhances the lives of all Americans. EEI 

members build and operate power plants and other facilities that generate, transmit, and distribute electricity to 

customers. In constructing and operating these facilities, EEI members often must obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) 

permits from EPA or from States delegated to implement the Act's permit programs, and those permits are directly 

affected by water quality standards adopted by EPA or by States subject to EPA review. Accordingly, EEI members 

have a strong interest in any proposed changes to EPA's regulations governing the EPA and State water quality 

standards programs. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1460
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

12.a 

Comment ID 0145-A2.001.019 

Author Name: Shea III Quinlan 

Organization: Edison Electric Institute 

If you have any questions about these comments, please contact either C. Richard Bozek at rbozek@eei.org or 

202/508-5641 or Henri Bartholomot at hbartholomot@eei.org or 202/508-5622. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0146-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Kessler Katrina 

Organization: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) appreciates the opportunity to provide the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) with the following comments on the proposed national rulemaking (proposal) to clarify the 

federal water quality standards (WQS) regulation. 78 Federal Regulations 54518 (September 4, 2013). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1461
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0146-A2.001.006 

Author Name: Kessler Katrina 

Organization: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have questions about our comment, please feel free to contact me at 

651-757-2490 or katrina.kessler@state.mn.us. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0147-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Gaskin David 

Organization: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on U.S. EPA's proposal to clarify the federal water quality standards. The 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection is pleased to submit the following comments. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0147-A2.001.009 

Author Name: Gaskin David 

Organization: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

We thank you for your efforts in soliciting input, and appreciate your consideration of our comments. Please contact 

Kathy Sertic (775-687-9455; ksertic@ndep.nv.gov) or Randy Pahl (775-687-9453; rpahl@ndep.nv.gov) if you have any 

questions. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1462
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0148-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Rice Patrick 

Organization: Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) is pleased to provide the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) with comments on the proposed national rulemaking (proposal) to clarify the federal water quality 

standards (WQS) regulation, 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (Sept. 4, 2013). We have been involved with the Association of Clean 

Water Administrators' (ACWA) review and discussions with EPA regarding this proposed rule over that past few 

months. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0148-A2.001.007 

Author Name: Rice Patrick 

Organization: Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

NDEQ thanks EPA for this opportunity to comment on these proposed regulations. We look forward to working with 

both Headquarters and Regional staff in furthering the goals of the Clean Water Act. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0149-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Michael Gene 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1463
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: City of Pueblo Wastewater Department 

The City of Pueblo appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments on EPA's proposed Water Quality Standards 

Regulatory Clarifications, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606, 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (Sept. 4, 2013) ("Proposed Rule"). 

Pueblo is a city with a population of approximately 107,000 located on the front range of Colorado. The Arkansas River, 

Fountain Creek, and other tributaries to the Arkansas flow through the City. Pueblo facilities operate pursuant to 

individual and general NPDES permits for discharges into those waters, including an individual permit for the Cityoperated domestic wastewater treatment plant that discharges to the Arkansas River with a permitted capacity of 19 

million gallons per day. The WWTP discharge permit includes effluent limitations based on water quality standards 

established by the State of Colorado. Therefore, Pueblo has a direct interest in the matters addressed in the Proposed 

Rule. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0149-A2.001.013 

Author Name: Michael Gene 

Organization: City of Pueblo Wastewater Department 

7. Conclusion. 

Pueblo appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0150-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Heisig-Mitchell Jamie 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1464
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: Hampton Roads Sanitation District 

The Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD), a wastewater treatment entity serving 17 counties and cities in 

southeastern Virginia, offers the following comments on the proposed amendments to the 40 CFR Part 131 Water 

Quality Standards regulation. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0150-A1.001.017 

Author Name: Heisig-Mitchell Jamie 

Organization: Hampton Roads Sanitation District 

HRSD appreciates EPA's consideration of these comments regarding the proposed rulemaking. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0151-A1.001.018 

Author Name: Tate Michael 

Organization: Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

Kansas thanks EPA for its thoughtful analysis of perceived needs to revise the water quality standard regulation and its 

willingness to entertain alternative approaches to their proposal. We are hopeful that the suggestions contained within 

this letter lend some clarity to the proposed rulemaking and ease its implementation once the rule has become 

effective. We are always available to discuss our concerns and recommendations with EPA regarding water quality 

standards. 

Response 

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

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1465
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0152-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Stevens Bruce 

Organization: Indiana Coal Council, Inc. 

This correspondence is for consideration of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the Water Quality 

Standards Regulatory Clarifications, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606. 

The Indiana Coal Council, Inc., (ICC) is a trade association formed to promote, foster, and defend Indiana's coal 

industry. Members of the ICC produce almost all coal mined in Indiana. Many of our members are regulated with 

respect to Clean Water Act provisions and therefore the proposed rule cited above is of much interest. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0153-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Bishop Jonathan 

Organization: California State Water Resources Control Board 

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its proposed changes to the federal water quality standards 

(WQS) regulations, 70 Fed. Reg. 54518 (Sept. 4, 2013) [FN1] (to be codified at 40 CFR Part 131). The State Water 

Board is California's water pollution control agency for all federal purposes. (Cal. Wat. Code § 13160.) The State Water 

Board, along with the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards), protects and enhances the 

quality of California's water resources through implementing the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 

1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.; Clean Water Act, § 101 et seq.) [FN2] (CWA), and California's PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal. Wat. Code § 13000 et seq.). 

[FN1] This letter cites to the proposed WQS regulations and preamble as "78 Fed. Reg. [page no.], col. [no.]." 

[FN2] This letter refers to the section of the Clean Water Act as enacted by Congress and not to the corresponding 

section appearing in title 33. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1466
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0153-A2.001.024 

Author Name: Bishop Jonathan 

Organization: California State Water Resources Control Board 

We sincerely appreciate EPA's effort to clarify the WQS regulations with the proposed rulemaking and EPA's 

consideration of the State Water Board's recommendations. If you have any questions regarding these comments, 

please contact Senior Staff Counsel Stacy Gillespie at (916) 341-5190 or stacy.gillespie@waterboards.ca.gov. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0154-A2.001.001 

Author Name: McGee Beth 

Organization: Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation submits the following comments on the proposed revisions to sections of the federal 

water quality standards (WQS) regulations. We appreciate the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interest in 

clarifying and updating these rules. 

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) is a non-profit environmental education and advocacy organization dedicated 

to the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay. With over 200,000 members, CBF works to ensure that 

changes in policy, regulation, and legislation are protective of, and help improve, the water quality of the Chesapeake 

Bay and its watershed. 

Response 

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

14.a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1467
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0156-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Jackie Kepke Adam Link 

Organization: California Association of Sanitation Agencies and Tri-TAC 

The California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) and Tri-TAC appreciate the opportunity to submit comments 

to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in accordance with the September 4, 2013 Federal 

Register Notice (Notice) requesting stakeholder input regarding proposed changes to the federal water quality 

standards (WQS) regulations. CASA is a statewide association of municipalities, special districts, and joint powers 

agencies that provide wastewater collection, treatment, and water recycling services to millions of Californians. Tri-TAC 

is a technical advisory group for publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) in California jointly sponsored by CASA, the 

California Water Environment Association (CWEA), and the League of California Cities. Together, Tri-TAC and CASA 

represent municipal wastewater collection, treatment, and water recycling agencies that serve the vast majority of 

California's population, approximately 38 million people. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0156-A1.001.018 

Author Name: Jackie Kepke Adam Link 

Organization: California Association of Sanitation Agencies and Tri-TAC 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the proposed water quality standards regulatory clarifications. If you 

have any additional questions or would like additional information on the issues identified above, please do not hesitate 

to contact CASA's Director of Government Affairs, Adam Link at (916) 446-0388, alink@casaweb.org. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1468
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0157-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Harpole Chad 

Organization: Kentucky Chamber of Commerce 

The Kentucky Chamber of Commerce ("Chamber") welcomes the opportunity to provide the following comments on 

EPA's proposed Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications rule that was published in the Federal Register on 

September 4, 2013 (hereinafter the "Proposed Rule"). 

The Chamber, founded in 1946, is an association of Kentucky businesses, and is the largest, broad-based business 

association in Kentucky. The Kentucky Chamber represents the business interests of more than 92,000 Kentuckybased businesses. The Kentucky Chamber's powerful grassroots network, through a partnership with more than 80 

local chambers in the state, consists of 25,000 business professionals. The business and industry members of the 

Kentucky Chamber have operations throughout the state that are subject to water quality regulations and requirements. 

The Kentucky Chamber also promotes economic development, including bringing new business operations to the 

Commonwealth. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0158-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

The Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) is pleased to provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with 

comments on the proposed Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (Sept. 4, 2013). 

The Commonwealth of Kentucky would be directly impacted by the proposed changes to the federal water quality 

standards (WQS) regulation. The KDOW is the agency in Kentucky with delegated authority to implement the Clean 

Water Act, including the development and implementation of state water quality standards. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1469
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0158-A1.001.040 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

KDOW would like to thank EPA for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking, and we appreciate your 

consideration of our recommendations. KDOW encourages EPA to continue discussions with its State co-regulators, 

and remain ready to answer questions regarding these comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (502) 564­

3410 ext. 4012 or at Peter.Goodmann@ky.gov if you have any questions or wish to discuss these issues in more detail. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0159-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Smithee Derek 

Organization: Oklahoma Water Resources Board 

The Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) is pleased to provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

with comments on the proposed national rulemaking (proposal) to clarify the federal water quality standards (WQS) 

regulation 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (September 4, 2013). The OWRB is the state agency in Oklahoma with the responsibility 

of establishing water quality standards. As such, we have taken much interest in the development of this proposal. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0160-A2.001.001 

Author Name: West Jeff 

Organization: Xcel Energy 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1470
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Northern States Power of Minnesota (NSP-M), Northern States Power of Wisconsin (NSPW), Public Service Company 

of Colorado (PSCO), and Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS), (collectively referred to herein as "Xcel 

Energy") appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments on EPA's proposed Water Quality Standards 

Regulatory Clarifications, EPA-HQ-OW-2010- 0606, 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (Sept. 4, 2013) ("Proposed Rule"). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0160-A2.001.003 

Author Name: West Jeff 

Organization: Xcel Energy 

Xcel Energy is a regulated public utility that provides power in eight states (Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin) to 3.4 million electric customers and 1.9 million natural 

.gas customers. Xcel Energy provides generation, transmission, and distribution of power throughout its territory and 

will be directly impacted by this rulemaking. Xcel Energy's generating units are capable of producing over 17,000 

megawatts of electricity, using a variety of fuel sources including coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, renewables (wind, 

solar), and hydropower. 

Xcel Energy is committed to operational excellence and has established a clear record of environmental leadership. 

The company is the nation's number one utility provider of wind energy with over 4900 MW of wind interconnected to 

our system, and plans to add an additional 1900 MW by 2015. Xcel Energy has been a member of the Dow Jones 

Sustainability Index for seven years and has received numerous Energy Star® awards for its excellence in energy 

efficiency programs. 

Several of our facilities operate pursuant to individual and general NPDES permits for discharges into waters of the 

United States. Several of those permits include effluent limitations based on water quality standards established by the 

States we operate in. Therefore, Xcel Energy has a direct interest in the matters addressed in the Proposed Rule and 

how the rule will affect our electric generating stations and the customers who use the power produced by Xcel Energy 

generation stations. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1471
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0160-A2.001.021 

Author Name: West Jeff 

Organization: Xcel Energy 

7. Conclusion. 

Xcel Energy appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Regulation. If you have any questions about 

these comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (303) 571-2762. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0161-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Ehm William 

Organization: Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

This letter addresses the concerns of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources regarding Federal Rulemaking, 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0164-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Allmon Eric
 

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

On behalf of Clean Water Action, Public Citizen, Caddo Lake Institute, Save Our Springs Alliance, Sustainable Energy 

& Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, Texas Center for Policy Studies, and Working Effectively for Clean Air 

Now (WE CAN) (collectively, "Commenters"), I am submitting these comments regarding the EPA's proposed rules 

intended to clarify the regulatory requirements applicable to state water quality standards ("WQS"). 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1472
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0165-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Gunderson Steven 

Organization: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed water quality standards (WQS) regulation. 

The Colorado Water Quality Control Division (Colorado) is responsible for the daily implementation of the Clean Water 

Act's water quality programs, including the water quality standards programs for which states are responsible under the 

Clean Water Act (hereinafter the Act or CWA). States are the party most directly impacted by the proposed changes to 

the federal WQS regulation. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0165-A2.001.019 

Author Name: Gunderson Steven 

Organization: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. If you need clarification on any of these comments, 

please do not hesitate to call or email Sarah Johnson, Standards Unit Manager (303/692-3609; 

sarah.johnson@state.co.us). 

Response 

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

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1473
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0166-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

The Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) is pleased to provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with 

comments on the proposed Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (Sept. 4, 2013). 

The Commonwealth of Kentucky would be directly impacted by the proposed changes to the federal water quality 

standards (WQS) regulation. The KDOW is the agency in Kentucky with delegated authority to implement the Clean 

Water Act, including the development and implementation of state water quality standards. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0167-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Anderson Paul 

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

On behalf of the Lower Fountain Metropolitan Sewage Disposal District ("Lower Fountain", "Lower Fountain District" or 

"District") located in El Paso County, Colorado, I am submitting these comments concerning the Environmental 

Protection Agency's ("EPA") proposed Water Quality Standards clarification rule ("proposed rule") for 40 CRF Part 131, 

published September 4, 2013 (Fed. Reg. Vol. 78, No. 171). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1474
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0167-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Anderson Paul 

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

To put these comments into context, a brief background is provided: 

• The Lower Fountain District is one of two statutory metropolitan sewage disposal districts in the State of Colorado. 

Formed in 1986, its current members consist of the Fountain Sanitation District (FSD) and the Colorado Centre 

Metropolitan District (CCMD), with one private contracting entity. The Lower Fountain service area currently includes a 

population of approximately 30,000 residents. 

• Earlier this year the District completed construction of a 2.5 MGD water reclamation facility. Construction of the new 

facility occurred over a 3-year period at a cost of approximately $28 million. The new facility began initial operation in 

September of this year and it currently discharges an average of 0.4 MGD of treated wastewater into an open channel 

that is tributary to Fountain Creek. The treated discharge flows in the channel a distance of approximately two (2) miles 

to the confluence with Fountain Creek south of the City of Fountain municipal boundary. 

• In 2012 and 2013, Colorado held two major rulemaking proceedings: Adoption of numeric standards and monitoring 

requirements for nutrients in 2012 (Colorado Regulation 31 and new Regulation 85), and a triennial review rulemaking 

concerning water quality standards within the Arkansas River basin (Regulation 32) within which Fountain Creek is 

located. As a result of these rulemakings, Lower Fountain will spend millions of dollars to comply with these new 

standards and requirements and potentially could be required to spend tens of millions more. The current compliance 

expenses have already placed an enormous strain on the District and its customers, and additional expenses would be 

devastating. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

12.a 

Comment ID 0167-A1.001.013 

Author Name: Anderson Paul 

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

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1475
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

On behalf of the Lower Fountain District, thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0168-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Walker Roger 

Organization: Regulatory Environmental Group for Missouri 

The Regulatory Environmental Group for Missouri (REGFORM) is pleased to submit these comments on EPA's above 

referenced proposed rule. REGFORM, a nonprofit organization created in 1993, is committed to the development of 

environmental regulations, policies, and laws that are grounded in sound science and designed to produce 

demonstrated environmental improvements commensurate with the cost of compliance. We advocate on behalf of our 

Missouri members to develop regulations and policies that protect the State's remarkable natural resources and 

environment - but without unduly burdening the regulated community - which has invested tremendous financial and 

human resources to create thousands of jobs and provide economic opportunity in our communities. 

REGFORM's member companies own and operate facilities located on and near waters of the United States. Many of 

these facilities hold individual and/or general National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for the 

direct and indirect discharge into those waters. Accordingly, REGFORM has a direct interest in the matters addressed 

in the September 4, 2013 proposed water quality standards rulemaking. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0169-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Letient Henri 

Organization: Teck Alaska Incorporated 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1476
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Please see below for Teck Alaska Incorporated's ("Teck") comments on the above-referenced water docket. Teck is the 

operator of the Red Dog Mine in northwest Alaska on lands owned by NANA, the regional Alaska Native Corporation. 

The Red Dog Mine discharges under an Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit into Red Dog Creek. 

The discharge permit and corresponding water quality standard (WaS) regime is complex, involving mixing zones, sitespecific criteria, and reclassifications. Teck has invested significant resources in developing solutions for complex was 

issues and has a strong interest in ensuring a workable, clear regulatory scheme. Teck supports initiatives by EPA to 

clarify the was regulations and appreciates the opportunity to provide input on the important changes under 

consideration. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0170-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Faggert Pamela 

Organization: Dominion Resources Services, Inc. 

Dominion appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed Water Quality Standards Clarifications. 

Dominion is one of the nation's largest producers and transporters of energy, with a portfolio of approximately 23,500 

megawatts of generation, 11,000 miles of natural gas transmission, gathering and storage pipeline and 6,400 miles of 

electric transmission lines. Dominion operates the nation's largest natural gas storage system with 947 billion cubic feet 

of storage capacity and serves retail energy customers in 15 states. 

We hold NPDES Individual and General Permits for discharges at our power generation and natural gas facilities in 

multiple states and are therefore subject to water quality standards reviews through these permits. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0170-A1.001.013 

Author Name: Faggert Pamela 

Organization: Dominion Resources Services, Inc. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1477
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Water Quality Standards Clarifications and 

respectfully request that these comments be considered. If you have any questions, please call me at 804-273-3467 or 

Jason Ericson at 804-273-3012 (jason.p.ericson@dom.com). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0171-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Borkowski Winston 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams on behalf of CF Industries, Inc. 

CF Industries, Inc. (CF), submits the following comments in response to the proposed rule published by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Wednesday, September 4, 2013, titled Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Clarifications; Proposed Rule. 

CF Industries 

CF is a global leader in fertilizer manufacturing and distribution, the second largest nitrogen fertilizer producer in the 

world and the third largest phosphate fertilizer producer among public companies. CF maintains phosphate mining 

operations in Florida and, while a regulated industry, is also an active participant in a number of environmental 

initiatives that include the Tampa Bay Estuary Program Nitrogen Management Consortium and Charlotte Harbor 

Estuary Program. CF is required to maintain a number of state and federal environmental permits, including discharge 

permits issued under Florida's EPA-approved NPDES program and related rules and regulations mandated by the 

federal Clean Water Act. Consequently, CF is directly affected by changes in federal water quality standards that may 

result in new or more stringent permit conditions or requirements. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0172-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Foster Tad 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1478
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: Tad S. Foster Attorney at Law on behalf of three small municipal dischargers 

On behalf of three small municipal dischargers whose legal budgets are depleted by recent triennial review hearings 

this year, a small number of comments are provided. Their brevity does not mean they are insignificant. My additions to 

EPA's proposed regulatory language are shown in italic capital letters. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

12.a 

Comment ID 0173-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Borkowski Winston 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams on behalf of CF Industries, Inc. 

CF Industries, Inc. (CF), submits the following comments in response to the proposed rule published by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Wednesday, September 4, 2013, titled Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Clarifications; Proposed Rule. 

CF Industries 

CF is a global leader in fertilizer manufacturing and distribution, the second largest nitrogen fertilizer producer in the 

world and the third largest phosphate fertilizer producer among public companies. CF maintains phosphate mining 

operations in Florida and, while a regulated industry, is also an active participant in a number of environmental 

initiatives that include the Tampa Bay Estuary Program Nitrogen Management Consortium and Charlotte Harbor 

Estuary Program. CF is required to maintain a number of state and federal environmental permits, including discharge 

permits issued under Florida's EPA-approved NPDES program and related rules and regulations mandated by the 

federal Clean Water Act. Consequently, CF is directly affected by changes in federal water quality standards that may 

result in new or more stringent permit conditions or requirements. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1479
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0174-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Peoples Zachary 

Organization: Dallas Water Utilities 

City of Dallas Texas appreciates the opportunity to communicate its concerns related to the proposed changes of the 

Water Quality Standards. The comments of this letter are filed on behalf of the pertinent departments within the City of 

Dallas that may be affected by the proposed changes. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0174-A2.001.006 

Author Name: Peoples Zachary 

Organization: Dallas Water Utilities 

If you have any questions, please contact Susan Alvarez, P.E. Senior Program Manager at (214) 948-4450 or me at 

(214) 670-3145. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0176-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Lazarus Jay
 

Organization: Glorieta Geoscience, Inc. on behalf of Dairy Producers of New Mexico (DPNM)
 

Dairy Producers of New Mexico Comments on Proposed Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications 

EPA has requested comments on rulemaking revisions to its proposed Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Clarifications as part of implementing the Clean Water Act. Dairy Producers of New Mexico (DPNM) are submitting our 

comments on the proposed clarifications below. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1480
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0177-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Klotz Mark 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s proposed changes to 40 CFR Part 131 water quality standards (WQS) 

regulations. We further appreciate EPA's extension of the comment period until January 3, 2014. Our comments are 

provided below, divided into the six main subject areas of the EPA proposal. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

2.a 

Comment ID 0177-A2.001.013 

Author Name: Klotz Mark 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Again, NYSDEC appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA's proposed changes to 40 CFR Part 131 water quality 

standards (WQS) regulations. Should EPA have any questions on our comments, feel free to contact Scott Stoner at 

518-402-8179. 

Response 

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

14.a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1481
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0178-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Burnell Barry 

Organization: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is pleased to provide the US Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) with comments on the proposed national rulemaking (proposal) to clarify the federal water quality standards 

(WQS) regulation, 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (Sept. 4, 2013). As the agency in Idaho responsible for administering the Clean 

Water Act we offer the following comments in the spirit of strengthening our partnership with EPA, nationally and 

regionally, in protecting human health and the environment for the benefit of Idaho's citizens. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0178-A2.001.025 

Author Name: Burnell Barry 

Organization: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment and your consideration of our comments and recommendations. Please 

contact Don A. Essig at 208-373-0119 or Don.Essig@DEQ.Idaho.gov if you have any questions or desire further 

clarification of these comments. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0179-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Spotts David 

Organization: Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1482
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) offers the following comments on Water Quality Standards 

Regulatory Clarifications proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency as Docket identification (ID) No. EPA-HQOW-2010-0606. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0179-A2.001.007 

Author Name: Spotts David 

Organization: Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

Thank you for providing the PFBC the opportunity to comment on the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications 

and please feel free to contact Tom Shervinskie at (814) 359-5228 or tshervinsk@pa.gov if you have any questions 

concerning the role we play towards the protection, conservation and enhancement of the Commonwealth's aquatic 

resources. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0180-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Hobson Chris 

Organization: Southern Company 

The Southern Company (Southern Company) appreciates this opportunity to comment on EPA's proposed clarifications 

to the federal water quality standards regulation (Proposal). 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (Sept. 4, 2013). Southern Company is 

the leading energy supplier in the Southeastern United States, serving approximately 4.4 million customers with reliable 

electricity service generated from a diverse portfolio of energy resources – nuclear, coal, natural gas, and renewables. 

Southern Company subsidiaries include four vertically integrated electric utilities – Alabama Power, Georgia Power, 

Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power – as well as Southern Power, which owns generation assets and sells electricity in 

the wholesale market. Another major subsidiary is Southern Nuclear, the licensed operator of Southern Company's 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1483
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

three nuclear generating plants in Alabama and Georgia. 

We participate in all phases of the electric utility business with more than 46,000 megawatts of electric generating 

capacity and transmission and distribution lines that would more than circle the earth. Southern Company and its 

subsidiaries have been serving the Southeast for more than 100 years. The traditional operating companies, Southern 

Power, and Southern Nuclear own and/or operate 33 hydroelectric generating plants, 32 fossil fuel generating plants, 

three nuclear generating plants, 13 combined cycle/cogeneration plants, four solar facilities, one landfill gas facility, and 

one biomass facility across 9 states. The majority of these facilities, as well the transmission and distribution system 

that connects them, are subject to the Clean Water Act NPDES program. As such, Southern Company is very 

interested in EPA's water quality standards regulation, which has a direct bearing on the water quality-based 

requirements, policies and procedures that are applied in the NPDES permitting context. 

Southern Company submits the following comments on the Proposal on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries. In addition, 

Southern Company is a member of the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) and endorses UWAG's comments on the 

Proposal. Southern Company generally supports EPA's focus on improving the effectiveness of the federal water quality 

standards regulation, and providing clarification and greater specificity in a number of key program areas. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0180-A2.001.028 

Author Name: Hobson Chris 

Organization: Southern Company 

We look forward to receiving EPA's responses to these comments. Please feel free to contact Donna Hill at (205) 257­

5234 if you have any questions. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0181-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Sims Shaun 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1484
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts 

On behalf of the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts (WACD), representing Wyoming's 34 local 

Conservation Districts, which are governed by 170 locally elected officials and charged specifically, pursuant to §§ 11­

16-101 et seq., with the protection of natural resources, including water quality, the Association offers the following 

comments on the above referenced proposed rule. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on this proposed rule. The WACD shares the commitment to 

maintaining, enhancing and restoring water quality for a multitude of uses. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0181-A2.001.013 

Author Name: Sims Shaun 

Organization: Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts 

WACD again appreciates the opportunity to provide comment. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0182-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Hahn Martha 

Organization: The Colorado Wastewater Utility Council 

The Colorado Wastewater Utility Council (CWWUC) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications, EPA-HQ-OW2010-0606, 78 Fed. Reg. 54518, September 4, 2013 (Proposed Rule). 

The CWUCC is a nonprofit organization whose membership is comprised of municipal and quasi municipal entities in 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1485
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Colorado. Many members maintain NPDES permits and discharge to waters of the United States. The CWWUC's 

mission is to professionally and responsibly promote environmental protection by supporting legislation and regulations 

which achieve well-defined environmental benefits while maintaining local flexibility. 

Our specific and general comments are set forth below: 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0182-A2.001.016 

Author Name: Hahn Martha 

Organization: The Colorado Wastewater Utility Council 

VIII. Conclusion 

The CWWUC appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on the proposed water quality standards rule. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0183-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Rich Eric 

Organization: Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency 

The Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency (NNEPA) Water Quality/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System Program (Water Quality/NPDES Program) has reviewed the WQS Proposed Rule. We have recently reviewed 

the proposed rule as it relates to the existing rule, the Navajo Nation Clean Water Act, and the Navajo Nation Surface 

Water Quality Standards. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1486
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0184-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Curley Ed 

Organization: The Western Coalition of Arid States 

The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) has reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Rule 

on Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications announced in the Federal Register (Vol. 78, No. 171, pages 

54518 - 54546) on September 4, 2013. WESTCAS appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed 

rule on behalf of its members. 

WESTCAS is a coalition of approximately 125 water and wastewater districts, cities, towns, and professional 

organizations focused on water quality and water quantity issues in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 

Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Texas. Our mission is to work with Federal, State, and Regional water quality and 

quantity agencies to promote scientifically-sound laws, regulations, appropriations, and policies that protect public 

health and the environment in the arid West. 

WESTCAS is pleased to submit the following comments on the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0185-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Poltak Ronald 

Organization: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission 

The New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC), on behalf of its member states 

(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont), appreciates the 

opportunity to submit comments regarding EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications. In response to 

information provided in the federal register notice and EPA's listening sessions, we respectfully request that EPA 

consider the following comments: 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1487
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0185-A1.001.013 

Author Name: Poltak Ronald 

Organization: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Susy King of my staff if 

you have any questions or concerns. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1488
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0186-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Claff Roger 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute 

The American Petroleum Institute (API) represents over 550 companies involved in all aspects of the oil and natural gas 

industry (Exploration, Production, Refining, Marketing and Transportation). On behalf of its members, API continues to 

work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on many regulatory matters, especially the development of 

regulations pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA). We have a substantial interest in federal agency activity impacting 

our member companies' operations under the water quality standards program authorized by Section 303(c) of the 

CWA. API member companies have facilities in all states and territories of the United States (U.S.) that may generate 

wastewater, including storm water, and require NPDES permits to discharge as authorized by Section 402 of the CWA. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Water Quality Standards (WQS) Regulatory 

Clarifications published at 78 Federal Register 54518 (September 4, 2013). 

API is the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America's oil and natural gas industry. Member 

companies own and operate upstream petroleum product facilities including product pipelines, product storage and 

distribution terminals and marine terminals that may be affected by the proposed clarifications to the WQS rule. 

Downstream member company operations including petroleum refineries and chemical plants, most of which have 

continuous discharges of treated process wastewater, will be potentially affected by changes that states will make in 

their WQS as a result of this rule. In particular, the "clarifications" of antidegradation policies could have significant 

adverse impacts on the ability of the industry to modernize existing facilities and construct new facilities. 

API is offering comments on a number of aspects of the proposed clarification regulation, which is intended to assist 

states in developing and implementing their WQS and is not intended to represent "new" provisions in the federal WQS 

regulation. API's comments on the proposal can be summarized as follows: 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

7.b 

Comment ID 0186-A1.001.014 

Author Name: Claff Roger 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute 

API's detailed comments follow in the attached. API appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments on the WQS 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1489
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Clarification Rule and is willing to work with EPA to address the concerns we have identified. If you have any questions 

about API's comments or would like to discuss the comments with us, please feel free to contact me. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0186-A1.001.015 

Author Name: Claff Roger 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute 

These comments follow the organization of the proposed rule and identify the specific section of the proposal and 

Federal Register page number(s) that is commented on. Also, as requested in the notice, API responds to specific EPA 

requests for comment as appropriate to our interests and concerns. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0187-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Allmon Eric 

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

This letter is filed on behalf of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, in order to join in comments previously 

submitted on December 31, 2013, on behalf of Clean Water Action, Public Citizen, Caddo Lake Institute, Save Our 

Springs Alliance, Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, Texas Center for Policy Studies, and 

Working Effectively for Clean Air Now (WE CAN) (collectively, "Commenters"), regarding the EPA's proposed rules 

intended to clarify the regulatory requirements applicable to state water quality standards ("WQS"). 

Response 

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

14.a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1490
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0188-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Ehm William 

Organization: Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

This letter addresses the concerns of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources regarding Federal Rulemaking, 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0189-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Margaret Watkins Nancy Schuldt 

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

Environmental Department 

The Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (the 

"Bands") appreciate this opportunity to submit comments in connection with the Environmental Protection Agency's 

("EPA") Water Quality Standards ("WQS") Regulatory Clarifications Rulemaking, 78 Fed. Reg. 54,518 (Sept. 4, 2013) 

(hereinafter the "proposed rule"). 

Introduction 

The Bands are federally recognized Indian tribes, and are member bands of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Both of the 

Bands retain hunting, fishing, and other usufructuary rights that extend throughout the entire northeast portion of the 

state of Minnesota under the 1854 Treaty of LaPointe [FN1] (the "Ceded Territory"). In the Ceded Territory, all the 

Bands have a legal interest in protecting natural resources and all federal agencies share in the federal government's 

trust responsibility to the Bands to maintain those treaty resources. [FN2] 

[FN1] Treaty with the Chippewa, 1854, 10 Stat. 1109, in Charles J. Kappler, ed., Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, Vol. 

II (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904), available on-line at 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/chi0648.htm (last visited Feb. 1, 2010). 

[FN2] See, e.g., Exec. Order 13175-Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (Nov. 6, 2000) 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1491
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

(stating "the United States has recognized Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations under its protection . . . .," there 

is a "trust relationship with Indian tribes," and "[a]gencies shall respect Indian tribal self-government and sovereignty, 

honor tribal treaty and other rights, and strive to meet the responsibilities that arise from the unique legal relationship 

between the Federal Government and Indian tribal governments."), available at 

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eo13175.html (last visited Feb. 1, 2010). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0190-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Wagener Fritz 

Organization: NA 

Please find enclosed comments on EPA's proposed clarifications to the federal water quality standards regulation. I 

have included comments on EPA's proposed rule revisions as well as comments on the discussion of the federal water 

quality standards program and the proposed rule clarifications in the preamble to the proposed rule. Also, as requested 

in the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule, I have included suggested alternatives and substitute language for 

the Agency's consideration in light of these comments. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments in the Agency's consideration during the development of final 

revisions to 40 CFR Part 131. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0190-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Wagener Fritz 

Organization: NA 

These comments address proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 131 and EPA's discussion of the federal water quality 

standard program and the proposed rule clarifications in the preamble to the proposed rule. Comments on the proposed 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1492
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

regulatory revisions are listed by section of the proposed rule clarification. Suggested additions to the proposed 

regulation are shown in bold brackets and suggested deletions to the proposed regulation are shown in strikeout 

formatting. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0192-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Reeder Thomas 

Organization: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

The State of North Carolina (NC), Division of Water Resources (DWR) is pleased to provide the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) with comments on the proposed rulemaking to clarify the federal water quality standards 

(WQS) regulation in 40 CFR § 131 (78 Federal Register; 54518; Sept. 4, 2013). NC DWR is responsible for the 

implementation of the Clean Water Act's (hereinafter the Act) water quality programs, including the water quality 

standards program. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0192-A1.001.012 

Author Name: Reeder Thomas 

Organization: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

We thank EPA for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking, and appreciate your consideration of NC 

DWR recommendations. We encourage EPA to continue discussions with ACWA and the state co-regulators. We 

welcome any questions related to these comments. Please contact Connie Brower at 919-807-6416 or 

connie.brower@ncdenr.gov with any such questions or to plan further discussions with the NC Division of Water 

Resources. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1493
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0193-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Biggs Barbara 

Organization: Metro Wastewater Reclamation District 

The Metro Wastewater Reclamation District (Metro District) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications, EPA-HQOW-2010-0606, 78 Fed. Reg. 54518, September 4, 2013 (Proposed Rule). 

The Metro District is the wastewater treatment authority for much of metropolitan Denver, Colorado as well as parts of 

northern Colorado. We are committed to protecting the environment and providing for our communities' future needs. 

We serve approximately 1.7 million people across a 715-square mile service area including the cities of Denver, 

Arvada, Aurora, Brighton, Lakewood, Thornton, and Westminster. We collect about 130 million gallons of wastewater 

per day from neighborhood sewer lines and remove more than 95 percent of the pollutants prior to surface discharge 

into the South Platte River. Our mission is to provide wastewater transmission and treatment services to Metro District 

ratepayers in an efficient, cost-effective manner while meeting all statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Our specific and general comments are set forth below: 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0193-A2.001.014 

Author Name: Biggs Barbara 

Organization: Metro Wastewater Reclamation District 

VIII. Conclusion 

The Metro District appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on the proposed water quality standards rule. 

Please feel free to contact me at (303) 286-286-3464 or via email at bbiggs@mwrd.dst.co.us if you would like any 

additional information regarding these comments. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1494
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0194-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Stonestreet Robert 

Organization: West Virginia Chamber of Commerce 

These comments are filed on behalf of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce ("the Chamber"). The Chamber is 

West Virginia's largest, most influential general business organization, representing all business sectors in every region 

of the State. Members range from small business enterprises to mid-sizes manufacturers to tourism destinations to 

energy companies to Fortune 500 corporations. However, small businesses are the core of our membership - making 

up 85 percent of the Chamber's companies and firms. 

The Chamber appreciates the opportunity to provide the following comments on the proposed revisions to the 

regulations governing water quality standards. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0195-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Norton Ken 

Organization: National Tribal Water Council 

The National Tribal Water Council (NTWC) appreciates this opportunity to submit comments on the Environmental 

Protection Agency's ("EPA") Water Quality Standards ("WQS") Regulatory Clarifications Rulemaking, 78 Fed. Reg. 

54,518 (Sept. 4, 2013) (hereinafter the "proposed rule"). The NTWC was initiated by the EPA Office of Water to provide 

a national forum that would facilitate the exchange of water protection expertise among Tribal water professionals and 

other water protection experts. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1495
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0196-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Bostic Jason 

Organization: West Virginia Coal Association 

The West Virginia Coal Association (WVCA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule, "Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications." 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 

(Sept. 4, 2013). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0196-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Bostic Jason 

Organization: West Virginia Coal Association 

The West Virginia Coal Association (WVCA) is a non-profit state coal trade association representing the interests of the 

West Virginia coal industry on policy and regulation issues before various state and federal agencies that regulate coal 

extraction, processing, transportation and consumption. WVCA's general members account for 95 percent of the 

Mountain State's underground and surface coal production. WVCA also represents associate members that supply an 

array of services to the mining industry in West Virginia. WVCA's primary goal is to enhance the viability of the West 

Virginia coal industry by supporting efficient and environmentally responsible coal removal and processing through 

reasonable, equitable and achievable state and federal policy and regulation. WVCA is the largest state coal trade 

association in the nation. 

WVCA members are subject to regulations promulgated pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), and mining operations 

statewide are directly impacted by both state and federal water quality requirements. Alterations to the existing 

regulatory scheme will therefore have a significant impact on the mining industry, and as such, the issues discussed in 

the proposed rule are of extreme importance to WVCA's members. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1496
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0197-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Garrison Naoh 

Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council 

The Natural Resources Defense Council ("NRDC") [FN1] appreciates the opportunity to provide input on the EPA's 

proposed water quality standards ("WQS") rulemaking, 78 Fed. Reg. 54,518 (Sept. 4, 2013) ("Proposed Rule"), in order 

to assist the agency in strengthening national regulations and implementation of the Clean Water Act. 

[FN1] NRDC is a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 

1970, NRDC has more than 1.3 million members and online activists in all fifty states. NRDC maintains offices in New 

York, NY, Washington, DC, Chicago, IL, San Francisco, CA, Santa Monica, CA, and Beijing, China. NRDC has been 

focused on the need to improve water quality since the 1970s and has played a central role in the development of the 

Clean Water Act regulatory scheme that is in force today. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0197-A1.001.019 

Author Name: Garrison Naoh 

Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council 

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1497
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0198-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Card Bethany 

Organization: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) offers the following comments on EPA's Water 

Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications; Proposed Rule, Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 171 / Wednesday, 

September 4, 2013 /Proposed Rules (EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606; FRL-9839-7). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0199-A1.001.019 

Author Name: Rogers Gilbert 

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

Conclusion 

We look forward to continuing to participate in this rulemaking process as it moves forward. Thank you for your 

consideration of these comments. Please contact us if you have any further questions. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0200-A1.001.004 

Author Name: Covar Zak 

Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) provides the following comments on the key areas identified 

in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed changes to the federal water quality standards (WQS) 

regulations. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1498
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0201-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Godfrey Mike 

Organization: Alabama Power 

On September 4, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") issued the above-referenced proposed rule 

(hereinafter "Draft Rule") for public notice and comment. See 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (Sept. 4, 2013). Alabama Power 

Company ("Alabama Power" or the "Company") appreciates the opportunity to submit the following comments for 

consideration in this rulemaking initiative. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0201-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Godfrey Mike 

Organization: Alabama Power 

Background 

Alabama Power is an electric utility company headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. It owns or operates in excess of 

75 electric generating units with total nameplate capacity of more than 13 million kilowatts, has a service area of 

approximately 45,000 square miles, and sells electricity to more than 1.4 million homes, businesses and industries 

within its service area. It is a vertically integrated utility company that provides electricity to retail and wholesale 

customers within the State of Alabama and provides electricity to wholesale customers in the Southeast region of the 

United States. Alabama Power is a subsidiary of Southern Company. 

A number of Alabama Power's facilities are located on or near waters of the United States and every one of Alabama 

Power's facilities has at least one water discharge regulated by the CWA and EPA's National Pollutant Discharge 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1499
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Elimination System ("NPDES") program. Moreover, individual and/or general NPDES permits issued to Alabama Power 

for its facilities currently include, or will include in the future, effluent limitations based on water quality standards 

("WQS") established by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management ("ADEM") and/or EPA. Therefore, 

Alabama Power has a vested interested in the content and regulatory scheme set out in this Draft Rule. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0201-A1.001.034 

Author Name: Godfrey Mike 

Organization: Alabama Power 

Conclusion 

Thank you again for this opportunity to comment. For additional information and/or answers to any questions you may 

have, please feel free to contact me. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0202-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Frederick Kevin 

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division 

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division (WDEQ/WQD) administers the Clean Water 

Act in the State of Wyoming. This includes developing, recommending and facilitating adoption of surface water quality 

standards in the State. As such, the WDEQ/WQD is directly impacted by the proposed rulemaking to clarify the federal 

water quality standards regulation. During the public comment period, WDEQ/WQD staff attended the EPA Office of 

Water (OW) informational webinars, participated in discussions facilitated by the Association of Clean Water 

Administrators (ACWA), and participated in discussions with EPA Region 8 staff on the proposed revisions. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1500
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

2.d 

Comment ID 0202-A2.001.022 

Author Name: Frederick Kevin 

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division 

We would like thank EPA for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking, and appreciate your 

consideration of our recommendations. Please contact Lindsay Patterson on my staff at Lindsay.Patterson@wyo.gov or 

307-777-7079 with any questions or clarifications regarding these comments. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0203-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Christman Jim 

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

These are the comments of the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) [FN1] on EPA's proposed rule for "Water Quality 

Standards Regulatory Clarifications," 78 Fed. Reg. 54,517 (Sept. 4, 2013. 

[FN1] UWAG is a voluntary, ad hoc, non-profit, unincorporated group of 199 individual energy companies and three 

national trade associations of energy companies: the Edison Electric Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative 

Association, and the American Public Power Association. The individual energy companies operate power plants and 

other facilities that generate, transmit, and distribute electricity to residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional 

customers. The Edison Electric Institute is the association of U.S. shareholder-owned energy companies, international 

affiliates, and industry associates. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association is the association of nonprofit 

energy cooperatives supplying central station service through generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity to 

rural areas of the United States. The American Public Power Association is the national trade association that 

represents publicly-owned (units of state and local government) energy utilities in 49 states representing 16 percent of 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1501
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

the market. UWAG's purpose is to participate on behalf of its members in EPA's rulemakings under the CWA and in 

litigation arising from those rulemakings. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0204-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Thomas John 

Organization: Law office of John R. Thomas on behalf of Chassahowitzka River Restoration Committee, et al. 

Thank you for this opportunity to submit comments concerning the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 

September 4, 2013 proposed Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications. Fed. Reg. Vol. 78, No. 171, pp. 54518 

- 54546. These comments are directed to the proposed changes regarding antidegradation water quality standards 

(WQS) and implementation criteria. We appreciate that EPA has extended the comment period to on or before January 

2, 2014. See, Fed. Reg. November 27, 2013, pg. 70,905. 

These comments are submitted on behalf of the following interests groups (Interest Groups): 

1. Chassahowitzka River Restoration Committee; 

2. Florida Defenders of the Environment, Inc. (FDE); 

3. Ginnie Springs Outdoors, Inc.; 

4. Ichetucknee Alliance, Inc.; 

5. Kings Bay Springs Alliance; 

6. Our Santa Fe River, Inc.; 

7. Rainbow River Conservation, Inc.; 

8. St. Johns Riverkeeper, Inc.; 

9. Save the Homosassa River Alliance, Inc.; 

10. Save the Manatee Club, Inc.; and 

11. WAR, Inc. (Withlacoochee Area Residents) 

The names of most of these groups identify waters central to their identity and purpose. These groups are dedicated to 

the springs and rivers of Florida. In each case, the group's formation and existence are to further purposes including the 

preservation, maintenance and restoration of water quality and water quantity to sustain the existing uses and 

enjoyment of these waters now and for future generations. FDE continues to champion restoration of the Ocklawaha 

River. The Save the Manatee Club's central interest is identified in its name as well, and the preservation, maintenance 

and restoration of water quality and water quantity in Florida's coastal waters and other Manatee habitats is a central 

concern for the Club. The Interest Groups' mailing addresses are provided in Attachment A. [0204-A1.001.008] 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1502
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

2.a 

Comment ID 0204-A1.001.007 

Author Name: Thomas John 

Organization: Law office of John R. Thomas on behalf of Chassahowitzka River Restoration Committee, et al. 

The Interest Groups look forward to EPA's consideration of these comments and to further participation in this important 

rulemaking effort. Thank you very much. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0204-A1.001.008 

Author Name: Thomas John 

Organization: Law office of John R. Thomas on behalf of Chassahowitzka River Restoration Committee, et al. 

ATTACHMENT A 

INTEREST GROUPS 

Chassahowitzka River Restoration 

Committee 

Brad W. Rimbey, Chairman 

10028 S Riviera Pt 

Homosassa, FL 34448 

Florida Defenders of the Environment, Inc. 

309 State Road 26 

Melrose, Fl 32666 

Mail to: PO Box 357086 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1503
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Gainesville, Fl 32635 

Ginnie Springs Outdoors, Inc. 

Mark M.D. Wray, President 

7300 NE Ginnie Springs Road 

High Springs FL 32643 

Ichetucknee Alliance, Inc. 

John D. Jopling, President 

P. O. Box 945 

High Springs, FL 32655-0945 

Kings Bay Springs Alliance 

Tracy Colson, President 

8153 W. Justin Lane 

Crystal River, Florida 34428 

Our Santa Fe River, Inc. 

Merrillee Malwitz-Jipson, President 

2070 SW CR 138 

Fort White, FL 32038 

Rainbow River Conservation, Inc. 

Dr. Burton Eno, President 

9220 S.W. 193rd Circle 

Dunnellon, FL 34432 

St. Johns Riverkeeper 

Lisa Rinaman 

2800 University Blvd. N. 

Jacksonville, FL 32211 

Save the Homosassa River Alliance, Inc. 

d/b/a Homosassa River Alliance (HRA) 

James Bitter, President 

P. O. Box 124 

Homosassa, Florida 34447 

Save the Manatee Club 

Katie Tripp, Ph.D., Dir. of Science & 

Conservation 

500 N. Maitland Ave. 

Maitland, FL 32751 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1504
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

WAR, Inc. (Withlacoochee Area Residents) 

Dan Hilliard, Director 

PO Box 350 

Inglis, FL 34449 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0205-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Burd Charlie 

Organization: Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia Inc. 

These comments on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's ("USEPA") proposed revisions to 40 C.F.R. 

Part 131 (the "Proposed Rule") are submitted on behalf of the Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia, 

Inc. ("IOGA-WV"). Formed in 1959, IOGA-WV is a statewide nonprofit trade association that represents companies 

engaged in the extraction and production of natural gas and oil in West Virginia and the companies that support these 

extraction and production activities. IOGA-WV appreciates this opportunity to provide the following comments on the 

Proposed Rule. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0205-A1.001.015 

Author Name: Burd Charlie 

Organization: Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia Inc. 

IOGA-WV appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments on the Proposed Rule and is hopeful that they will be 

given due consideration by USEPA. Should you have any questions about anything contained in these comments, 

please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1505
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0206-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Foster Kelly 

Organization: Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. and Waterkeeper Organizations 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") 

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Rulemaking, 78 Federal Register 54,518 (Sept. 4, 2013) (hereinafter 

the "Proposed Rule"). Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. submits these comments on behalf of itself and the undersigned 

Waterkeeper organizations (hereinafter "Waterkeepers"). Waterkeeper Alliance is a global movement of on-the- ground 

and on-the-water community advocates. Waterkeepers defend their communities against anyone who threatens their 

right to clean water. There are currently more than 200 waterways protected by Waterkeepers around the world. 

Emphasizing citizen advocacy, Waterkeepers defend everyone's right to swimmable, drinkable and fishable waters, and 

combine firsthand knowledge of their waterways with an unwavering commitment to their communities and the rule of 

law. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0206-A1.001.024 

Author Name: Foster Kelly 

Organization: Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. and Waterkeeper Organizations 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule. Please do not hesitate to contact Kelly Foster at 

kfoster@waterkeeper.org should you have questions about these comments. 

Kelly Foster 

Senior Attorney 

WATERKEEPER® Alliance 

17 Battery Place, Suite 1329 

New York, NY 10004 

Phillip Musegaas, Esq. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1506
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Hudson River Program Director 

RIVERKEEPER®, Inc. 

20 Secor Road 

Ossining, NY 10562 

Chris Wilke 

Puget Soundkeeper and Executive Director 

Puget SOUNDKEEPER® Alliance 

5305 Shilshole Ave NW Suite 150 

Seattle WA, 98107 

Michael William Mullen 

Choctawhatchee RIVERKEEPER® 

P.O. Box 6734 

Banks, AL 36005 

Dean Naujoks
 

Riverkeeper and Executive Directory
 

Yadkin RIVERKEEPER®
 

308 Patterson Ave.
 

Winston Salem, NC 27101
 

Ian Wren
 

Staff Scientist
 

San Francisco BAYKEEPER®
 

785 Market St., Suite 850
 

San Francisco, CA 94103
 

Lisa Rinaman
 

St. Johns RIVERKEEPER®
 

2800 University Blvd. N.
 

Jacksonville, FL 32211
 

Kemp Burdette
 

Cape Fear RIVERKEEPER®
 

Cape Fear River Watch
 

617 Surry Street
 

Wilmington, NC 28401
 

Guy Alsentzer, Esq.
 

Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and Executive
 

Director
 

Upper Missouri WATERKEEPER®, Inc.
 

P.O. Box 128, Bozeman, Montana 59771 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1507
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Elizabeth Nicholas
 

Executive Director
 

WATERKEEPERS® Chesapeake
 

1625 Primrose Road NW
 

Washington, DC 20012
 

Heather Ward, PhD
 

Executive Director
 

Waterkeepers® Carolina
 

Capitol Station, PO Box 28555
 

Raleigh, NC 27611
 

Jeff Kelble
 

Shenandoah RIVERKEEPER®
 

P.O. Box 405 

Boyce, VA 22620 

Deborah A. Mans,
 

Baykeeper & Executive Director
 

NY/NJ BAYKEEPER®
 

52 W. Front Street
 

Keyport, NJ 0773
 

Michael R Helfrich
 

Lower Susquehanna RIVERKEEPER®
 

Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc.
 

2098 Long Level Rd
 

Wrightsville, PA 17368
 

Bill Schultz
 

Raritan RIVERKEEPER®
 

P.O. Box 244 

Keasbey, NJ 08832 

Sandy Bihn 

Executive Director 

Lake Erie WATERKEEPER®, Inc. 

3900 N. Summit, Bldg. 2 

Toledo, Ohio 43611 

Barbara Miller 

Director 

Silver Valley WATERKEEPER® 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1508
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

121 Cameron Avenue, Suite # 7
 

Kellogg, Idaho 83837
 

Matthew Starr
 

Upper Neuse Riverkeeper
 

Neuse RIVERKEEPER® Foundation
 

19 West Hargett Street, Suite 208
 

Raleigh, NC 27601
 

Robert Gallagher
 

Chairman
 

West/Rhode RIVERKEEPER®, Inc.
 

4800 Atwell Road, Suite 6
 

Shady Side, MD 20764
 

Art Norris
 

Quad Cities WATERKEEPER®
 

736 Federal St., Suite 2426
 

Davenport, IA 52803
 

Jerry O'Connell
 

Executive Director
 

Big Blackfoot RIVERKEEPER®, Inc.
 

Greenough, MT 59823
 

Earl Hatley
 

Grand RIVERKEEPER®
 

LEAD Agency, Inc.
 

19257 South 4403 Drive
 

Vinita, OK 74301
 

Kathy Phillips,
 

Executive Director and Coastkeeper
 

Assateague Coastal Trust/Assateague
 

COASTKEEPER®
 

9931 Old Ocean City Blvd.
 

Berlin, MD 21811
 

Forrest English
 

Program Director
 

Rogue RIVERKEEPER®
 

PO Box 102
 

Ashland, OR 97520
 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1509
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Brian Wegener, RIVERKEEPER® 

Advocacy & Communications Manager 

Tualatin Riverkeepers 

11675 SW Hazelbrook Rd. 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

Theaux M. Le Gardeur 

Exec. Director and Riverkeeper 

Gunpowder RIVERKEEPER® 

P.O. Box 156 

Monkton, MD 21111 

Lee Willbanks
 

Upper St. Lawrence RIVERKEEPER®
 

Executive Director, Save The River
 

409 Riverside Drive
 

Clayton, New York 13624
 

Robert Burns
 

Detroit RIVERKEEPER®
 

20600 Eureka Rd., Suite 313
 

Taylor, MI 48180
 

Justin Bloom
 

Suncoast WATERKEEPER®
 

P.O. Box 1028 

Sarasota, FL 34230 

Lauren Wargo 

Lower Neuse Riverkeeper 

Neuse RIVERKEEPER® Foundation 

2207 Trent Blvd. 

New Bern, NC 28562 

Paul Orr 

Lower Mississippi RIVERKEEPER® 

c/o The Louisiana Environmental Action 

Network 

P.O. Box 66323 

Baton Rouge, LA 70896 

Dan Tonsmeire 

Apalachicola RIVERKEEPER® 

Box 8 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1510
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

232B Water Street 

Apalachicola, Florida 32320 

Christine Ellis 

Waccamaw RIVERKEEPER® 

A Program of Winyah Rivers Foundation 

c/o Coastal Carolina University 

Center for Marine and Wetland Studies 

P.O. Box 261954 

Conway, SC 29528-6054 

Don McEnhill 

Executive Director 

Russian RIVERKEEPER® 

PO Box 1335 

Healdsburg, CA 95448 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0207-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Bodine Susan 

Organization: American Farm Bureau Federation et al. 

The agricultural and forestry organizations listed below provide these comments on the proposed Water Quality 

Standards Regulatory Clarifications Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 54517 (Sept. 4, 2013) (EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606). 

The undersigned - or their members - own, operate, or have an interest in, lands and facilities that produce or contribute 

to the production of the row crops, forests, livestock, and poultry that provide safe and affordable food, fiber, and fuel to 

Americans all across the United States. Some of these facilities are located on or near the waters of the United States. 

These operators include those that hold individual and/or general permits for the discharge of pollutants into water and 

those that undertake voluntary action to control nonpoint source runoff of pollutants from property. The undersigned 

thus have a direct interest in EPA regulations relating to water quality standards and how such standards may be met. 

Response 

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

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1511
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0207-A1.001.047 

Author Name: Bodine Susan 

Organization: American Farm Bureau Federation et al. 

III. Conclusion 

For all the forgoing reasons, the undersigned urge EPA to refrain from promulgating these proposed amendments to 

EPA's water quality standards regulations until the concerns identified herein are addressed. If you have any questions 

regarding these comments, please contact Susan Parker Bodine at 202-371-6364 or susan.bodine@btlaw.com. 

Respectfully submitted, 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

Agricultural Retailers Association 

American Sugar Alliance 

Georgia Poultry Federation 

Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association 

Michigan Sugar Company 

Mississippi Poultry Association 

National Alliance of Forest Owners 

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 

National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

National Chicken Council 

National Corn Growers Association 

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives 

National Milk Producers Federation 

National Pork Producers Council 

North Carolina Poultry Federation 

Ohio AgriBusiness Association 

Ohio Corn & Wheat Growers Association 

Ohio Soybean Association 

South Dakota Agri-Business Association 

South East Dairy Farmers Association 

The Fertilizer Institute 

U. S. Poultry & Egg Association 

United Egg Producers 

US Cattlemen's Association 

USA Rice Federation 

Virginia Poultry Federation 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1512
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Wyoming Ag-Business Association 

Wyoming Crop Improvement 

Wyoming Wheat Growers 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

1.b 

Comment ID 0208-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Foster Wade 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

On behalf of its member companies, The Fertilizer Institute ("TFI") submits these comments in response to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") Proposed Rule entitled Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications, 78 

Fed. Reg. 54,518 (Sept. 4, 2013) ("Proposed Rule"). [FN1] 

[FN1] See 78 Fed. Reg. 70,905 (Nov. 27, 2013) (extending comment period to January 2, 2014). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0208-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Foster Wade 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

STATEMENT OF INTEREST 

TFI represents the nation's fertilizer industry including producers, importers, retailers, wholesalers, and companies that 

provide services to the fertilizer industry. Its membership is served by a full-time Washington, D.C. staff in various 

legislative, educational, and technical areas, as well as with information and public relations programs. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1513
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

TFI members and entities within the fertilizer industry produce, handle, and use products that ultimately can enter 

effluent subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") program requirements, and as well as 

other regulatory regimes that necessarily rely upon water quality standards ("WQS") established under the Clean Water 

Act ("CWA"). TFI members hold NPDES permits and serve numerous entities that undertake voluntary efforts to control 

nonpoint source pollution, such as agricultural operations. As such, TFI and its members have a substantial interest in 

the Proposed Rule. As EPA accurately explains in the Proposed Rule, "WQS are the foundation for other CWA 

requirements applicable to a water body."[FN2] 

These "other" requirements include both point and nonpoint source controls, such as effluent limitations in NPDES 

permits and Total Maximum Daily Load ("TMDL") allocations, which can affect thousands of persons along just a single 

water body (e.g., the Chesapeake Bay). Portions of these requirements are implemented under the regulatory purview 

of EPA, while others are implemented by state and tribal agencies. Thus, TFI and its members share EPA's interest in 

assuring that WQS and related policies are implemented lawfully, appropriately, and consistently across the United 

States. [FN3] 

[FN2] 78 Fed. Reg. at 54,522 (emphasis added). 

[FN3] See, e.g., Memorandum from EPA Office of Water to Water Management Division Directors, EPA Regions I-X, re: 

"Interpretation of Federal Antidegradation Regulatory Requirement," at 4 (Feb. 22, 1994) ("Water quality standards 

serve the dual function of establishing water quality goals for a specific waterbody and providing the basis for regulatory 

controls."). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0209-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Gilzow Floyd 

Organization: Missouri Public Utility Alliance 

The Missouri Public Utility Alliance ("MPUA" or "the Alliance") is pleased to submit comments regarding the proposed 

Clarifications to the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") policy and procedure regarding the establishment of 

Water Quality Standards; Draft Rule published in the 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (September 4, 2013). 

MPUA is a free association of municipally owned public utilities tracing its roots back over 80 years providing water, 

wastewater, natural gas and electric services within the state of Missouri. We represent 120 Missouri cities composed 

of a million residential and business customers. Our goal is to ensure affordable, reliable, environmental responsible 

utility services to all our citizen/owners. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1514
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Virtually all of our cities provide sewer services utilizing a broad range of technologies based largely on flow rates, soil 

composition, and the geomorphology of the receiving streams. A few of our communities have become involved in "zero 

discharge" systems to avoid the necessity of a regulated discharge to jurisdictional or unclassified waters. By in large 

though, the vast majority do have valid National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permits issued by the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources and take their responsibilities under the Clean Water Act very seriously. About 26 

cities operate lagoons, while the remainder not previously identified operate some sort of mechanical plant. 

The Alliance appreciates the opportunity afforded by the EPA to comment and provide additional information as the 

agency reviews, clarifies and refines the federal/state partnership that results in enforceable, beneficial and achievable 

water quality standards. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0209-A1.001.006 

Author Name: Gilzow Floyd 

Organization: Missouri Public Utility Alliance 

GENERAL COMMENTS 

Our comments are provided based on my over twenty years of experience in the field of water quality policy 

development primarily in Missouri and Arkansas, first as an advocate helping create the Upper White River Basin 

Foundation, later as a regulator when I served as the Deputy Director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 

and now as a representative of the Regulated community in Missouri. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0210-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Connelly Kent 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1515
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

The Coalition of Local Governments (Coalition or CLG) CLG is a voluntary association of local governments established 

to educate, guide and develop federal land policy in the affected western Wyoming counties. CLG members include 

county commissions and conservation districts, organized under the pertinent statutes of Wyoming. Current members 

include Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, and Uinta Counties, and the Lincoln, Little Snake River, Popo Agie, Star Valley, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, and Uinta Conservation Districts. Pursuant to state law, the counties and conservation districts 

adopt land use plans and policies that guide land uses on federal, private, and state lands. The conservation districts 

sponsor water quality projects to address improvement of basins and water quality. The issues faced in the arid West 

differ significantly from elsewhere in the United States and local governments are uniquely qualified to participate. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0211-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Lane David 

Organization: Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board 

The following are the comments of the Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board (MESERB) on 

the above-referenced docket. MESERB is a 43-member organization of Minnesota cities, public utilities commissions, 

and sanitary sewer districts dedicated to ensuring that regulations affecting wastewater treatment are reasonable and 

based on sound science. Comments are organized according to the September 4, 2013 Federal Register notice. [FN1] 

[FN1] 78 Federal Register 171, 54518 - 54546 (September 4, 2013). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0211-A1.001.012 

Author Name: Lane David 

Organization: Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1516
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

E. Conclusion 

EPA may direct any questions or responses to these comments to the following: 

David Lane, Environmental Coordinator 

Rochester Water Reclamation Plant 

201 – 4th Street Southeast 

Rochester, MN 55904 

507-328-2656 

dlane@rochestermn.gov 

Steven W. Nyhus, Senior Attorney 

Flaherty & Hood, P.A. 

525 Park Street, Suite 470 

St. Paul, MN 55103 

651-225-8840 

swnyhus@flaherty-hood.com 

Thank you for your time and attention. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0212-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Norton Kelly 

Organization: Arizona Mining Association 

On behalf of the Arizona Mining Association ("AMA"), I appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the abovereferenced U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") proposed water quality standards regulatory clarifications 

(the "proposal"). The proposal contains various suggested changes to portions of 40 C.F.R. Part 131, the regulations 

that govern how states adopt and implement surface water quality standards. 

Response 

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

14.a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1517
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0212-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Norton Kelly 

Organization: Arizona Mining Association 

The AMA is a non-profit business league comprised of entities engaged in mining and mineral processing in Arizona. Its 

members include (but are not limited to): ASARCO LLC, BHP Copper Inc., Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., 

Carlota Copper Company, Rosemont Copper Company, Resolution Copper Company, Florence Copper, Inc., Energy 

Fuels, Peabody Energy and Golden Vertex. In 2012, AMA member companies produced approximately 65% of the 

nation's newly-mined copper, along with significant amounts of associated valuable co-products (e.g., gold, silver, 

selenium, tellurium and molybdenum). In 2012, the Arizona copper industry employed approximately 12,100 people and 

had an estimated direct and indirect impact on the Arizona economy of nearly $5 billion. AMA members also are 

engaged in the mining of coal, uranium and other materials, and make significant contributions to the Arizona economy 

as a result of those activities. One of the main priorities of the AMA is to represent its members in the development of 

federal and state regulations that affect mining interests in Arizona. 

AMA member companies are directly affected by policy, regulatory, and permitting decisions made pursuant to the 

federal Clean Water Act ("CWA" or "Act"). AMA members own and operate metal and nonmetal mines and related 

facilities that often require individual or general permits issued by EPA under the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System ("NPDES") program, or by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality under the state's 

delegated NPDES program, known as the Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("AZPDES") program. State 

surface water quality standards are integral to the development of these permits and the conditions imposed in these 

permits (e.g., effluent limitations imposed in individual NPDES or AZPDES permits are often derived directly from state 

water quality standards applicable to the receiving water). Changes in how the state standards are developed and 

implemented thus will have a direct impact on AMA members. In addition, AMA members often obtain permits issued by 

the Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. Before such permits can be issued, states are required by 

Section 401 of the CWA to certify that the discharges authorized by the Section 404 permit will not result in a violation 

of the state's surface water quality standards. The 401 certification process also is directly affected by changes to the 

federal rules governing the development and implementation of state surface water quality standards. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0212-A1.001.017 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1518
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Author Name: Norton Kelly 

Organization: Arizona Mining Association 

The AMA appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments and encourages EPA to give them careful 

consideration as it develops its final rule. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0213-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Coyne Kevin 

Organization: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) appreciates this opportunity to provide the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with comments on the proposed national rulemaking (proposal) to clarify the 

federal water quality standards regulation. 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (Sept. 4, 2013). 

As an active participant in the various webinars and the November EPA/Association of Clean Water Administrators 

(ACWA) workshop, we along with numerous other states and EPA staff have invested significant time and efforts to 

better understand the proposed revisions and voice concerns per specific pieces of the proposal. We greatly 

appreciated the numerous opportunities to share concerns, request clarification, and voice support on various revisions 

posted in the proposal. We hope this open dialogue and communication continues as the proposal moves forward. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

2.d 

Comment ID 0213-A1.001.008 

Author Name: Coyne Kevin 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1519
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

If you believe further discussion is needed pertaining to any items discussed in this letter and/or the January 2, 2014 

ACWA letter please do not hesitate to contact me at (304) 926-0499 x1110 or Kevin.R.Coyne@wv.gov 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0215-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Callaway Casi 

Organization: Mobile Baykeeper 

On behalf of more than 4,000 members, the officers and staff of Mobile Baykeeper, we respectfully add our support to 

the comments put forward by Waterkeeper Alliance as listed below. Alabama is in desperate need of attention by 

federal agencies due to a choice by the state legislators to keep our environmental agency operating at or, much more 

often, below minimum standards by refusing to fund the program at even $1 per person from our general fund. Strong 

environmental laws – especially those surrounding water quality – are vital to ensuring protections for Alabama's 

citizens, businesses, industries and wildlife. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") 

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Rulemaking, 78 Federal Register 54,518 (Sept. 4, 2013) (hereinafter 

the "Proposed Rule"). Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. submits these comments on behalf of itself and the undersigned 

Waterkeeper organizations (hereinafter "Waterkeepers"). Waterkeeper Alliance is a global movement of on-the- ground 

and on-the-water community advocates. Waterkeepers defend their communities against anyone who threatens their 

right to clean water. There are currently more than 200 waterways protected by Waterkeepers around the world. 

Emphasizing citizen advocacy, Waterkeepers defend everyone's right to swimmable, drinkable and fishable waters, and 

combine firsthand knowledge of their waterways with an unwavering commitment to their communities and the rule of 

law. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0215-A1.001.024 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1520
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Author Name: Callaway Casi 

Organization: Mobile Baykeeper 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule. Please do not hesitate to contact me, Casi Callaway, 

Executive Director – callaway@mobilebaykeeper.org, or Donna Jordan, Programs Director – 

djordan@mobilebaykeeper.org, if you have any questions or need additional information. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0216-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Brisson Brook 

Organization: Trustees for Alaska on behalf of the Alaska Center for the Environment et al. 

Trustees for Alaska submits these comments on behalf of the Alaska Center for the Environment, Alaska Community 

Action on Toxics, Cook Inletkeeper, Native Village of Port Graham, and the Northern Alaska Environmental Center 

(collectively, "Commenters"). Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency's 

("EPA") Clean Water Act ("CWA") proposed rule: Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications, 78 Fed. Reg. 

54,518 (proposed Sept. 4, 2013) [hereafter Proposed Rule]. Commenters represent many members across Alaska who 

rely on clean water for subsistence, economic, cultural, aesthetic, personal consumption, and recreational uses of 

water. 

The Alaska Center for the Environment's mission is to enhance Alaskan's quality of life by protecting wild places, 

fostering sustainable communities, and promoting recreational opportunities. It works to protect Alaska's natural 

environment, including clean water, for its members through education and advocacy. 

Alaska Community Action on Toxics ("ACAT") a statewide non-profit public interest environmental health research and 

advocacy organization dedicated to protecting environmental health and achieving environmental justice. ACAT 

believes that everyone has a right to clean air, clean water, and toxic-free food. ACAT works with communities to help 

create effective strategies to limit exposure to toxic substances and to protect and restore the ecosystems that sustain 

them and their way of life. It is important to protect water quality in order to safeguard and sustain the right of all 

Alaskans to clean drinking water, safe subsistence foods, and a healthy environment. 

Cook Inletkeeper was formed by concerned Alaskans in 1995 to protect the Cook Inlet watershed and the life it 

sustains. Cook Inletkeeper's primary efforts focus on protecting water quality and salmon habitat to ensure sustainable 

local economies and communities. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1521
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

The Port Graham Tribal Council is a federally recognized tribal entity that serves the Alutiiq people of the Native Village 

of Port Graham as the governing body. The Tribal Council operates a variety of social, cultural and community and 

economic development programs designed to enhance the quality of life for tribal members. Tribal members rely heavily 

on subsistence living and clean water is very important for Port Graham's culture and subsistence. 

The Northern Alaska Environmental Center's ("NAEC") mission is to promote conservation of the environment and 

sustainable resource stewardship in Interior and Arctic Alaska through education and advocacy. NAEC seeks to protect 

clean air, clean water, and wilderness through robust state and federal land planning and permitting processes. NAEC 

members use public waters in Alaska for recreation, subsistence activities and drinking water and value the pristine 

clean water that Alaska holds. 

While the Proposed Rule covers seven areas, these comments focus on two: Requirements of Triennial Reviews and 

Antidegradation Implementation. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0217-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Hale Michelle 

Organization: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has reviewed the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA) proposed rule for Water-Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications published in the Federal Register 

on September 4, 2013 (Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 171, pp. 54518-54546). ADEC appreciates the opportunity to 

provide input on this important matter and offers the following general and specific comments on this proposal. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0217-A2.001.004 

Author Name: Hale Michelle 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1522
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

ADEC has the following detailed comments related to the proposed Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0217-A2.001.025 

Author Name: Hale Michelle 

Organization: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

ADEC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and appreciates the EPA presentations and 

opportunities for discussion and comment on the proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding ADEC's 

comments, please feel free to contact Nancy Sonafrank at (907) 451- 2726 or nancy.sonafrank@alaska.gov. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0218-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Elardo Pam 

Organization: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 

King County, Washington, is a regional service provider of wastewater treatment to 1.4 million residents and is 

completing a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Long Term Control Plan. We provide stormwater management for over 

250,000 residents, regional industrial pretreatment programs in and around Seattle, Washington, and create and 

distribute reclaimed water. Both our wastewater and stormwater services are managed under National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System's (NPDES) permits with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). King 

County is also a designated Water Pollution Control Authority under State law with responsibilities for regional water 

quality protection and enhancement. As a regulated entity, and a jurisdiction actively managing water quality over an 

area of more than 2,100 square miles, we share the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interest in restoring and 

maintaining the highest water quality and beneficial uses in our region. King County appreciates the EPA's efforts to 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1523
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

provide clarifications to important aspects Clean Water Act (CWA) implementation. With this letter, I wish to provide 

comments on several elements of the EPA's proposed clarifications to 40 CFR Part 131, as proposed in docket EPAHQ-OW-2010-0606. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0219-A1.001.001 

Author Name: McNelly Jeff 

Organization: ARIPPA 

I. Introduction 

ARIPPA, on behalf of its member companies, hereby provides comments to EPA on the 

information presented or described in the Federal Register of September 4, 2013, regarding 40 

CFR Part 131 

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications; Proposed. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. Introduction - 1 

II Background ARIPPA-Industry - 1 

III. Executive Summary - 2 

IV. Comments - 3 

V. Conclusion - 5 

II. Background-ARIPPA-Industry 

Organized in 1988, ARIPPA is a non-profit trade association based in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Its membership is 

comprised of electric generating plants, combusting coal refuse as primary fuel and producing alternative electrical 

energy and/or steam. Most ARIPPA plants are currently located in or near the anthracite or bituminous coal regions of 

the United States. ARIPPA plants generate approximately 5% of the total electricity produced in the Pennsylvania-West 

Virginia region. The surrounding communities, lands, and streams have experienced vast environmental improvements 

due mainly to the decades of hard work and dedication of the ARIPPA Members and their staffs. 

ARIPPA facility plants generate electricity using circulating fluidized bed (CFB) technology (also referred to as FBC 

(fluidized bed combustion) to convert coal refuse and/or other alternative fuels such as biomass into alternative energy 

and steam. ARIPPA facilities generate electricity for sale at a minimum capacity of more than 25 MWe. Today, there are 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1524
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

CFB (FBC) alternative energy plants converting coal mining refuse in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Illinois, Montana, 

and Utah. 

ARIPPA facilities provide a unique environmental benefit by utilizing state-of-the-art CFB (FBC) technology to convert 

coal refuse into energy. ARIPPA facilities utilize coal refuse from both past and current mining activities, and thereby 

reclaim existing and idle/abandoned strip mines and abate acid mine drainage from coal refuse piles, at no cost to 

taxpayers. By converting coal refuse into alternative energy, ARIPPA plants are removing one of the principal sources 

of contamination to surface water and groundwater in coal mining regions of the United States. These activities have 

resulted in long-term water quality improvements that would have not occurred without them. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0219-A1.001.003 

Author Name: McNelly Jeff 

Organization: ARIPPA 

IV. Specific Comments
 

ARIPPA's specific comments are directed at the areas:
 

1. Administrator's Determinations That New or Revised Water Quality Standards
 

(WQS) Are Necessary
 

2. Designated Uses
 

3. Requirements of Triennial Reviews
 

4. Antidegradation Implementation.
 

A. Alternatives Analysis
 

B. EPA Approval and Minimum Implementation Requirements
 

C. Identifying Tier 2 Waters
 

D. De Minimus Exemptions
 

5. Water Quality Standards (WQS) Variances
 

Response 

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

14.a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1525
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0220-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Anderson Paul 

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

On behalf of the Lower Fountain Metropolitan Sewage Disposal District ("Lower Fountain", "Lower Fountain District" or 

"District") located in El Paso County, Colorado, I am submitting these comments concerning the Environmental 

Protection Agency's ("EPA") proposed Water Quality Standards clarification rule ("proposed rule") for 40 CRF Part 131, 

published September 4, 2013 (Fed. Reg. Vol. 78, No. 171). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0220-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Anderson Paul 

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

To put these comments into context, a brief background is provided: 

• The Lower Fountain District is one of two statutory metropolitan sewage disposal districts in the State of Colorado. 

Formed in 1986, its current members consist of the Fountain Sanitation District (FSD) and the Colorado Centre 

Metropolitan District (CCMD), with one private contracting entity. The Lower Fountain service area currently includes a 

population of approximately 30,000 residents. 

• Earlier this year the District completed construction of a 2.5 MGD water reclamation facility. Construction of the new 

facility occurred over a 3-year period at a cost of approximately $28 million. The new facility began initial operation in 

September of this year and it currently discharges an average of 0.4 MGD of treated wastewater into an open channel 

that is tributary to Fountain Creek. The treated discharge flows in the channel a distance of approximately two (2) miles 

to the confluence with Fountain Creek south of the City of Fountain municipal boundary. 

• In 2012 and 2013, Colorado held two major rulemaking proceedings: Adoption of numeric standards and monitoring 

requirements for nutrients in 2012 (Colorado Regulation 31 and new Regulation 85), and a triennial review rulemaking 

concerning water quality standards within the Arkansas River basin (Regulation 32) within which Fountain Creek is 

located. As a result of these rulemakings, Lower Fountain will spend millions of dollars to comply with these new 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1526
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

standards and requirements and potentially could be required to spend tens of millions more. The current compliance 

expenses have already placed an enormous strain on the District and its customers, and additional expenses would be 

devastating. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

12.a 

Comment ID 0220-A2.001.013 

Author Name: Anderson Paul 

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

On behalf of the Lower Fountain District, thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0221-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Coyne Kevin 

Organization: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) appreciates this opportunity to provide the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with comments on the proposed national rulemaking (proposal) to clarify the 

federal water quality standards regulation. 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (Sept. 4, 2013). 

As an active participant in the various webinars and the November EPA/Association of Clean Water Administrators 

(ACWA) workshop, we along with numerous other states and EPA staff have invested significant time and efforts to 

better understand the proposed revisions and voice concerns per specific pieces of the proposal. We greatly 

appreciated the numerous opportunities to share concerns, request clarification, and voice support on various revisions 

posted in the proposal. We hope this open dialogue and communication continues as the proposal moves forward. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1527
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

2.d 

Comment ID 0221-A1.001.008 

Author Name: Coyne Kevin 

Organization: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

If you believe further discussion is needed pertaining to any items discussed in this letter and/or the January 2, 2014 

ACWA letter please do not hesitate to contact me at (304) 926-0499 x1110 or Kevin.R.Coyne@wv.gov 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0222-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Modeer David 

Organization: Western Urban Water Coalition 

This letter provides comments on behalf of the Western Urban Water Coalition (WUWC) regarding the Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed changes to the federal water quality standards regulations (40 C.F.R. Subparts A, 

B, and C of Part 131, comprising 40 C.F.R. §§ 131.1 through 131.22), published in the Federal Register at 78 Fed. Reg. 

54518 (Sept. 24, 2013) (Proposed Rule). EPA extended the public comment period to January 2, 2014. 78 Fed. Reg. 

70905 (November 27, 2013). 

Established in June 1992 to address the West's unique water issues, WUWC consists of the largest urban water utilities 

in the West, serving over 35 million western water consumers in 15 metropolitan areas in five states. The membership 

of the WUWC includes the following urban water utilities: Arizona - Central Arizona Project and City of Phoenix; 

California - East Bay Municipal Utility District, Eastern Municipal Water District, Los Angeles Department of Water and 

Power, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, San Diego County Water Authority, City and County of 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1528
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and Santa Clara Valley Water District; Colorado - Aurora Water, Colorado 

Springs Utilities, and Denver Water; Nevada - Las Vegas Valley Water District, Southern Nevada Water Authority, and 

Truckee Meadows Water Authority; and Washington - Seattle Public Utilities. 

WUWC members have strong interest in clean water for municipal water supplies and in the regulatory processes 

protecting water quality. In particular, WUWC members are concerned with predictability and certainty in the application 

of water quality standards (WQS) used in determining permit limits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) and in reducing compliance costs in meeting WQS. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0222-A1.001.022 

Author Name: Modeer David 

Organization: Western Urban Water Coalition 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on EPA's proposed changes to the federal water quality standards 

regulation, as published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2013. If you have any questions regarding the 

comments in this letter, please contact our counsel, Donald C. Baur or Paul B. Smyth of Perkins Coie, LLP at (202) 

654-6200. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0223-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Lindekugel Buck 

Organization: Grassroots Attorney on behalf of Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications proposed on by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to improve implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). See 79 FR 54,518 

(Sept. 4, 2013). Subsequently, EPA extended the comment period on the Proposed Rule until January 2, 2014. See 78 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1529
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

FR 70905 (Nov. 27, 2013). 

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC). SEACC is 

dedicated to the conservation of natural resources, including fresh and marine waters, in Southeast Alaska and 

elsewhere in Alaska while providing for balanced, sustainable use of our region's resources. SEACC's purpose is to 

ensure that a substantial portion of this region is retained and protected in a minimally changed condition, while 

encouraging sustainable communities, human enjoyment, and use of these remarkable resources. 

SEACC is a member-based organization with nearly 1,000 members, including Alaskans who participate in the 

commercial, recreational, and customary and traditional use of fish and wildlife, own tourism and recreation businesses; 

and run small sawmills. Members of SEACC regularly use the public waters of Alaska, to satisfy a variety of interests, 

including the harvest of marine resources for customary and traditional (subsistence), recreational, and commercial 

purposes, as well as the aesthetic enjoyment of our abundant coastal resources in general. 

Promoting clean water and strong water quality standards are essential components of SEACC's goal to protect our 

regions natural resources, including public waters and our members' use and enjoyment of those waters. We submit 

these comments to ensure that SEACC and its members continue to benefit from the use and enjoyment of Alaska's 

tremendous coastal resources. With over 61 percent of America's coastal shoreline in Alaska, the Proposed Rule 

directly affects the interests of our members, as well as SEACC's organizational interests. 

While the Proposed Rule addresses seven program areas, our comments focus on the Administrator's Determinations 

on Necessity for New or Revised Water Quality Standards (WQS), Requirements of Triennial Reviews, and 

Antidegradation Implementation, including the need for robust alternative analysis. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0224-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Ternieden Claudio 

Organization: Water Environment Federation 

The Water Environment Federation (WEF) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule Water Quality 

Standards Regulatory Clarifications published in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 171 on Wednesday, September 4, 

2013. 

WEF is a not-for-profit association that has provided technical education and training for the world's water quality 

professionals since 1928. The Federation has 36,000 individual members and 75 affiliated Member Associations who 

support its mission to preserve and enhance the global water environment. WEF is supportive of regulations that are 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1530
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

science based, achievable, and protective of human health and the environment. 

WEF submits the following comments on the proposed rule. Our comments are presented using the same references 

under Section III. Program Areas for Proposed Regulatory Clarifications on page 54521 of the Federal Register notice. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0224-A1.001.016 

Author Name: Ternieden Claudio 

Organization: Water Environment Federation 

Conclusion 

If you have any questions or wish to discuss our comments, please contact me (703) 684-2416 or at 

cternieden@wef.org. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0225-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Blackham Leonard 

Organization: Utah Department of Agriculture and Food 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed water quality standards. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1531
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0226-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Jones Lewis 

Organization: King and Spalding LLP on behalf of Georgia Water Quality Stakeholders 

The Georgia Water Quality Stakeholders (the "Georgia Stakeholders") appreciate this opportunity to submit the 

following comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") Proposed Rule regarding Water Quality 

Standards Clarifications. See Attachment. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0226-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Jones Lewis 

Organization: King and Spalding LLP on behalf of Georgia Water Quality Stakeholders 

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Georgia Water Quality Stakeholders (the "Georgia Stakeholders") is a group of NPDES permittees consisting of 

public utilities as well as industrial dischargers. Members of the group have extensive experience with Georgia's water 

pollution control laws and Georgia's antidegradation policy in particular. The Georgia Stakeholders have a strong 

interest in the proposed amendments to the antidegradation rule because differing interpretations of the rule have given 

rise to numerous lawsuits over the past ten years. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0226-A1.001.005 

Author Name: Jones Lewis 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1532
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: King and Spalding LLP on behalf of Georgia Water Quality Stakeholders 

II. EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK 

Georgia's water quality program is administered by the Director of the Environmental Protection Division ("Georgia 

EPD") pursuant to rules promulgated by the Board of Natural Resources (the "DNR Board"). The governing statute is 

the Georgia Water Quality Control Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-5-20 et. seq. EPA delegated authority to Georgia EPD to 

administer the federal NPDES program in 1974. Georgia's water quality rules are codified at GEORGIA COMP. R. & 

REGS. R. 391-3-6-.03. The DNR Board has promulgated a separate rule–GEORGIA COMP. R. & REGS. R. 391-3-6­

.06–to establish effluent limits for discharge permits. 

Georgia's antidegradation policy mirrors the federal policy. [FN1] Georgia's implementation methods are set forth in the 

State of Georgia's Antidegradation Implementation Procedures (the "Procedures"). 

The Procedures establish that all State waters in Georgia are considered "high quality waters" for purposes of 

antidegradation review. This has always been Georgia's policy. It reflects an early decision by Georgia EPD to subject 

all permittees to the same high standards, regardless of where they are located. 

Because all dischargers in Georgia are required to meet the same high standards, the main function of antidegradation 

review in Georgia is to determine whether any new or expanded discharge should be allowed at all. Georgia EPD has 

interpreted the antidegradation policy as establishing a preference for alternatives to the permitting of a new or 

expanded discharge by requiring applicants to demonstrate that certain no-discharge alternatives (such as land 

application and reuse) are not feasible. 

This policy is implemented in the Procedures through a two-step analysis. The first is to show that additional 

wastewater treatment capacity is needed to accommodate important social and economic development. The second is 

to consider a suite of no-discharge alternatives, thus showing that the needed capacity can only be provided by 

authorizing a new or expanded surface water discharge. If both demonstrations are made, it follows that "allowing lower 

water quality is necessary to accommodate important social or economic development," and the result is that the permit 

can be issued. 

Once the Director determines that the new or expanded discharge should be allowed, the Director turns to the waste 

treatment rule–GEORGIA COMP. R. & REGS. R. 391-3-6-.06(4)–to establish specific effluent limits. The Georgia Court 

of Appeals recently affirmed in Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Forsyth County that Georgia EPD is neither 

required nor authorized to use antidegradation review as a means to establish specific effluent limitations, as doing so 

would conflict with that rule.[FN2] 

[FN1] GEORGIA COMP. R. & REGS. R. 391-3-6-.03(2)(b). 

[FN2] 318 Ga. App. 499, 504 (2012). 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1533
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0227-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Williams Christopher 

Organization: AMERICAN RIVERS 

American Rivers respectfully submits these comments on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Proposed Rule 

on Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications (proposed rule) at Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606. 

American Rivers, a not-for-profit corporation headquartered in Washington, DC, is the nation's leading river 

conservation organization. We protect wild rivers, restore damaged rivers, and conserve clean water for people and 

nature. Since 1973, American Rivers has protected and restored more than 150,000 miles of rivers through advocacy 

efforts, on-the-ground projects, and an annual America's Most Endangered Rivers® campaign. Headquartered in 

Washington, DC, American Rivers has offices across the country and more than 200,000 members, supporters, and 

volunteers. 

American Rivers is recognized for its unparalleled expertise in river restoration (particularly dam removal) and Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydropower dam licensing. While we share many of the concerns and 

reservations about the proposed rule that have been identified by other conservation organizations, our comments here 

are limited to the rule's impact on Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (Act) as it pertains to FERC hydropower licensing 

and river restoration projects. Specifically, our comments are limited to the proposed rule's section on water quality 

standards variances that the EPA has proposed to add to federal regulations at 40 CFR § 131.14. Below, we offer some 

specific recommendations to improve the proposed section on WQS variances to better encourage attainment and 

serve the Act's goal of restoring the nation's waters. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0227-A2.001.007 

Author Name: Williams Christopher 

Organization: AMERICAN RIVERS 

Conclusion 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1534
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Thank you very much for considering our comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at 

cwilliams@americanrivers.org or 202-347-7055. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0228-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Conn Rachel 

Organization: Amigos Bravos 

Amigos Bravos is a New Mexico water conservation organization guided by social justice principles. Amigos Bravos' 

mission is to protect and restore the waters of New Mexico, and ensure that these waters provide a reliable source of 

clean water to the communities and farmers that depend on them, as well as a safe place to swim, fish, and go boating. 

Amigos Bravos works locally, statewide and nationally to ensure that the waters of New Mexico are protected. In this 

capacity Amigos Bravos submits the following comments on EPA's Water Quality Standards Proposed Rulemaking. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0229-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Tillison Naomi 

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

The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians ("Tribe") appreciates the opportunity to provide 

comments on the Water Quality Standards (WQS) Regulatory Clarifications Rulemaking proposed by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) on September 4, 2013 (Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 171, pages 54518-54546). 

The Tribe is a federally-recognized Indian tribe and obtained WQS program authority under Clean Water Act (CWA) 

Sections 303(c)/401 in 2009. The Tribe retains hunting, fishing, and other usufactory rights outside of its Reservation 

boundaries in the territory ceded under the Treaty of 1842. The Tribe's cultural, subsistence, health, and economic well08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1535
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

being is dependent upon clean, healthy waters – both within and outside of its Reservation boundaries. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0229-A2.001.014 

Author Name: Tillison Naomi 

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

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions, and we appreciate consideration and responses 

EPA gives to comments it receives. We look forward to continuing our partnership with the EPA to protect and maintain 

the integrity of high quality waters and to restore the integrity of degraded waters. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0230-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Ettinger Albert
 

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

The undersigned organizations, members of the Mississippi River Collaborative, which is working to maintain and 

restore water quality in the Mississippi River Basin and the Gulf of Mexico, hereby submit comments on the proposed 

"Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications." 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1536
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0230-A1.001.033 

Author Name: Ettinger Albert 

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

Sincerely, 

Albert Ettinger 

One of the Counsel for the Environmental Law and Policy Center 

Chicago, Illinois 

Ettinger.Albert@gmail.com 

Betsy Lawton 

Senior Attorney 

Midwest Environmental Advocates 

Madison, Wisconsin 

Blawton@midwestadvocates.org 

Kris Sigford 

Water Quality Director 

Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy 

Saint Paul, Minnesota 

ksigford@mncenter.org 

Judy Petersen 

Executive Director 

Kentucky Waterways Alliance 

Louisville, Kentucky 

judy@kwalliance.org 

Dana Wright 

Water Policy Director 

Tennessee Clean Water Network 

Knoxville, Tennessee 

dana@tcwn.org 

Heather B. Navarro 

Executive Director 

Missouri Coalition for the Environment 

St. Louis, Missouri 

hnavarro@moenviron.org 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1537
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Glynnis Collins 

Executive Director 

Prairie Rivers Network 

Champaign, Illinois 

gcollins@prairierivers.org 

Andrew Whitehurst 

Water Policy Director 

Gulf Restoration Network 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

andrew@healthygulf.org 

Merritt Frey 

Habitat Program Director 

River Network 

Portland, Oregon 

mfrey@rivernetwork.org 

Ralph Rosenberg 

Iowa Environmental Council 

Des Moines, Iowa 

Rosenberg@iaenvironment.org 

John Whiteside 

Policy Director 

Arkansas Public Policy Panel 

Little Rock, Arkansas 

john@arpanel.org 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0231-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Sanderson Stuart 

Organization: The Colorado Mining Association 

The Colorado Mining Association (CMA) submits the following comments on the United States Environmental 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1538
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Protection Agency's ("EPA") proposed rule title Water Quality Standards ("WQS") Regulatory Clarifications, published at 

78 Fed. Reg. 54,518 (Sep. 4, 2013) (comment period extension published at 78 Fed. Reg. 70,905 (Nov. 27, 2013)). 

CMA is an industry organization, founded in 1876 and incorporated in 1897, whose more than 900 members include the 

producers of coal, metals, agricultural and industrial minerals throughout Colorado and the west. Our member 

operations are located on or near waters of the United States, and have obtained permission to operate via either 

individual or general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits. 

Because WQS set by EPA or the States (hereinafter referred to as "States," "State and Tribal," "States/Tribes," or 

similar) are the basis for effluent limits in many of our members' NPDES permits, CMA has a direct, substantial interest 

in EPA's proposed rule. This is true even though EPA's economic analysis of the proposed rule claims "the proposal will 

not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated entities." 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

12.a 

Comment ID 0232-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Grayum Mike 

Organization: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (hereafter Commission) appreciates this opportunity to provide comments 

on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule changes to 40 CFR 131. To preface the following 

comments from the Commission, we wish to clearly state that the following letter is an effort to communicate collectively 

held concerns of the Commission's member tribes. It does not, however, replace or supersede any comment or 

communications from individual tribal governments to the EPA on this matter. 

The Commission is comprised of representatives of 20 federally-recognized Indian Tribes located along the Washington 

coast and Puget Sound. These 20 tribes possess rights reserved by treaty to take a fair share of the fish destined to 

pass their usual and accustomed fishing places. They also posses reserved rights to take shellfish and even marine 

mammals that frequent their fishing grounds. These rights, which have been exercised since time immemorial, are 

highly dependent upon clean water. Additionally, the tribes rely upon healthy, clean, and abundant fish and shellfish for 

economic, subsistence and cultural purposes. Therefore, it is of great interest to western Washington tribes that 

Washington State water quality standards (WQS), i.e., both criteria and implementing provisions, are protective of the 

tribes' treaty reserved rights, tribal member health, and economic, subsistence and cultural interests. Additionally, we 

offer the following comments on EPA's proposed rules. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1539
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1540
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0233-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Pippy John 

Organization: Pennsylvania Coal Alliance 

I am writing on behalf of the Pennsylvania Coal Alliance, representing underground and surface bituminous coal 

operators in Pennsylvania, and the businesses that service and supply the industry. The Alliance appreciates the 

opportunity to comment on the U.S. EPA's proposed rule, "Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications" 78 Fed. 

Reg. 54518 (September 4, 2013). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0234-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Andes Fredric 

Organization: Federal Water Quality Coalition 

The Federal Water Quality Coalition (the "Coalition") is pleased to provide the following comments on EPA's proposed 

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606, 78 Fed. Reg. 54517 (Sept. 4, 2013) 

(Proposed Rule). 

The Coalition is a group of industrial companies, municipal entities, agricultural parties, and trade associations that are 

directly affected, or which have members that are directly affected, by regulatory decisions made under the federal 

Clean Water Act. The Coalition members, for purposes of these comments, are as follows: Alcoa, Inc., American 

Chemistry Council, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, American Forest & Paper Association, American Iron 

and Steel Institute, American Petroleum Institute, Association of Idaho Cities, Auto Industry Water Quality Coalition, City 

of Superior (WI), Edison Electric Institute, Freeport- McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc., General Electric Company, Hecla 

Mining Company, Indiana Coal Council, Kennecott Utah Copper LLC, Koch Industries, Inc.; Mid America CropLife 

Association, Monsanto Company, National Association of Home Builders, Orange County Sanitation District, 

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Rayonier Corporation, Rubber Manufacturers Association, 

Shell, Utility Water Act Group, Western Coalition of Arid States, Western States Petroleum Association, and 

Weyerhaeuser Company. 

Coalition member entities or their members own and operate facilities located on or near waters of the United States. 

Many of these facilities operate pursuant to individual and/or general NPDES permits for discharges into those waters. 

Those permits often include, and will include in the future, effluent limitations based on water quality standards 

established by the States or EPA. The Coalition therefore has a direct interest in the matters addressed in the Proposed 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1541
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Rule. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The FWQC (and its predecessor the Water Quality Standards Coalition) has participated in EPA's development of this 

Proposed Rule through comments on EPA's July 7, 1998 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and EPA's July 

30, 2010 Notice soliciting stakeholder input. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0234-A2.001.034 

Author Name: Andes Fredric 

Organization: Federal Water Quality Coalition 

VIII. CONCLUSION 

The FWQC appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on the Proposed Rule. Please feel free to call or email if you have any questions, or if you would like any additional information concerning the issues raised in these 

comments. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0235-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Lumley Babtist 

Organization: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) appreciates this opportunity to provide comments on EPA's 

draft Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule. CRITFC and its member tribes appreciate their 

partnerships with the EPA on managing water quality in the Pacific Northwest, and we look forward to strengthening 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1542
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

these relations. For our tribal people, clean water is paramount; it nourishes the land, the fish, all living organisms, and 

us. Water, salmon and the other First Foods are fundamental to the CRITFC tribes' religion, culture and way of life. 

Tribal treaties with the United States guaranteed that not only would salmon exist for tribal people to take, but that those 

fish would sustain our way of life and thus be healthy and untainted by toxic pollutants, and run diminished by water 

with too little oxygen or too-warm temperatures. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0236-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Weigel Brian 

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

The following comments are organized according to the descriptive background text in 40 CFR Part 131, which does 

not follow the order of the code numbering. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0238-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Gonet Phillip 

Organization: Illinois Coal Association 

The Illinois Coal Association (ICA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA) proposed rule, "Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications." 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (September 4, 

2013). The ICA is a professional trade organization founded in 1878 to promote the Illinois coal industry. Members of 

the ICA produce the majority of coal mined in Illinois, and are subject to regulations promulgated pursuant to the Clean 

Water Act (CWA). The nature and scope of the modifications to the existing CWA regulations will have a significant 

impact on the Illinois coal industry. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1543
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0239-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Easterly Thomas 

Organization: Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) appreciates the opportunity to provide 

feedback/comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) proposed national rulemaking to clarify the 

federal water quality standards (WQS) regulation 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (Sept. 4, 2013). 

IDEM is the state agency in Indiana with the responsibility of establishing and implementing water quality standards. As 

such, we have taken much interest in the development of this proposal. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0239-A2.001.005 

Author Name: Easterly Thomas 

Organization: Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking, and appreciate your consideration of this 

feedback. I encourage U. S. EPA to continue discussions with its state co-regulators as you proceed through this 

rulemaking process. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0240-A2.001.001 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1544
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Author Name: Turner Jr. James 

Organization: Murray Energy Corporation 

The following comments are submitted on behalf of Murray Energy Corporation. In addition, the Illinois Coal 

Association, Kentucky Coal Association, Pennsylvania Coal Alliance, Ohio Coal Association, and West Virginia Coal 

Association have authorized us to state that they support our comments. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0241-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Licata Angela 

Organization: New York City Department of Environmental Protection 

The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed Water Quality Standard (WQS) Regulatory Clarifications. The 

following comments build on DEP's September 17, 2010 comments on EPA's request for stakeholder input on EPA's 

proposed revisions to WQS Regulations. NYCDEP comments specifically on EPA's proposed changes to 40 CFR 

sections 131.3(m), 131.10(g), (j) and (k), pertaining to the new proposed definition of Highest Attainable Use (HAU). 

The City of New York is currently in the midst of an unprecedented period of investment to improve water quality in New 

York Harbor; over $6 billion of projects have been completed or are under way since 2002 alone, including wet weather 

expansion at our wastewater treatment plants, aggressive nutrient removal, billions of gallons of combined sewer 

overflow (CSO) capture, marshland restoration in Jamaica Bay, and hundreds of other projects. The purpose of these 

projects-which have been nearly 100% funded by New York City residents-is to meet federal and state water quality 

standards, and to implement PlaNYC, which serves as the blueprint for a sustainable New York City. As a result of this 

work, New York Harbor is healthier than it has been at any time in the last 100 years. Existing infrastructure 

developments have increased NYCDEP's standardized CSO capture rate from about 30% in 1980 to over 80% today. 

One benefit of this success is that more of New York Harbor is available for recreation and the other use goals set out 

in the Clean Water Act (CWA) than ever before. 

Our recent successes are significant milestones in the effort to continuously improve water quality, but they have come 

at a very substantial cost to New Yorkers. Since January 2002 alone, water rates have increased by 164%, in large part 

to fund federally and state mandated projects, and also due to a steep decline- in federal and state funding to support 

such projects. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1545
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0242-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Allmon Eric 

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

On behalf of Clean Water Action, Public Citizen, Caddo Lake Institute, Save Our Springs Alliance, Sustainable Energy 

& Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, Texas Center for Policy Studies, and Working Effectively for Clean Air 

Now (WE CAN) (collectively, "Commenters"), I am submitting these comments regarding the EPA's proposed rules 

intended to clarify the regulatory requirements applicable to state water quality standards ("WQS"). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0243-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Daniels Zane 

Organization: Ohio Coal Association 

Please accept these comments on behalf of the Ohio Coal Association and our members (collectively "Ohio Coal") and 

include this letter in the docket for the U.S. EPA's ("USEPA") Proposed Rule changing the federal water quality 

standards regulatory implementation ("Proposed Rule") under the Clean Water Act ("CWA"). 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 et 

seq. (September 4, 2013), comment deadline extended until January 2, 2014 by 78 Fed.Reg. 70905. Ohio Coal is a 

trade association of more than ninety members and associate members throughout Ohio that represents every aspect 

of Ohio's coal mining industry, including coal production, equipment manufacturing and supply, electric power 

generation, engineering, coal transportation, blasting and other similar enterprises. Ohio Coal's members play an active 

and critical role in America's affordable, domestic energy market. 

Response 

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

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1546
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0244-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Loomis Marion 

Organization: Wyoming Mining Association 

The Wyoming Mining Association (WMA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA) proposed rule, "Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications" 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (Sept. 4, 2013) 

(comment period extension published at 78 Fed. Reg. 70905 (Nov. 27, 2013)). The Wyoming Mining Association is a 

statewide trade organization that represents and advocates for 39 mining company members producing bentonite, coal, 

trona, uranium, as well as one company currently developing rare earth minerals. WMA also represents 129 associate 

member companies, two railroads, and 180 individual members. 

The member mines and facilities of the WMA are permitted in Wyoming through State NPDES (WYPDES) individual 

and general permits. Even though the proposed rule states that there are no requirements being imposed on regulated 

entities, WMA argues that the proposed rule will directly impact member WYPDES permits since the State water quality 

standards (WQS) are the basis for many of the effluent limits imposed in these permits. General and specific comments 

are set out below under their respective headings. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0245-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Krapas Douglas 

Organization: Inland Empire Paper Company 

Please accept these comments on behalf of Inland Empire Paper Company on the proposed clarifications to the EPA 

water quality standards regulations. 

Inland Empire Paper Company is located near the city of Spokane and discharges under the authorization of a NPDES 

permit to the Spokane River. Inland has worked over the past ten years with other dischargers, the state of Washington 

Department of Ecology and the EPA Region 10 to forge a dissolved oxygen TMDL that has resulted in some of the 

most stringent effluent limits on nutrients in the country. We are stepping up to the challenges posed by the process by 

pursuing advanced treatment technologies and working cooperatively to reduce non-point sources of nutrients to the 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1547
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

river. 

Inland is also faced with significant challenges in addressing PCB concentrations in its effluent. PCBs, as banned 

chemicals for industrial use, are not part of any manufacturing process at Inland. We are, however, a recycling pulp and 

paper mill, and process recyclable material containing PCBs found in inks and dyes at concentrations allowed under the 

EPA TSCA rules. It will be increasingly difficult for Inland to handle these materials where the EPA allows inks and dyes 

to have PCB concentrations up to 50 ppm while the plant has to comply with downstream water quality standards of the 

Spokane River and the advent of Washington human health criteria. The EPA Region 10 recently approved revised 

water quality standards for the Spokane Tribe that include a 1.3 pg/L criterion for PCBs. Region 10 is also aggressively 

pursuing an effort to require the states of Washington and Idaho to adopt PCB criteria on the same basis as the state of 

Oregon with a 6.4 pg/L criterion for PCBs. 

It is inconceivable that discharges to the Spokane River will achieve these criteria any time soon. PCBs are ubiquitous 

in the environment and come primarily from air deposition. There are feasible measures to reduce PCB loadings but it 

will be many decades before these banned chemicals are out of the environment. Inland has attempted to raise this 

issue in TSCA rulemaking with the EPA with little success. We are disappointed that it will not be on the upcoming 

docket for review of TSCA and that we have been denied participation in the EPA review committee for the TSCA rule 

update. 

In this situation, where the EPA regulation on lawful PCB concentrations drives a significant source of PCBs to the 

Spokane River, the EPA water quality regulations need to provide for implementation tools with the flexibility to address 

persistent chemicals such as PCBs where treatment options are limited or non-existent. 

With this background, Inland has the following comments on the proposed rule. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0245-A2.001.007 

Author Name: Krapas Douglas 

Organization: Inland Empire Paper Company 

I appreciate the opportunity to present these comments and the EPA's consideration of the comments in drafting the 

final rule. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1548
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0246-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Childs David 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams on behalf of Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council 

The Florida Water Environment Association (FWEA) Utility Council respectfully submits the following comments 

regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed amendments to its water quality standards 

regulations. 

By way of background, the FWEA Utility Council is the statewide umbrella organization for Florida's domestic 

wastewater treatment community. Our utility members operate domestic wastewater collection, treatment, disposal, and 

recycling facilities, which provide essential public infrastructure and services to over eight million Floridians. A 

significant number of our utility members hold National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for 

their operations, because these members have surface water discharges as either a primary means of effluent disposal 

or as a necessary backup to a reclaimed water reuse system. [FN1] Accordingly, EPA's water quality standards rule 

proposal is of significant importance and potential impact to FWEA Utility Council members. 

[FN1] Florida utilities managed the beneficial reuse of approximately 725 million gallons per day (mgd) of reclaimed 

water for beneficial purposes in 2012. This reuse represents an average per capita reuse of 38.00 gallons per day per 

person, and it makes Florida the nation's reuse leader. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0246-A2.001.005 

Author Name: Childs David 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams on behalf of Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council 

The FWEA Utility Council appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments on EPA's proposed amendments to 

its water quality standards regulations. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1549
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0247-A2.001.006 

Author Name: Turner Judson 

Organization: Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulation. We believe that our comments and 

recommendations can be used improve the regulation so that it does not impede our progress in protecting and 

improving Georgia's waters. If you have any questions please contact Jane Hendricks at 404-362-1616. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0248-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Jellerson David 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Mosaic 

Mosaic is committed to environmental stewardship and sustainability, and to having its permitted discharges to the 

waters of the United States comply with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. Mosaic previously has 

worked closely with state and federal agencies to develop effective and efficient water quality regulations to protect and 

improve the waters proximate to or downstream of its operations. When providing comments on proposed regulations, 

Mosaic strives -- where possible -- to provide alternatives that address constructively the important issue of maintaining 

and improving the quality of U.S. waterways. 

With our affiliates, Mosaic is the world's leading producer and marketer of concentrated phosphate and potash, two of 

the primary nutrients required for agricultural production. Our business engages in every phase of crop nutrition 

development, from the mining of phosphate rock to the production of crop nutrients, feed, and industrial products for 

customers throughout the globe. Our customer base includes wholesalers, retail dealers, and individual growers in all 

50 states. Mosaic operates five mines and three concentrates plants in Florida that produce phosphate fertilizer and 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1550
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

feed phosphate, as well as a concentrates plant in Louisiana that produces phosphate fertilizer. Mosaic is thus 

impacted by water quality regulations both as a point source discharger at our mining and concentrates facilities and by 

the impacts that water quality regulations may have on our customers who use our fertilizer products to support 

productive agriculture and for other beneficial purposes. 

Mosaic's Comments 

Mosaic's Comments are divided into the following sections to address each section of the Proposed Rule: (1) EPA 

determinations that new or revised water quality standards are necessary; (2) designated uses; (3) triennial reviews; (4) 

anti-degradation; (5) variances to water quality standards; (6) compliance schedules and (7) EPA's estimate of the cost 

impact of the Proposed Rule. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0249-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Calamita F. Paul 

Organization: General Counsel on behalf of The Wet Weather Partnership et al. 

I am writing on behalf of the five municipal associations (the "Municipal Associations") identified below to provide the 

attached comments on the referenced proposed rule which addresses an update to US EPA's national water quality 

criteria. The Municipal Associations are: 

The Wet Weather Partnership 

The North Carolina Water Quality Association 

The West Virginia Municipal Water Quality Association 

The Association of Missouri Cleanwater Agencies 

The South Carolina Water Quality Association 

Please let me know if you have any questions. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1551
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0249-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Calamita F. Paul 

Organization: General Counsel on behalf of The Wet Weather Partnership et al. 

These comments are submitted on behalf of local government environmental associations listed above (the 

"Associations"). These Associations comprise owners and operators of highly-regulated publicly owned treatment works 

(POTWs), drinking water systems and stormwater systems. Members of the Associations provide these services in 

North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Missouri, and a dozen other states (through the Wet Weather 

Partnership). The Associations' members are active in State and federal water quality regulatory matters and are 

subject to EPA's water quality standards rule. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0250-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Batterton Carol 

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

Conservation Association 

The Water Environment Association of Texas (WEAT), the Texas Association of Clean Water Agencies (TACWA), and 

the Texas Water Conservation Association (TWCA) are pleased to offer the following comments on the Environmental 

Protection Agency's proposed Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule. WEAT, TACWA, and 

TWCA members include wastewater service providers, including cities, river authorities, and water districts, and 

engineering consultants throughout the State of Texas. More information regarding WEAT, TACWA, and TWCA can be 

obtained at their respective websites at www.weat.org www.tawca.org, and www.twca.org. 

The EPA has proposed changes to six areas of the Water Quality Standards Regulation. WEAT, TACWA, and TWCA 

will offer some general comments and then focus on the following three areas: 1) antidegradation implementation 

methods; 2) triennial review scope and requirements; and 3) variances to water quality standards. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1552
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0250-A2.001.013 

Author Name: Batterton Carol 

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

Conservation Association 

WEAT, TACWA, and TWCA appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and strongly encourage EPA to 

adopt only those rule changes that protect and support these elements while maintaining state flexibility in the 

implementation of water quality standards. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0251-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Wigal Jennifer 

Organization: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) appreciates this opportunity to submit comments on EPA's 

proposed revisions to the federal water quality standards rules. Oregon DEQ is frequently on the forefront of confronting 

challenging and novel water quality standards issues. This has been particularly true over the last few years, and 

illustrated by the state's efforts to revise Oregon's human health toxics criteria based on a fish consumption rate of 175 

grams/day (2011), receiving EPA action in 2013 on aquatic life criteria adopted in 2003, and an adverse court decision 

on Oregon's 2003 temperature standard followed by EPA disapproval of a key component of the temperature standard 

in 2013. Also, in 2013, EPA provided the state a review of Oregon's 2001 antidegradation implementation procedures 

concluding that several aspects of the state's implementation procedures are not meeting the requirements of federal 

regulations. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1553
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0252-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Fry Eric 

Organization: Peabody Energy 

Peabody Energy ("Peabody") welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency's ("EPA") proposed rule title Water Quality Standards ("WQS") Regulatory Clarifications, published at 

78 Fed. Reg. 54,518 (Sep. 4, 2013) (comment period extension published at 78 Fed. Reg. 70,905 (Nov. 27, 2013)). 

Peabody is a private sector coal company that owns and operates coal mine sites in the U.S. states of Arizona, 

Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, New Mexico and Wyoming, and has permitted facilities in Kentucky and Montana. Peabody's 

operations are located on or near waters of the United States, and have obtained permission to operate via either 

individual or general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit. Because WQS set by EPA or 

the States (hereinafter referred to as "States," "State and Tribal," "States/Tribes," or similar) are the basis for effluent 

limits in many of Peabody's NPDES permits, Peabody has direct, substantial interest in EPA's proposed rule. This is 

true even though EPA's economic analysis of the proposed rule claims "the proposal will not establish any requirements 

directly applicable to regulated entities." After setting forth general comments about the proposal below, Peabody 

specifically provides comments on each section of the WQS regulation that has been proposed for revision, in the order 

that EPA discussed these sections in its stakeholder outreach webinars. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

12.a 

Comment ID 0252-A2.001.039 

Author Name: Fry Eric 

Organization: Peabody Energy 

Should there be questions regarding this submission, do not hesitate to contact Mr. James Boswell 

(jboswell@peabodyenergy.com) or Mr. Kent Boswell (kboswell@peabodyenergy.com). Thank you again for the 

opportunity to provide these comments. 

Response 

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

14.a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1554
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0254-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Hoffman Ray 

Organization: Seattle Public Utilities 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule entitled Water 

Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications. 78 Federal Register 54517- 54546 (September 4, 2013). Seattle Public 

Utilities (SPU) is a department of the City of Seattle and provides drinking water, drainage, wastewater, and solid waste 

services. SPU provides municipal services subject to NPDES permits issued by the Washington State Department of 

Ecology (Ecology), including permits for municipal stormwater and for combined sewer overflow control. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0254-A2.001.005 

Author Name: Hoffman Ray 

Organization: Seattle Public Utilities 

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Susan Saffery at 206-684-8268 or 

susan.saffery@seattle.gov. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0255-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Quaempts Eric 

Organization: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1555
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Fish consumption is part of the CTUIR religion, culture and way of life. Water and salmon are tribal First Foods. Tribal 

members suffer disproportionate, environmentally-unjust impacts from the presence and continued accumulation of 

toxics and other pollutants in the resources needed for Tribal sustenance. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0255-A2.001.013 

Author Name: Quaempts Eric 

Organization: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

Conclusion 

EPA Region 10 has often been a valuable partner in working with the tribes and the States in the Northwest in striving 

to improve the health of rivers and streams. Progress has been made, but much more remains to be done. The CWA 

and effective rules implementing it are essential tools in our collective efforts. DNR encourages you to adopt regulatory 

clarifications to further progress in this area. Thank you for your attention to these comments and concerns. If you have 

any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact Carl Merkle, Policy Analyst, at 

CarlMerkle@ctuir.org or (541) 429-7235. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0256-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Shepherd Hal 

Organization: The Center for Water Advocacy 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") Water Quality Standards 

("WQS") Regulatory Clarifications Rulemaking, 78 Fed. Reg. 54,518 (Sept. 4, 2013) (hereinafter the "proposed rule"). 

See 79 FR 54,518 (Sept. 4, 2013) Subsequently, EPA extended the comment period on the Proposed Rule until 

January 2, 2014. See 78 FR 70905 (Nov. 27, 2013). 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1556
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Water Advocacy (CWA) which focuses on the long-term 

sustainability of water resources for the benefit of fish and wildlife populations, habitat, aesthetics, recreation, 

subsistence and traditional and cultural activities, throughout Alaska, using the principles of democracy, environmental 

justice, and sound ecology as our guide. 

CWA is a member-based organization with members throughout Alaska who participate in the commercial, recreational, 

and customary and traditional use of fish and wildlife, own tourism and recreation businesses; and run small sawmills. 

Members of CWA regularly use the public waters of Alaska, to satisfy a variety of interests, such as the harvest of 

marine resources for customary and traditional (subsistence), recreational, and commercial purposes, as well as the 

aesthetic enjoyment of our abundant coastal resources in general. 

Promoting clean water and strong water quality standards are essential components of CWA's goal to protect our 

regions natural resources, including public waters and our members' use and enjoyment of those waters. We make 

these comments to ensure that CWA and its members continue to benefit from the use and enjoyment of Alaska's 

tremendous coastal resources. With over 61 percent of America's coastal shoreline in Alaska, the Proposed Rule 

directly affects the interests of our members, as well as CWA's organizational interests. While the Proposed Rule 

addresses seven program areas, these comments focus on the Administrator's Determinations on Necessity for New or 

Revised Water Quality Standards (WQS), Requirements of Triennial Reviews, Antidegradation Implementation, and 

identification of impaired waterbodies. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0256-A2.001.015 

Author Name: Shepherd Hal 

Organization: The Center for Water Advocacy 

Please contact me at (907)224-3887; waterlaw@uci.net if you have any questions regarding these comments. Thank 

you. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1557
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0257-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Harpole Chad 

Organization: Kentucky Chamber of Commerce 

The Kentucky Chamber of Commerce ("Chamber") welcomes the opportunity to provide the following comments on 

EPA's proposed Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications rule that was published in the Federal Register on 

September 4, 2013 (hereinafter the "Proposed Rule"). 

The Chamber, founded in 1946, is an association of Kentucky businesses, and is the largest, broad-based business 

association in Kentucky. The Kentucky Chamber represents the business interests of more than 92,000 Kentucky 

businesses. The Kentucky Chamber's powerful grassroots network, through a partnership with more than 80 local 

chambers in the state, consists of 25,000 business professionals. The business and industry members of the Kentucky 

Chamber have operations throughout the state that are subject to water quality regulations and requirements. The 

Kentucky Chamber also promotes economic development, including bringing new business operations to the 

Commonwealth. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0258-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Cochran Tom 

Organization: The United States Conference of Mayors 

Please find attached a letter from Tom Cochran, Executive Director of The U.S. Conference of Mayors, informing EPA 

that we still plan on submitting comments regarding Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications, EPA-HQ-OW2010-0606, 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 within the next 30 days. We respectfully request that you please consider our 

comments at that time. Thank you for your consideration. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section B 

Comment ID 0258-A2.001.001 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1558
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Author Name: Cochran Tom 

Organization: The United States Conference of Mayors 

On behalf of The United States Conference of Mayors, I am writing to inform you that we are planning on submitting 

comments regarding Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606, 78 Fed. Reg. 54518. 

We are, however, unable to make the January 2, 2014 deadline. We will submit our comments within 30 days and 

respectfully ask the Environmental Protection Agency to consider them at that time. 

Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions please contact Judy Sheahan of my staff at 202-861-6775 

or at jsheahan@usmayors.org. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0259-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Naylor Char 

Organization: Puyallup Tribe of Indians 

The Puyallup Reservation is located in western Washington, approximately 30 miles south of Seattle and to the 

southeast of Commencement Bay on Puget Sound. The Puyallup Tribe is a federally recognized tribe and regulates 

water quality in the lower Puyallup River. The Puyallup Tribe was one of the first tribes in the country to develop and 

implement federally-approved water quality standards. There are about 5,000 tribal members, most of which live on or 

near the Reservation. The lower Puyallup River flows through the Puyallup Reservation. The river itself remains the 

lifeblood of the Tribe, with members continuing to depend on the fishery for cultural, subsistence, and economic 

purposes. 

A salt wedge estuary is located at the river's mouth, in the northwest corner of the Reservation. The Reservation is 

situated in one of the most industrialized areas in Washington State, with the Port of Tacoma conducting regular 

operations within its boundaries. There are several cities that are partially located within the Reservation boundary, 

including the major metropolitan city of Tacoma. With the exception of nuclear, just about every assault that can be 

made on a river has occurred in the Puyallup River. It has been channelized, straightened, and dredged extensively for 

flood control purposes, it is experiencing substantial impacts from the effects of climate change with the recession of 

glaciers altering the timing and magnitude of flows, and it receives pollutants from over 17 jurisdictions. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1559
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0260-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Drazowski Barry 

Organization: Izaak Walton League Minnesota Division et al. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") Water Quality 

Standards ("WQS") Regulatory Clarifications Rulemaking, 78 Fed. Reg. 54,518 (Sept. 4, 2013) (hereinafter the 

"proposed rule"). These comments are submitted on behalf of the following undersigned Minnesota groups: Izaak 

Walton League Minnesota Division, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Minnesota River Valley Audubon 

Chapter, Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, WaterLegacy. (hereinafter "Minnesota Clean Water Groups"). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0260-A2.001.006 

Author Name: Drazowski Barry 

Organization: Izaak Walton League Minnesota Division et al. 

Please contact Paula Maccabee (651-646-8890,pmaccabee@justchangelaw.com) if you would like to confer with
 

Minnesota Clean Water Groups about our concerns.
 

Sincerely yours,
 

/s/ Barry Drazowski, President
 

Izaak Walton League Minnesota Division,
 

/s/ Kris Sigford, Water Quality Director
 

Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
 

/s/ Matthew Schaut, President
 

Minnesota River Valley Audubon Chapter (MRVAC)
 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1560
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

/s/ Becky Rom, Vice-Chair 

Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness 

/s/ Paula Maccabee, Counsel/Advocacy Director 

WaterLegacy 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0261-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Bartlett Drew 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) respectfully submits our comments on EPA's 

September 4, 2013 proposed revisions to the federal water quality standards (WQS) regulations. The Department very 

much appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed revisions and appreciates EPA's efforts to 

provide additional supporting information about the rulemaking to stakeholders via webinars and 

meetings/teleconferences with representatives of the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

2.d 

Comment ID 0261-A2.001.019 

Author Name: Bartlett Drew 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Again, we would like to thank EPA for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking. If you have any 

questions about our comments, please do not hesitate to call me at (850)245-3031, or Daryll Joyner, Program 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1561
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Administrator of the Water Quality Standards Program, at (850)245-8431. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0262-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Rawlings Laurent 

Organization: Home Builders Association of Kentucky 

The Home Builders Association of Kentucky ("HBAK") is pleased to provide the following comments of the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") proposed Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications, EPAHQ-OW-2010-0606, 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (Sept. 4, 2013) (Proposed Rule). 

The Home Builders Association of Kentucky is a statewide federation representing more than 6,000 members including 

individuals and firms engaged in land development, single and multifamily construction, multifamily ownership, building 

material trades, and commercial and industrial projects. More than 80 percent of our members are classified as "small 

businesses" and meet the federal definition of a "small entity," as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. 

Our members are involved in residential construction and by definition, are located on or near waters of the United 

States, and operate pursuant to individual and/or general NPDES permits for discharges into those waters. Those water 

quality standards established by the Kentucky Division of Water or by the EPA, are the basis for effluent limits in many 

of our members' NPDES permits. And it is due to this that, despite EPA's claim that "the proposal will not establish any 

requirements directly applicable to regulated entities," our members have substantial and direct interest in this proposed 

rule. Following general comments concerning the proposal in its entirety, HBAK provides comments on each section of 

the proposal, respective to EPA's public webinar (September 24, 2013). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0263-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Gretchen Watkins Larry Wawronowicz 

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

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1562
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

The Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians ("Tribe") appreciates the opportunity to provide 

comments on the Water Quality Standards (WQS) Regulatory Clarifications Rulemaking proposed by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) on September 4, 2013 (Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 171, 54518-54546). 

The Tribe is a federally-recognized Indian tribe and obtained WQS program authority under Clean Water Act (CWA) 

Sections 303(c)/401 in 2008. The Tribe retains hunting, fishing, and other usufactory rights outside of its Reservation 

boundaries in the territory ceded under the Treaty of 1842. The Tribe's cultural, subsistence, health, and economic wellbeing is dependent upon clean, healthy waters - both within and outside of its Reservation boundaries. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0263-A2.001.014 

Author Name: Gretchen Watkins Larry Wawronowicz 

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

The Tribe applauds EPA's efforts to clarify and enhance WQS regulations to promote progress towards the goal of the 

CWA. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions. We look forward to continuing our 

partnership with the EPA to protect and maintain the integrity of high quality waters and to restore the integrity of 

degraded waters. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0264-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Chard-McClary Shellie 

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators 

The Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) is pleased to provide the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) with comments on the proposed national rulemaking to clarify the federal water quality standards (WQS) 

regulation (78 Fed. Reg. 54518, Sept. 4, 2013). ACWA is the independent, nonpartisan, national organization of state 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1563
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

and interstate (hereinafter states) water program directors, responsible for the daily implementation of the Clean Water 

Act's (hereinafter the Act or CWA) water quality programs, including the WQS programs for which states are 

responsible under the Act. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0264-A2.001.028 

Author Name: Chard-McClary Shellie 

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators 

We thank EPA for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking and appreciate the Agency's consideration 

of our recommendations, as well as the separate comments that will be filed by individual states. We encourage EPA to 

continue dialogue with its state co-regulators on the proposed rule, and we remain ready to answer questions regarding 

these comments. Please contact ACWA's Executive Director Alexandra Dunn at 202-756-0600 or adunn@acwa-us.org 

with any such questions or to plan further discussion. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0266-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Reese Thomas 

Organization: Attorney on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation and Al and Cindy Davis 

I represent the Florida Wildlife Federation (FWF) and Al and Cindy Davis (the Davises), and submit these comments 

and discussion of implementation of the Clean Water Act's (CWA) antidegradation implementation policy on their 

behalf. These comments specifically address Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed September 4, 2013 

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarification regarding water quality standards (WQSs) and implementation criteria 

(Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 171, pg. 45518). EPA has extended the comment period to on or before January 2, 2014. 

See, Fed. Reg. November 27, 2013, pg. 70,905. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1564
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

COMMENTS 

The FWF and the Davises submit the following specific comments suggesting EPA make the following WQSs 

regulatory clarifications in 40 CFR Sections 131.2, 131.3(I), 131.5(a), 131.6(d), 131.12 and 131.20. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0266-A2.001.010 

Author Name: Reese Thomas 

Organization: Attorney on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation and Al and Cindy Davis 

IDENTITY OF FWF AND THE DAVISES 

The FWF 

The FWF is duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida as a not for profit conservation protection 

corporation. The FWF has its office headquarters is in Tallahassee, Florida, and has regional offices with field 

representative employees in Naples and St. Augustine, Florida. The FWF has over 14,000 members and approximately 

60,000 supporters. 

The members of FWF use and enjoy the surface waters of the State of Florida for recreational and aesthetic purposes, 

including fishing, boating, canoeing, kayaking, swimming, wading, research, photography, and observation of Florida's 

aquatic ecosystems. 

The corporate purposes of the FWF include the protection of the environment, protecting and conserving fish and 

wildlife resources, and the protection of the air and water quality of the State of Florida and the nation. For decades the 

FWF has been actively advocating and litigating pursuant to the CWA for the protection and improvement of surface 

water quality in the State of Florida. Examples of such FWF advocation and litigation include the following. 

(1) FWF's involvement in the Everglades Consent Decree litigation (United States v. South Florida Water Management 

District, U.S. District Court, Southern District, Case No. 88-1886-CIV-Moreno). 

(2) FWF's litigation concerning the back pumping of polluted water containing loathsome concoctions of chemicals into 

Lake Okeechobee (Florida Wildlife Federation v. South Florida Water Management District, 570 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 

2009). 

(3) FWF's challenge to EPA's Water Transfer Rule (Friends of Everglades and Florida Wildlife Federation v. U.S. EPA, 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1565
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Eleventh Circuit Case No. 08-13652, and U.S. District Court, Southern District, Case No. 08-21785). 

(4) FWF's litigation concerning TMDL's in Florida (Florida Wildlife Federation v. Browner, U.S. District Court, Northern 

District, Case No. 4:98CV356). 

(5) FWF's numeric nutrient WQS litigation (Florida Wildlife Federation v. South Florida Water Management District, 647 

F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011). 

(6) FWF's pending CWA and APA litigation concerning EPA's failure to implementation the CWA's antidegradation 

policy and criteria (Florida Wildlife Federation, Alfred J. Davis and Cindy Davis v. McCarthy, Case No. 8:13-cv-2084-

SDM-EAJ (M.D. Fla. 2013). 

The FWF also has pending petitions before EPA to initiate rulemaking concerning: (1) 40 CFR § 130.7(5)(b)(v) 

antidegradation assessment criteria (implementation) under CWA Section 303(d), and (2) promulgating antidegradation 

WQSs for Florida to comply with CWA. 

The Davises 

The Davises reside at 2790 45th Street South, Gulfport, Florida 33711, which is waterfront property on the Clam Bayou 

estuary in south Pinellas County, Florida. The Davises own and frequently operate, boats and canoes in the Clam 

Bayou estuary and other waters through Florida that are protected by the CWA and Florida's WQSs, including Florida's 

antidegradation WQSs and implementation methodology. The Davises in the future will use and enjoy many of the 309 

water bodies which have been designated as OFWs. 

The Davises have been involved in litigation with EPA concerning antidegradation implementation criteria, these two 

cases being Davis v. EPA, Case No. 8:09-cv-1070-EAK (M.D. Fla. 2009); Florida Wildlife Federation, Alfred J. Davis 

and Cindy Davis v. McCarthy, Case No. 8:13-cv-2084-SDM-EAJ (M.D. Fla. 2013). 

The Davises also have a pending petition to EPA initiate rulemaking concerning 40 CFR § 130.7(5)(b)(v) 

antidegradation assessment criteria (implementation) under CWA Section 303(d). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0266-A2.001.018 

Author Name: Reese Thomas 

Organization: Attorney on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation and Al and Cindy Davis 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1566
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of January, 2014. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0267-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Ingle April 

Organization: Georgia River Network 

The following comments (below and attached) are submitted by Georgia River Network (GRN) in response to the water 

quality standards rulemaking that is currently under consideration by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). GRN 

is a statewide organization representing over 900 individual members and 30 river organizations, and we work to 

ensure a clean water legacy by engaging and empowering Georgians to protect, restore and enjoy our rivers from the 

mountains to the coast. 

GRN wishes to re-submit the following comments in response to the EPA's September 4, 2013 Federal Register notice 

that EPA is revising federal Water Quality Standards Regulations. [FN1] These comments were originally submitted on 

August 24, 2010 at the US EPA Water Quality Standards Regulatory Changes - Public Listening Session. 

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

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

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0267-A1.001.007 

Author Name: Ingle April 

Organization: Georgia River Network 

Thank you for consideration of these comments. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1567
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0268-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Bell Nina 

Organization: Northwest Environmental Advocates 

The following comments are submitted by Northwest Environmental Advocates (NWEA), responding first to EPA's 

preamble for the proposed water quality standards rules in the order they are discussed in the Federal Register notice 

at 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (Sept. 4, 2013). Following the discussion of EPA's preamble, we include some specific 

suggestions on EPA's proposed rule language. These proposed edits are not intended to capture all of NWEA's 

comments on what should and should not be in this proposed rule. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0269-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Klotz Mark 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s proposed changes to 40 CFR Part 131 water quality standards (WQS) 

regulations. We further appreciate EPA's extension of the comment period until January 3, 2014. Our comments are 

provided below, divided into the six main subject areas of the EPA proposal. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1568
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

2.a 

Comment ID 0269-A2.001.013 

Author Name: Klotz Mark 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Again, NYSDEC appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA's proposed changes to 40 CFR Part 131 water quality 

standards (WQS) regulations. Should EPA have any questions on our comments, feel free to contact Scott Stoner at 

518-402-8179. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0270-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Todd Andrew 

Organization: Colorado Water Quality Control Commission 

The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (Commission) is the administrative agency responsible for developing 

specific water quality policy in Colorado, in a manner that implements the broader policies set forth in the Colorado 

Water Quality Control Act, including maintaining "a program which does not conflict with the provisions of the federal 

act." The Commission offers the following comments on the Proposed Rule regarding federal water quality standards. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0271-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Montoya Victor 

Organization: Pueblo of Sandia 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1569
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

This correspondence is in response to the EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications (Docket 1D No. 

EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606) being proposed). 

As you are might or might not be aware the Pueblo of Sandia had had EPA approved water quality standards since 

1993. The water quality standards apply to all surface waters in and around the exterior boundaries of our pueblo and 

set forth existing uses that must be protected. This being said, the Pueblo of Sandia was the second tribe in the nation 

to get their water quality standards approved after the Clean Water Act (CWA) was amended in 1987 to allow tribes to 

develop water quality standards. 

The Pueblo of Sandia Environment Department has reviewed the EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Clarifications (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606) and has the following comments: 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0271-A1.001.022 

Author Name: Montoya Victor 

Organization: Pueblo of Sandia 

The Pueblo of Sandia appreciates your consideration on these comments and look forward to EPA's continued 

cooperation on environmental issues. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Mr. Bulgrin of my staff at 

(505) 867-4533. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0272-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Jennifer Chavez Janette Brimmer 

Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of 28 Environmental Organizations. See pages 23-27 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") Water Quality 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1570
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Standards ("WQS") Regulatory Clarifications Rulemaking, 78 Fed. Reg. 54,518 (Sept. 4, 2013) (hereinafter the 

"proposed rule"). These comments are submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of itself and the undersigned entities 

(hereinafter the "Water Protection Groups"). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0272-A2.001.029 

Author Name: Jennifer Chavez Janette Brimmer 

Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of 28 Environmental Organizations. See pages 23-27 

Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have questions. Thank you again, for the opportunity to comment. 

Janette Brimmer, Staff Attorney 

Earthjustice 

705 2nd Ave # 203 

Seattle, WA 98104 

Jennifer Chavez, Staff Attorney 

Earthjustice 

1625 Massachusetts Av. NW, Suite 702 

Washington, DC 20036 

On behalf of: 

Alaska 

Cook Inletkeeper 

P.O. Box 3269 

3734 Ben Walters Lane 

Homer, AK 99603 

Arizona 

Patagonia Area Resource Alliance 

Wendy Russell, Coordinator 

PO Box 1044 

Patagonia, AZ 85624 

California 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1571
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

San Francisco Baykeeper
 

Jason Flanders, Program Director
 

785 Market Street, Suite 850
 

San Francisco, CA 94103
 

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (also OR and WA)
 

Zeke Grader, Exec. Dir.
 

O'Neill-Ueber Marine Campus (Bldg. 991), The Presidio
 

P.O. Box 29370 

San Francisco, CA 94129-0370 

Golden Gate Salmon Association 

John McManus, Exec. Director 

1370 Auto Center Drive 

Petaluma, CA 94952 

Chesapeake Bay Region (including groups in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia) 

Waterkeepers Chesapeake* 

Elizabeth Nicholas, Director 

1625 Primrose Road, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20012 

*Waterkeepers Chesapeake includes the 

following independent member programs: 

Anacostia Riverkeeper 

Assateague Coastkeeper 

Baltimore Harbor Waterkeeper 

Chester Riverkeeper 

Choptank Riverkeeper 

Gunpowder Riverkeeper 

Lower James Riverkeeper 

Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper 

Miles-Wye Riverkeeper 

Patuxent Riverkeeper 

Potomac Riverkeeper 

Sassafras Riverkeeper 

Severn Riverkeeper 

Shenandoah Riverkeeper 

South Riverkeeper 

Upper James Riverkeeper 

Virginia Eastern Shorekeeper 

West/Rhode Riverkeeper 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1572
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Colorado 

San Juan Citizens Alliance 

Dan Randolph, Executive Director 

1309 East Third Avenue (Smiley Building) 

P.O. Box 2461 

Durango, CO 81302 

Information Network for Responsible Mining 

Jennifer Thurston, Executive Director 

P.O. Box 27 

Norwood, CO 81423 

Florida 

Environmental Confederation of SouthWest Florida 

Becky Ayech, President 

421 Verna Road, Sarasota, Florida 34240 

St. Johns Riverkeeper 

Lisa Rinaman, Riverkeeper 

2800 University Blvd. N. 

Jacksonville, FL 32211 

Idaho 

Idaho Conservation League 

Justin Hayes, Program Director 

PO Box 844, Boise, ID 83701 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition 

Andrea Santarsiere 

Idaho Conservation and Legal Associate 

162 North Woodruff Avenue 

Idaho Falls, ID 83401 

Minnesota 

Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness 

Betsy Daub, Policy Director 

401 N. Third Street, Suite 290 

Minneapolis, MN 55401 

Friends of the Cloquet Valley 

Kristin Larsen 

9424 West Branch Road 

Duluth, MN 55803 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1573
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
 

Kris Sigford, Water Quality Director
 

26 E. Exchange St., Suite 206
 

St. Paul, MN 55101
 

Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness
 

Becky Rom, Vice Chair
 

PO Box 625
 

Ely, MN 55731
 

Save Our Sky Blue Waters
 

Lori Andresen
 

Duluth, MN
 

Water Legacy
 

Paula Maccabee, Counsel/Advocacy Dir.
 

1961 Selby Ave.
 

St. Paul MN 55104
 

Montana
 

Montana Environmental Information Center
 

Jim Jensen, Exec. Director
 

107 W. Lawrence St. #N-6
 

Helena, MT 59601
 

Earthworks
 

Bonnie Gestring, Northwest Circuit Rider
 

140 South 4th St. West
 

Missoula, MT 59801
 

Nevada
 

Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada
 

Bob Fulkerson, State Director
 

821 Riverside Drive
 

Reno, Nevada 89503
 

Oregon
 

Columbia Riverkeeper (and Washington)
 

Brett VandenHeuvel, Exec. Dir.
 

833 SE Main St #126
 

Portland, OR 97214 and
 

111 Third St.
 

Hood River, OR
 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1574
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Portland Harbor Community Advisory Group 

Jim Robison, Chair 

8316 N Lombard St. PMB # 344 

Portland, OR 97203 

WaterWatch of Oregon 

John DeVoe, Exec. Director 

213 SW Ash, Suite 208 

Portland, OR 97204 

South Dakota 

Clean Water Alliance 

Lilias Jarding, Ph.D. 

P.O. Box 591 

Rapid City, S.D. 57709 

Washington 

Center for Environmental Law and Policy 

Suzanne Skinner, Exec. Dir. 

911 Western Avenue #305 

Seattle WA 98104 

Puget Soundkeeper Alliance 

Chris Wilke, Exec. Dir 

5305 Shilshole Avenue NW - #150 

Seattle, WA 98115 

Sierra Club, Washington Chapter 

Joshua Osborne-Klein 

Conservation Chair 

Seattle, WA 

Spokane Riverkeeper 

Bart Mahailovich 

35 West Main, Suite 300 

Spokane, WA 99201 

Orca Network 

Howard Garrett 

485 Labella Vista Way 

Freeland, Whidbey Island, WA 98249 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1575
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0274-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Yeaton Violet 

Organization: Region 10 Regional Tribal Operations Committee 

This letter is sent on behalf of the Tribal Caucus members of EPA Region 10's Tribal Operations Committee ("RTOC"). 

This letter is not sent on behalf of EPA Region 10 or any employees of EPA, but solely on behalf of the tribal 

government representatives of the RTOC. 

The mission of the RTOC is to protect and improve tribal health and environmental conditions affecting Federally 

Recognized Tribes consistent with the United States Environmental Protection Agency Indian Lands Policy, EPA's trust 

responsibility, environmental laws, policies and guidance. The primary function of the RTOC is a partnership with the 

EPA to further tribal environmental objectives at the regional level, to serve as a liaison between the EPA and Tribes 

regarding information exchange, and to provide assistance to the National Tribal Operations Committee ("NTOC"). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0274-A2.001.012 

Author Name: Yeaton Violet 

Organization: Region 10 Regional Tribal Operations Committee 

The Tribal Caucus appreciates EPA's proactive action and leadership in protecting water quality and your attention to 

this letter. Please let us know how we can assist you in this effort and we welcome your participation in any of our 

RTOC meetings. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1576
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0275-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Reeves Sarah 

Organization: Colorado Monitoring Framework 

The Colorado Monitoring Framework (CMF) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft EPA Water Quality 

Standards Rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606. 

The CMF is a statewide nonprofit group formed with the objective of creating a collaborative process to implement 

water quality regulations adopted by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. CMF is an organization 

comprised of a diverse set of entities and individuals from across the state, including watersheds, industries, publicly 

owned treatment works (POTWs), agricultural organizations, and stormwater entities. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0275-A2.001.009 

Author Name: Reeves Sarah 

Organization: Colorado Monitoring Framework 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to the Water Quality Standards Rule. Please contact us if you have 

any questions or need further information at (303) 239-5411 or sreeves@brwncald.com. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0276-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Alves James
 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams on behalf of Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc.
 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1577
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

The Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. Environmental Committee (FCGEC), submits the following 

comments in response to the proposed rule published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on 

Wednesday, September 4, 2013, entitled: Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications; Proposed Rule. 

FCG-EC 

The FCG-EC is comprised of investor-owned utilities, municipal utilities, and a statewide cooperative utility network; 

collectively, these members provide electric power to approximately 5 million customers in Florida. The FCG-EC 

represents these utilities in advocating for federal and state environmental regulations based on good science and 

thoughtful policy choices. Most FCG-EC members are regulated pervasively under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), 

and are required to comply with state water quality standards in the context of various CWA programs. The FCG-EC 

members are substantially affected by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that affect state water 

quality standards, such as the proposed rule amendments. Additionally FCG members have been substantially affected 

by a recent federal initiative to impose federal water quality standards in Florida. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0277-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Walsh Kevin 

Organization: Massachusetts Department of Transportation 

The following represents comments, from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation's Highway Division 

(MassDOT), for consideration in response to EPA's proposed changes and/or amendments to the Water Quality 

Standards regulations (40 CFR Part 131) of the Clean Water Act. These proposed rule changes were published in the 

Federal Register on Sept. 4, 2013 and the public comment period closes on January 2, 2014. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0277-A2.001.004 

Author Name: Walsh Kevin 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1578
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: Massachusetts Department of Transportation 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revisions to the Surface Water Quality Standards regulations. This 

effort presents an excellent opportunity to address problems that all cold-weather DOTs face in an effort to balance 

promoting public safety with minimizing impacts to water quality. If you have any questions please contact Henry 

Barbaro (857-368-8788, henry.barbaro@state.ma.us). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0278-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Hornback Chris 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed 

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications (78 Fed. Reg. 54518; September 4, 2013). NACWA's public 

wastewater agency members own and operate treatment plants with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits containing effluent limits and other requirements based on water quality standards (WQS). 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0278-A2.001.029 

Author Name: Hornback Chris 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

NACWA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to the water quality standards regulations. 

Please contact me at chornback@nacwa.org if you have any questions. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1579
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0279-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Coyne Kevin 

Organization: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) appreciates this opportunity to provide the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with comments on the proposed national rulemaking (proposal) to clarify the 

federal water quality standards regulation. 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (Sept. 4, 2013). 

As an active participant in the various webinars and the November EPA/Association of Clean Water Administrators 

(ACWA) workshop, we along with numerous other states and EPA staff have invested significant time and efforts to 

better understand the proposed revisions and voice concerns per specific pieces of the proposal. We greatly 

appreciated the numerous opportunities to share concerns, request clarification, and voice support on various revisions 

posted in the proposal. We hope this open dialogue and communication continues as the proposal moves forward. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.a: Section B 

2.d 

Comment ID 0279-A2.001.008 

Author Name: Coyne Kevin 

Organization: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

If you believe further discussion is needed pertaining to any items discussed in this letter and/or the January 2, 2014 

ACWA letter please do not hesitate to contact me at (304) 926-0499 x1110 or Kevin.R.Coyne@wv.gov 

Response 

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

14.a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1580
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0280-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Aspatore Amanda 

Organization: National Mining Association 

The National Mining Association (NMA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA) proposed rule, "Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications." 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 (Sept. 4, 

2013). NMA is a national trade association whose members include the producers of most of the nation's coal, metals, 

industrial, and agricultural minerals; the manufacturers of mining and mineral processing machinery, equipment, and 

supplies; and the engineering and consulting firms, financial institutions, and other firms serving the mining industry. 

NMA's members are subject to regulations promulgated pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), and mining operations 

and their supporting businesses nationwide are directly impacted by both state and federal water quality requirements. 

Alterations to the existing regulatory scheme will therefore have a significant impact on the mining industry, and as 

such, the issues discussed in the proposed rule are of extreme importance to NMA's members. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0282-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Gildersleeve Melissa 

Organization: State of Washington, Department of Ecology 

The Department of Ecology (Ecology) appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA's draft water quality standards 

regulation. Changes to the federal water quality standards regulations can affect a state's water quality program, the 

regulated entities within the state, and the waters and uses that the regulations are developed to protect. We trust that 

EPA will consider the effects of the proposed federal changes on Washington, as well as other states and entities, as 

you make final changes. 

Response 

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

14.a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1581
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0283-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Thorme Melissa 

Organization: Downey Brand Attorneys LLP on behalf of several clients 

On behalf of several clients, we provide the following comments on the proposed changes to the U.S. EPA's Water 

Quality Standards regulations: 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0283-A1.001.028 

Author Name: Thorme Melissa 

Organization: Downey Brand Attorneys LLP on behalf of several clients 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments on the draft regulations and hope that U.S. EPA will make 

the requested changes prior to finalizing the regulations. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0284-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Gildersleeve Melissa 

Organization: State of Washington, Department of Ecology 

The Department of Ecology (Ecology) appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA's draft water quality standards 

regulation. Changes to the federal water quality standards regulations can affect a state's water quality program, the 

regulated entities within the state, and the waters and uses that the regulations are developed to protect. We trust that 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1582
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

EPA will consider the effects of the proposed federal changes on Washington, as well as other states and entities, as 

you make final changes. 

Response 

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

14.a 

14.a: Section A 

14.B - MISCELLANEOUS 

Comment ID 0114.001.001 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: NA 

There is an older technique that was used in the Days of Old, and is stilled used some today: distillation. This process is 

the most accurate way to purify water. i have used this method when i was a child. My family and I lived on a farm is 

east Texas. We didnt use community water, instead we used well water. In doing this we needed a way to get the 

harmful bacteria and minerals out of the water, and so we used our own home made distillation machine. My 

grandfather who was a great scientist tested this method of purification for its efficiency, and found that it removed 

99.627% of the harmful bacteria and minerals out of the water. He told me that this is the best method that he knew of 

to purify water. We also saw and tasted a significant difference in the tase and color of the water. After this process, the 

water looked as clear as a newly polished diamond. If it is water purity that you want and are looking for a more efficient 

way of purifying, try distillation. This process may take a big longer than the standard filtering, but this is more efficient 

that running water through filters. To purify something takes science not just common sense alone. 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section C 

Comment ID 0117-A1.001.004 

Author Name: Fredericks Michael 

Organization: Native Village of Chuathbaluk 

IV. When Does This Action Take Effect? 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1583
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

V. Economic Impacts on State and Tribal WQS Programs 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

F. Executive Order 13175 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Now if we continue to draw from this well we live a life of anger, hurt, and suspicion even of suspension and furlough. 

How can we seek out kindness by drawing of remembrances' of a past offense? If people can't let go of one past 

offense then it is the consummation of anger, the keeper of sin...the shame of prayer...a nail driven into the soul no 

matter how many times we draw from it to quench our thirst. Think about it! Talk about it! Our Actions are accountable if 

not to mankind then to God. Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy. 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1584
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0118-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Lakkad Manish 

Organization: NA 

For participating in adopting the water quality standards the states and tribes should be given proper education and 

training ,to actually understand the procedure of setting the standards .Funding is also important part of bringing the 

new technology in maintaining the water quality by the states and tribes. 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section A 

Comment ID 0118-A1.001.005 

Author Name: Lakkad Manish 

Organization: NA 

The state and tribe should provide the water quality standards that would provide protection to the aquatic life. All this 

depends upon the amount of discharge released in the water stream from the industries .There should be limitations on 

the discharge of the pollutants in the water body ,as it may directly or indirectly affect the integrity of the water .That is 

the chemical form of the water may be affected which can cause damage to the biological integrity .One such case was 

seen in Albuquerque in New Mexico .The Rio Grande river in the Isleta Pueblo valley receives the dumps of 55 million 

gallons of waste water. Moreover it also receives sewage from the residents which makes water harmful for religious 

ceremonies & for farming . Their main concern was the ammonia in the water and arsenic level in the river which 

caused poisoning of fish and damages the old fields of corn .Isleta was the first tribe who were given the right to 

establish water quality standards ,in which they set the limit of arsenic upto 17 parts per trillion which was more better 

than the federal governments limit of 50 parts per billion .Though decision was controversial as the city claimed that the 

most of the pollutants were from the industries and form the ground water .Hence from this we can say that water 

quality standards set by states and tribes can be found useful in rule making under proper consideration and guidance. 

Therefore the state and tribes should be included in setting the water quality standards. Hence it is also important to 

include the state and tribes to include in water quality standards for rule making for the preservation of the water bodies 

in that region where the tribes live and uses water for their day to day use. 

One such case where the tribes have shown the participation in setting the WQS . The tribe in Ute mountain .They have 

reservation lands in Colorado ,New Mexico and Utah, they submitted their WQS (water quality standards) to the EPA 

for the Clean Water Act purpose which includes the issues and enforcing of the discharge permits for the reservation of 

the surface water. The Ute Mountain received authority in 2005,and in 2011 their standards were submitted. The Ute 

mountain is currently working with the federal agencies and surrounding states on the water quality issues. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1585
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Another case study showed successful implementation of the water quality standards established by the Hoopa Valley 

reservation located in Northern California. They established water quality standards on the 16 different designated uses 

for their water bodies that includes the cultural water use ,water for recreation and fish spawning. The standard included 

two criteria temperature and turbidity for maintain the population of salmon. The reason for maintaining the standards 

was many fish were killed during 2002 due to bacterial and protozoa pathogens which overtakes them during the low 

flow ,it caused overcrowding and high water temperatures. Thus flow and temperature relation was used by the Hoopa 

Valley Reservation. 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section A 

14.b: Section B 

3.a 

Comment ID 0118-A1.001.007 

Author Name: Lakkad Manish 

Organization: NA 

.The standards should be set according to the use of the water bodies .Additional changes should be reported with the 

use of new technologies. The state and tribe should also revise their standards every three year which is proposed by 

EPA ,this can be found beneficial according to the requirements .There should be strong standards on the discharge of 

the pollutants from the industries which may interfere with the chemical and biological integrity of the water bodies, 

Therefore a strong step towards the reservation of the water bodies and civilization around that region would be found 

useful in order to maintain the sustainability of the environment. EPA also provides funding to the states and tribes for 

setting the water quality standards. Moreover proper training program should be provided which would provide training 

the representative of the state and tribe to better understand the methods of setting the water quality standards and 

how to best protect the water body and preservation of the aquatic life. 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section A 

Comment ID 0125-A1.001.003 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1586
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Author Name: Rambler Terry 

Organization: San Carlos Apache Tribe 

One way that we would like to suggest to ease the burdens of tracking new water quality recommendations has been 

the lack of a single online source which contains all of the propose changes to WQS. We would like to recommended 

that the EPA create a single website dedicated as a clearinghouse for all of EPA's latest water quality criteria 

recommendations. 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section B 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1587
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0155-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Ortiz Ryan 

Organization: Wind River Environmental Quality Commission 

However, WREQC also believes that additional changes to the WQS regulations are needed. 

According to EPA, at this time only about 45 Tribes have been approved for TAS for WQS out of the hundreds of 

eligible federally- recognized Tribes nationally. The regulations, which have been in place since 1983, authorize EPA to 

promulgate federal standards if state or Tribal standards are not adequate. It is now 2013 and there are still no federal 

WQS that would apply in the absence of TAS standards, including for the Wind River Indian Reservation. The absence 

of WQS has led to inconsistencies and difficulties with the EPA's NPDES permitting process for the Reservation. This is 

unacceptable to the Tribes and additional rule changes need to be made to speed up the TAS and WQS approval 

process and to implement federal standards in the absence of federally-approved Tribal WQS. 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section C 

Comment ID 0162.001.001 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: NA 

Yes, I'm sorry I don't really have the time or energy to review the entire document and all the specifics of it, but as a 

concerned citizen of the Flathead Reservation, environmentalist, gandmother of 6 tribal member children growing up 

here in this soup of toxins such as mercury, lead, chem- trail s, pesticides, monsanto, etc. etc. etc. I just don't 

understand how it can possibly be legal for these entities to have the right to poison other people's air that they need to 

survive, and their babies' and children's and elders.' It's way past time this nation realizes that there are things money 

can't buy, life itself, and the basics that provide for life on this planet as in clean air and water. It s unconstitutional and 

amounts to a few dirty dollar worshippers 'taking' from the many which is in direct violation of President Obama's latest 

Executive Orders. 

Most of the people have wanted this monstrous leniency towards these mentally deranged super corporations who are 

mostly responsible for it after purchasing at fire sale our political parties and so-called elected representatives. It all 

needs to just be banned, period. We have other safer ways of providing the energy we need, is it really an equation 

even in the realm of sanity to sacrifice our children's lives for military might at this late stage of the game no less. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1588
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section A 

Comment ID 0190-A1.001.004 

Author Name: Wagener Fritz 

Organization: NA 

[This excerpt contains red-line/strike out text. Refer to the original document for recommended edits.] 

131.3(i): "Water quality standards are provisions of State or Federal law which consist of a designated use or uses for 

the waters of the United States [begin new text] , [end new text] [begin strikeout] and [end strikeout] water quality 

criteria for such waters based upon such uses [begin new text] , and the antidegradation policy that applies to the 

waters" [end new text]. Water quality standards are to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water 

and serve the purposes of the Act." 

131.2 currently states: 

A water quality standard defines the water quality goals of a water body, or portion thereof, by designating the use or 

uses to be made of the water and by setting criteria necessary to protect the uses. States adopt water quality standards 

to protect public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act (the 

Act). "Serve the purposes of the Act" (as defined in sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c) of the Act) means that water quality 

standards should, wherever attainable, provide water quality for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and 

wildlife and for recreation in and on the water and take into consideration their use and value of public water supplies, 

propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, recreation in and on the water, and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes 

including navigation. 

Section 303(c)(2)(A) of the Act states: 

Whenever the State revises or adopts a new standard, such revised or new standard shall be submitted to the 

Administrator. Such revised or new water quality standard shall consist of the designated uses of the navigable waters 

involved and the water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses. Such standards shall be such as to 

protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of this Act. 

Section 101(a)(2) of the Act states: 

The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. 

In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that, consistent with the provisions of this Act ... (2) it is the 

national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1589
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983; ... 

The above requirement in 303(c)(2)(A) that water quality standards must "serve the purposes of this Act" makes it clear 

that water quality standards must include provisions for achieving the 101(a)(2) requirements for restoration and 

maintenance of the "chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters". EPA acknowledges this 

connection on page 54526 of the preamble to the proposal, stating, "The antidegradation requirements that the EPA 

incorporated by regulation in 1983 into 40 CFR 131.12 implement the maintenance aspect of CWA section 101(a) and 

are an essential component of the overall WQS program." The regulation should reflect that "essential" nature of an 

antidegradation policy in the federal water quality standards program by including antidegradation standards in the 

definition of "water quality standard" in 131.3(i), since, by definition, "essential" means "absolutely necessary; 

indispensable". 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section B 

7.m 

Comment ID 0202-A2.001.020 

Author Name: Frederick Kevin 

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division 

Additional Comments 

131.21 

The WDEQ/WQD requests that the EPA revise the inconsistencies between 131.21(a) and 131.21(c) that describe the 

timeframe in which the EPA must notify states of approvals and disapprovals of water quality standards, and when 

those standards become effective for Clean Water Act purposes. According to 131.21(a), the EPA must approve state 

water quality standards submissions within 60 days or disapprove state submissions within 90 days. However, 

according to 131.21(c), water quality standards modified after May 30, 2000 are only applicable for Clean Water Act 

purposes after the EPA has approved the standards. If water quality standards have been submitted to the EPA and not 

approved or disapproved within 60 or 90 days, respectively, are they the applicable standards for Clean Water Act 

purposes or are the timeframes in 131.21(a) rendered meaningless because of 131.21(c)? The EPA often takes longer 

than the timeframes outlined in 131.21(a), but 131.21(c) puts state approved water quality standards in an uncertain 

position, sometimes for extended periods, until acted upon by the EPA. Since states are often held to their currently 

adopted rules, whether or not they have been approved by the EPA, the WDEQ/WQD requests that the EPA revise 

131.21(c) so that it is consistent with the timeframes outlined in 131.21(a). 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1590
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section C 

Comment ID 0209-A1.001.010 

Author Name: Gilzow Floyd 

Organization: Missouri Public Utility Alliance 

We also encourage EPA staff to consider the compounding financial impacts of recent rules, particularly federal 

ammonia limits to provide greater levels of protection for mussels and snail, as they evaluate the full impact of this rule 

seeking to clarify the process used to establish water quality standards. Smaller rural communities are already reeling 

from increases of up to 1,000% from prior changes to meet ammonia limits for fish. One Missouri city (Livonia) is 

projected to require citizens to pay amounts equal to 25% of the median household income for sewer services. A 

number of other cities have rates projected in the 5% to 12% range. 

The unintended consequences of such a boost in residential sewer rates can result in an exodus of residents seeking to 

escape a death spiral of sewer rate increase: as more citizens leave, rates must continually be raised to pay for fixed 

costs including financing. The result is that we may be saving mussels and snails by killing individual towns. 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section B 

6.g 

12.a 

Comment ID 0210-A1.001.008 

Author Name: Connelly Kent 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

The State of Wyoming in common with many other states has adopted best management practices to control pollutants 

from nonpoint sources. See e.g. Wyoming Nonpoint Source Management Plan Update 2013; Wyoming Forestry Best 

Management Practices. The county and conservation district plans incorporate these standards or supplement them as 

needed. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1591
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section A 

Comment ID 0223-A1.001.004 

Author Name: Lindekugel Buck 

Organization: Grassroots Attorney on behalf of Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 

Antidegradation Implementation Methods 

In 1997, EPA approved changes to the State of Alaska's WQS, including revisions to Alaska's antidegradation policy, 

but stressed the need for Alaska to clarify how it intended to implement the policy during its next triennial review. EPA 

further recommended that the state follow the antidegradation guidance in its WQS Handbook (Second Edition, 1993). 

Today, 16 years later, the State of Alaska has done neither. Especially problematic has been the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation's (ADEC) deference to an applicants' assertions regarding the necessity for lowering water 

quality, without a demonstration that other cost-effective pollution prevention alternatives are not available to the entity, 

see infra at 5-6, and the ADEC's failure to adopt analytical tools for determining whether the benefits of economic or 

social development unquestionably outweigh the costs of lowering water quality. See EPA, Economic Guidance for 

Water Quality Standards Handbook (1995) at 1-4. 

Fish Consumption Values and Human Health Criteria 

The fish consumption value used in current Alaska WQS is 6.5 grams per day, the rate EPA originally used in 1980 for 

establishing human health criteria that addressed contaminants that can reach humans through consumption of fish, 

shellfish, and other marine life. Most alarming, the current fish consumption rate used in Alaska is only 4 percent of the 

amount recommended to prevent developmental health effects in the most vulnerable populations (fetal effects). See 

Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control at 2.4.4 (1991). 

In 2000, EPA published as Section 304(a) criteria the Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the 

Protection of Human Health, which incorporated a number of scientific advancements including a shift away from 

reliance only on bioconcentration factors to emphasize the use of bioaccurnulation factors (BAFs). Instead of focusing 

on contaminate exposure of fish and shellfish only through the water column, BAF's now account for chemical 

accumulation of waterborne chemicals through all potential exposure routes (e.g., food, sediment, and water). The 

methodology used a national fish consumption rate of 17.5 grams per day, nearly 3 times the rate applicable in Alaska. 

In December 2002, EPA published updated human health criteria based on the new methodology. See Technical 

Support Document Volume 2: Development of National Bioaccumulation Factors. The TSD recommended that the 

consumption values used in deriving criteria from the formulas reflect the most current, relevant, and/or site specific 

information available. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1592
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

In December 2003, ADEC published its Final 2002/2003 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. 

There, ADEC explained: 

The Department of Fish and Game (DF&G) has estimated that fish consumption rates for some Alaskans may be up to 

10 times the EPA 1980 default values used in current Water Quality Standards. However, the fish intake varies widely 

from village to village. In 2000, EPA developed a new methodology for calculating human health criteria using a fish 

consumption rate of 17.5 grams/day in place of the 6.5 grams/day value used since 1980. In December 2002, EPA 

published updated human health criteria based on the new methodology. This topic would consider what fish 

consumption value protects human health in Alaska and whether some areas of the state need additional consideration. 

[FN1] 

ADEC took no action to update Alaska's fish consumption value. Five years later, despite acknowledging that Oregon 

tribes had proposed a new fish consumption rate of 175 grams/day, ADEC declined to update Alaska's fish 

consumption value pending its consideration of "whether a similar study to determine Alaska fish consumption rates in 

Alaska is appropriate." See ADEC 2008 Fact Sheet: Human Health Criteria.[FN2] 

In 2012, DEC identified the "evaluat[ion] of Alaskan fish consumption rates for use in deriving human health criteria" as 

a high priority issue for the Triennial Review. See ADEC, 2011-2013 Triennial Review Final Issues (Sept. 24, 2012). 

Ten years after EPA adopted its new methodology, DEC is considering three potential actions: 1) gathering more 

information on fish consumption rates in Alaska; 2) evaluating methods for adjusting the criteria in those locations 

where consumption rates may be higher due to subsistence use; or 3) revise human health criteria. See ADEC Fact 

Sheet, Human Health Criteria for Consumption of Fish and Water (undated). Despite the fact that ADEC is charged with 

protecting the environment and human health from pollutant-caused degradation, and EPA's development of 

scientifically defensible criteria and methodology, ADEC continues to sit on its hands instead of adopting up to date 

criteria to ensure that Alaskans who depend on the consumption of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic life are protected. 

[FN1] See Alaska's Final 2002/2003 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report at 24 (Dec. 2003). 

This report also noted that "In 1992, EPA promulgated human health criteria for carcinogens for the State of Alaska 

under the National Toxics Rule (NTR). The NTR criteria use the EPA's 1980 human health methodology. In November 

2000 EPA published a new methodology for calculating human health criteria. In December 2002, the EPA published 

recommended criteria for human health, most of which are carcinogens, using the 2000 EPA methodology. DEC may 

review and consider adopting the updated carcinogenic criteria after which EPA would withdraw federal standards for 

Alaska from the NTR." Id. at 25. As with FCV, DEC has taken no action to incorporate the updated carcinogenic criteria 

into Alaska's WQSs. Although DEC adopted the 2008 Toxics Manual in December 2008, that manual didn't modify the 

human health criteria and is therefore no more protective than previous criteria. EPA has not yet approved the 2008 

Toxics Manual. 

[FN2] ADEC admits that Oregon's Average Consumption Rate is "Based on diet studies of tribes with similar diets to 

some Alaskans." See http://dec.alaska.gov/water/wqsar/wqs/pdfs/FishConsumption.pdf (slide 14). 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1593
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section A 

Comment ID 0232-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Grayum Mike 

Organization: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

EPA has a fiduciary obligation to protect western Washington treaty reserved resources, by ensuring that state water 

quality standards are protective of the corresponding designated uses. 

The EPA, as a federal trustee of treaty rights, has an obligation to ensure that state WQS are established, maintained, 

and implemented at a level that is protective of the tribes' treaty-reserved resources and human health. To that end, 

EPA must ensure that the implementing provisions of section § 303 of the federal Clean Water Act found in 40 CFR 131 

maintain strict oversight of state programs and do not create exemptions or off ramps to the Clean Water Act goals of 

restoring fishable waters. In other words, to fulfill the EPAs trust responsibility to the tribes, EPA must ardently 

implement the Clean Water Act in both daily oversight of state programs and the development and further refinement of 

implementing rules. As a practically matter, this also means that it is within the scope of the fiduciary duty of EPA to 

ensure that all state proposed compliance tools (e.g. variances and compliance schedules) are actually vehicles to 

provide timely restoration of state waters and not instruments to abdicate federal obligations. Moreover, to effectuate 

these fiduciary responsibilities, it will be necessary for EPA to review state proposed rules, programs, or permits that 

serve to authorize or implement a deviation from numeric or narrative criteria, which is subsequently less protective of 

tribal treaty-reserved rights and human health. 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section B 

5.e 

Comment ID 0235-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Lumley Babtist 

Organization: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

EPA has both general and specific trust responsibilities to tribal governments, including a duty to safeguard tribal trust 

resources, and EPA must consider the range of impacts to tribal communities of any proposed regulations. We offer the 

following comments on the proposed rule: 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1594
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section B 

Comment ID 0255-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Quaempts Eric 

Organization: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 

appreciates the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Water Quality Standards 

Regulatory Clarifications Rulemaking, 78 Fed. Reg. 54,518 (Sept. 4, 2013). The CTUIR understands that you rely on 

the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Administrative Procedure Act during this process. The CTUIR expects that the EPA 

also consider the provisions of the Treaty of 1855 (12 Stat. 945), the protection of tribal rights secured by the Treaty, 

and the fulfillment of EPA's Trust Responsibility to safeguard tribal trust resources. The eventual outcome of the 

rulemaking should promote and enhance, and in no way diminish, the federal government's ability to honor Treaty 

Rights and trust obligations through the vigorous implementation and enforcement of the CWA. 

In the Treaty of 1855 with the United States the tribes comprising the CTUIR secured forever the Tribal long-standing 

"right of taking fish" at all "usual and accustomed stations" throughout the Pacific Northwest. That right means clean 

fish––fish without toxic contaminants––from clean waters in rivers and streams. Unfortunately, that right has often been 

ignored and eroded. Toxins are in the fish and in the water. Only a few months ago another fish advisory was issued 

warning of PCBs in the Columbia River, in the primary zone where tribal fishing occurs. 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section B 

5.e 

Comment ID 0256-A2.001.007 

Author Name: Shepherd Hal 

Organization: The Center for Water Advocacy 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1595
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

IV. Fish Consumption Values and Human Health Criteria 

The fish consumption value used in current Alaska WQS is 6.5 grams per day, the rate EPA originally used in 1980 for 

establishing human health criteria that address contaminants that can reach humans through consumption of fish, 

shellfish, and other marine life. In 2000, EPA published as Section 304(a) criteria the Methodology for Deriving Ambient 

Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health, which incorporated a number of scientific advancements 

including as shift reliance only on bioconcentration factors to emphasis on the use of bioaccumulation factors (BAFs). 

Instead of focusing on contaminate exposure of fish and shellfish only through the water column, BAF's now account for 

chemical accumulation of waterborne chemicals through all potential exposure routes (e.g., food, sediment, and water), 

. The methodology used a national fish consumption rate of 17.5 grams per day, nearly 3 times the rate applicable in 

Alaska. In December 2002, EPA published updated human health criteria based on the new methodology. See 

Technical Support Document Volume 2: Development of National Bioaccumulation Factors. The TSD recommended 

that the consumption values used in deriving criteria from the formulas reflect the most current, relevant, and/or site 

specific information available. 

In December 2003, ADEC published its Final 2002/2003 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. 

There, ADEC explained: 

The Department of Fish and Game (DF&G) has estimated that fish consumption rates for some Alaskans may be up to 

10 times the EPA 1980 default values used in current Water Quality Standards. However, the fish intake varies widely 

from village to village. In 2000, EPA developed a new methodology for calculating human health criteria using a fish 

consumption rate of 17.5 grams/day in place of the 6.5 grams/day value used since 1980. In December 2002, EPA 

published updated human health criteria based on the new methodology. This topic would consider what fish 

consumption value protects human health in Alaska and whether some areas of the state need additional consideration. 

[FN1] 

ADEC took no action to update Alaska's fish consumption value. Five years later, despite acknowledging that Oregon 

tribes had proposed a new fish consumption rate of 175 grams/day, ADEC declined to update Alaska's fish 

consumption value pending its consideration of "whether a similar study to determine Alaska fish consumption rates in 

Alaska is appropriate." See ADEC 2008 Fact Sheet: Human Health Criteria.[FN2] 

In 2012, DEC identified the "[e]valuat[ion] of Alaskan fish consumption rates for use in deriving human health criteria" as 

a high priority issue during the most recent Triennial Review. See ADEC, 2011-2013 Triennial Review Final Issues 

(Sept. 24, 2012). Ten years after EPA adopted its new methodology, DEC is considering three potential actions: 1) 

gathering more information on fish consumption rates in Alaska; 2) evaluating methods for adjusting the criteria in those 

locations where consumption rates may be higher due to subsistence use; or 3) revise human health criteria. See 

ADEC Fact Sheet, Human Health Criteria for Consumption of Fish and Water (undated). Despite the fact that ADEC is 

charged with protecting the environment and human health from pollutant-caused degradation, and EPA's development 

of scientifically defensible criteria and methodology, ADEC continues to sit on its hands instead of adopting up to date 

criteria to ensure that Alaskans who depend on the consumption of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic life are protected. 

In addition, EPA's human health criteria have assumed a human body weight of 70 kg and the consumption of 0.0065 

kg of fish and shellfish per day. Based on data collected in 1973-l 974, the national per captia consumption of 

freshwater and estuarine fish was estimated to average 6.5 g/day. Per capita consumption of all seafood (including 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1596
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

marine species) was estimated to average 14.3g/day. 

The 95th percentile for consumption of all seafood by individuals over a period of 1 month was estimated to be 42 g/day 

191. The mean lipid content of fish tissue consumed in this study was estimated to be 3.0 percent [lo]. Currently, four 

levels of fish consumption are provided in the EPA guidance manual, Assessing Human Health Risk from Chemically 

Contaminated Fish and Shellfish. These are: 

6.5 g/day to represent an estimate of average consumption of fish and shellfish from estuarine and freshwaters by the 

entire U.S. population [9]. This fish consumption level is based on the average of both consumers and nonconsumers 

of fish. 

20 g/day to represent an estimate of the average consumption of fish and shellfish from marine, estuarine, and 

freshwaters by the U.S. population [l 11. This average fish consumption level also includes both consumers and 

nonconsumers of fish. 

165 g/day to represent consumption of fish and shellfish from marine, estuarine, and freshwaters by the 99.9th 

percentile of the U.S. population consuming the most fish or seafood [12]. 

180 g/day to represent a "reasonable worst case" based on the assumption that some individuals would consume fish 

at a rate equal to the combined consumption of red meat, poultry, fish, and shellfish in the United States (EPA Risk 

Assessment Council assumption based on data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Nationwide Food 

Consumption Survey of 1977-1978). See: Section 2.4.4, page 27. Technical Support Document for for Water QualityBased Toxics Control. EPA, March, 1991. 

[FN1] See Alaska's Final 2002/2003 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report at 24 (Dec. 2003). 

This report also noted that "In 1992, EPA promulgated human health criteria for carcinogens for the State of Alaska 

under the National Toxics Rule (NTR). The NTR criteria use the EPA's 1980 human health methodology. In November 

2000 EPA published a new methodology for calculating human health criteria. In December 2002, the EPA published 

recommended criteria for human health, most of which are carcinogens, using the 2000 EPA methodology. DEC may 

review and consider adopting the updated carcinogenic criteria after which EPA would withdraw federal standards for 

Alaska from the NTR." Id. at 25. As with FCV, DEC has taken no action to incorporate the updated carcinogenic criteria 

into Alaska's WQS. Although DEC adopted the 2008 Toxics Manual in December 2008, that manual didn't modify the 

human health criteria and is therefore no more protective than previous criteria. EPA has not yet approved the 2008 

Toxics Manual. 

[FN2] ADEC admits that Oregon's Average Consumption Rate is "Based on diet studies of tribes with similar diets to 

some Alaskans." See http://dec.alaska.gov/water/wqsar/wqs/pdfs/FishConsumption.pdf (slide 14). 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1597
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0256-A2.001.014 

Author Name: Shepherd Hal 

Organization: The Center for Water Advocacy 

VIII. Waters Protected Under the Clean Water Act 

Based on the conclusions in the Proposed Rule along with the proper interpretation of the statute, implementing 

regulations and relevant caselaw, we encourage the EPA to protect the following waters under the Clean Water Act: 

• Traditional navigable waters; 

• Interstate waters; 

• Wetlands adjacent to either traditional navigable waters or interstate waters; 

• Non-navigable tributaries to traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent, meaning they contain water at 

least seasonally; and 

• Wetlands that directly abut relatively permanent waters. 

In addition, the following waters should be protected under the CWA if a fact-specific analysis determines they have a 

"significant nexus" to a traditional navigable water or interstate water: 

• Tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters; 

• Wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters; and 

• Waters that fall under the "other waters" category of the regulations. These waters should be divided into two 

categories, those that are physically proximate to other jurisdictional waters and those that are not, and discusses how 

each category should be evaluated. 

Conclusion 

Congress clearly intended to protect critical water resources when they passed the Clean Water Act nearly 40 years 

ago. The Proposed Rule must recognize that the waters of the U.S are connected and therefore must be protected. 

Missinterpretations of two confusing U.S. Supreme Court in the last decade, have led to the loss of protections for 20 

million acres of wetlands and 60% of the stream miles in the United States, effectively gutting much of the intent of the 

Clean Water Act. Rivers and streams act as nature's blood supply and wetlands act as nature's kidneys, filtering 

pollutants and also acting as a natural sponge to soak up excess waters during big precipitation events. Wetland and 

river losses make flood events worse, damaging property, endangering lives and impacting myriad business enterprises 

from agriculture to the recreational tourism industry. Finally, Protecting these wetlands and river corridors can help to 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1598
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

reduce the impacts of floods like those that are saturating our community this spring. Many communities have been 

able to reduce flooding by restoring wetlands and removing pavement along waterways and river banks. 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section C 

Comment ID 0265-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Beach Paul 

Organization: NA 

The enclosed pictures are from the Saginaw Bay Watershed showing some of the origins of siltation and phosphrous 

enrichment to the Great Lakes. I did not have to look far for these examples; they were taken within three miles of my 

farm. 

Small, normal rains wash topsoil into road ditches and country drains. When a large rain event occurs, the accumulated 

topsoil is flushed out of the ditches and into the Saginaw bay. 

It has long been known that Michigan has had problems with surface water management. In 1979, Governor WIlliam 

Milliken created a panel to study this problem. In 1980, a Special Task Force Report on Drains was completed and 

published. It recommended many reforms; none have been enacted in the 33 intervening years. 

Perhaps it is time for the DEQ to assume responsibility for Michigan's surface water management, as Michigan seems 

unable to do so. 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section A 

Comment ID 0265-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Beach Paul 

Organization: NA 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1599
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Eight photos showing some of the origins of siltation and phosphorus enrichment in the Saginaw Bay watershed. 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section A 

Comment ID 0278-A2.001.028 

Author Name: Hornback Chris 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

[This excerpt contains red-line/strike out text. Refer to the original document for recommended edits.] 

Water Quality Trading 

NACWA supports water quality trading as an essential compliance option for NPDES permittees to achieve new or 

revised water quality-based effluent limits (in whole or in part), as well as to accelerate the pace and scope of water 

quality restoration efforts across the country. 

In the preamble to this proposal, EPA notes that "[t]here are a variety of tools available to states, tribes and dischargers 

that can provide time to meet regulatory requirements" and "the most common regulatory tools considered are 

variances and permit compliance schedules" (78 Fed. Reg. at 54532 col. 1), both of which are specifically addressed in 

EPA's proposal. Noticeably absent is any reference to water quality trading, which is another regulatory tool with the 

singular advantage of not just "providing time to meet regulatory requirements" but also accelerating progress at lower 

cost with the potential for ancillary environmental benefits. 

In recent years, the availability of trading as a regulatory tool has come under attack, most recently in the now 

dismissed Food & Water Watch lawsuit against EPA over the trading provisions of the Agency's Chesapeake Bay 

TMDL. NACWA does not believe that these lawsuits have merit but fear that they will recur until the defensibility of 

trading is affirmed as a matter of decisional law or rulemaking. We believe the current proposal presents EPA with an 

immediate opportunity to reinforce the value and appropriateness of trading as a regulatory tool to facilitate 

implementation of water quality standards through the NPDES permitting process. To the extent EPA proceeds to 

finalize the proposed provisions, we ask EPA to amend 40 CFR 131.13 as follows (new text set off in bold): 

§ 131.13 General policies. 

States may, at their discretion, include in their State standards, policies generally affecting their application and 

implementation, such as mixing zones, low flows and variances. [begin new text] In addition, States may implement 

water quality trading programs between and among point and nonpoint sources on a local, state or interstate basis to 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1600
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

attain water quality standards. Trading is permitted for water quality-based effluent limitations so long as adequate data 

and ecological modeling exist to confirm that trading would not result in adverse localized impacts or contribute to an 

exceedance of any applicable water quality standard. [ end new text] Such policies are subject to EPA review and 

approval. 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section C 

Comment ID 0281-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Smith Brooks 

Organization: National Water Quality Trading Alliance 

[This excerpt contains red-line/strike out text. Refer to the original document for recommended edits.] 

The National Water Quality Trading Alliance (Trading Alliance) appreciates this opportunity to comment on EPA's 

proposed clarifications to the federal water quality standards regulation. As described in more detail below, we believe 

that this rulemaking presents a unique opportunity for EPA to affirmatively endorse the implementation of water quality 

trading programs by states as part of their general policies under 40 CFR §131.13. 

The Trading Alliance is being formed to advance the science, law and policy underlying water quality trading. We intend 

to achieve these objectives by supporting comprehensive and coherent rules and policies on trading; promoting 

consistency, integrity, scientific rigor and defensibility in the application of such rules and policies; providing a platform 

to advance the science and ecological effectiveness of trading; and serving as a catalyst and champion for the new 

strategic partnership between EPA and USDA to enhance trading opportunities. 

The Trading Alliance believes that water quality trading has the potential to accelerate the scope and pace of 

restoration in impaired watersheds throughout the United States, and thus is inextricably bound to the goals and 

objectives of the Clean Water Act. We see a direct nexus between water quality trading and EPA's proposed regulatory 

clarifications, both of which seek to improve the effectiveness of federal and state regulations geared toward restoring 

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

As EPA's existing regulations make clear, water quality standards serve the dual purposes of establishing water quality 

goals and providing a regulatory basis for imposing water quality-based treatment controls and strategies. 40 CFR 

§131.2. With new monitoring techniques, more precise data, more stringent standards, more sophisticated modeling 

tools and more comprehensive water quality assessments, we are confronted with a growing list of impaired waters 

involving myriad diverse and diffuse sources of pollution. The water quality continuum established by Congress, 

implemented by the states, and overseen by EPA will help to ensure that these impairments are addressed, first 

through regular monitoring and assessment, second through impairment listings, priority rankings and TMDLs, and third 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1601
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

through implementation strategies that include water quality-based effluent limits for point sources and cost-effective 

and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint sources. But our shared restoration goals will not be achieved 

overnight, and cannot be achieved without reasonable, practical, flexible, scientifically-sound and legally defensible 

state implementation policies that include trading to promote reductions from both point and nonpoint sources of 

pollution. 

In the preamble to its proposed regulatory clarifications, EPA discusses a variety of tools that are available to states and 

dischargers to provide the time needed to meet water quality based regulatory requirements, including variances and 

permit compliance schedules. 78 Fed. Reg. at 54532 col. 1. We respectfully request that EPA add water quality trading 

to this discussion, since trading is a tool that not only helps to phase-in new requirements, but also to accelerate 

progress at lower cost (not to mention provide ancillary environmental benefits). 

We are grateful for EPA's strong and longstanding support of water quality trading, which dates back to a draft 

framework in 1996, a national policy in 2003, and significant technical assistance, guidance and grant support over the 

past decade. We agree with EPA that trading is fundamentally a state implementation tool, not a federal one. But in 

recent years, the legality of trading has come under attack in both federal and state proceedings involving water qualitybased permitting actions and TMDLs. In the face of these threats, we believe that the current rulemaking presents EPA 

with a unique and immediate opportunity to reinforce the value and appropriateness of trading as a regulatory tool for 

states to use when implementing their water quality standards. And we believe that EPA can fulfill this opportunity by 

amending 40 CFR §131.13 as follows (new text set off in bold): 

§131.13 General policies. 

States may, at their discretion, include in their State standards, policies generally affecting their application and 

implementation, such as mixing zones, low flows and variances. [begin new text] In addition, States may implement 

water quality trading programs between and among point and nonpoint sources on a local, state or interstate basis to 

attain water quality standards. Trading is permitted for water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) so long as 

data and ecological modeling confirm that the proposed trade would not result in adverse localized impacts or 

contribute to an exceedance of any applicable water quality standard. [end new text] Such policies are subject to EPA 

review and approval. 

In offering these suggestions, we do not intend to preclude the use of trading for technology-based effluent limitations 

(TBELs). Rather, we anticipate that authority for such trades would be made in the relevant effluent guidelines 

rulemaking. By way of example, we are aware of multiple comments supporting TBEL trading in EPA's pending steam 

electric effluent guidelines. And we support such trading where there is an appropriate, supporting technical record. 

We commend EPA for seeking to improve the effectiveness of the federal water quality standards regulation, and for 

providing additional clarification and specificity to states on the implementation of their own water quality standards 

programs. We hope that EPA will find these comments to be helpful, and we look forward to working with the Agency 

and other interested stakeholders to advance the science, law and policy underlying water quality trading. 

Please feel free to contact me at 804-697-1414 or brooks.smith@troutmansanders.com with questions or for more 

information. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1602
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section C 

Comment ID 0285-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Sheahan Judy 

Organization: The United States Conference of Mayors 

Dear Ms. Aguirre,
 

Unfortunately, the Conference of Mayors will not be submitting comments on the Water Quality Standards Regulatory
 

Clarifications Proposed Rule.
 

Thank you for contacting me.
 

Sincerely,
 

Judy Sheahan
 

Assistant Executive Director
 

The U.S. Conference of Mayors
 

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:28 AM, <WQSRegulatoryClarifications@epa.gov> wrote:
 

Ms. Sheahan,
 

I am contacting you about the public comment submitted from The United States Conference of Mayors. The comment
 

indicated that the organization was unable to make the January 2, 2014 deadline, but intended to submit comments
 

within 30 days.
 

Please let me know the status of your comments on the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Propose
 

Rule, so that I can have them added to the rulemaking docket for formal consideration and response during the
 

rulemaking process.
 

Thank you,
 

Janita Aguirre 

Response 

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

14.b 

14.b: Section A 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1603
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.C - COVER LETTER 

Comment ID 0116.001.001 

Author Name: Hale Michelle 

Organization: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

See attached files 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0117.001.001 

Author Name: Fredericks Michael 

Organization: Native Village of Chuathbaluk 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0118.001.001 

Author Name: Lakkad Manish 

Organization: NA 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1604
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0119.001.001 

Author Name: Lemke Lee 

Organization: Georgia Mining Association 

Please see attached comment letter. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0121.001.001 

Author Name: Whirley Gregory 

Organization: Virginia Department of Transportation 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0122.001.001 

Author Name: Araujo Jaeleen 

Organization: Sealaska Corporation 

Attached are the comments submitted on behalf of Sealaska Corporation, the Alaska Native Regional Corporation 

formed pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) for Southeast Alaska. Sealaska represents the 

Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian tribal member shareholders who originate from Southeast Alaska. 

Sealaska Corporation 

One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400 

Juneau, AK 99801 

907-586-1512 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1605
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

www.sealaska.com 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0123.001.001 

Author Name: Chin Ryan 

Organization: NA 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a comment to the EPA's proposed rule. 

Please See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0124.001.001 

Author Name: Davis K. 

Organization: NA 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0125.001.001 

Author Name: Rambler Terry 

Organization: San Carlos Apache Tribe 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1606
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Please see the attached document for the comment of the San Carlos Apache Tribe 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0126-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Barry Marie 

Organization: Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 

Please find attached comments on the above docket. 

Marie Barry, Environmental Program Director 

Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California 

919 Highway 395 South, Gardnerville, NV 89410 

Phone: 775.265.8682 Cell: 775.720.3850 

Fax: 775.265.3211 

Email: Marie.Barry@washoetribe.us<mailto:Marie.Barry@washoetribe.us> 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0126.001.001 

Author Name: Barry Marie 

Organization: Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1607
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0127.001.001 

Author Name: Sawtelle Andrew 

Organization: NA 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0128.001.001 

Author Name: Boon Richard 

Organization: California Stormwater Quality Association 

Please accept these comments from the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA). 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0129-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Steidel Robert
 

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

Good Morning, 

On behalf of the Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies, Inc., please find the attached comments 

regarding EPA's proposed changes to the federal water quality standards regulation. 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1608
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0129.001.001 

Author Name: Steidel Robert
 

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

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0130.001.001 

Author Name: Schregardus Donald
 

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

Department of Defense comments submitted on EPA's proposed clarifications to the Water Quality Standards. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0131.001.001 

Author Name: Rager David 

Organization: Sanitation District Number 1 of Northern Kentucky 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1609
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0133-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Phillips Sanford 

Organization: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

Please find attached comments from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) regarding Docket ID 

No. EPAHQOW20100606. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0133.001.001 

Author Name: Phillips Sanford 

Organization: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

See Attached 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0134.001.001 

Author Name: Shea III Quinlan 

Organization: Edison Electric Institute 

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) appreciates the opportunity to submit the attached comments on EPA's proposed 

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606, 78 Fed. Reg. 54517 (Sept. 4, 2013) 

(proposed rule). 

If you have any questions about these comments, please contact either C. Richard Bozek at rbozek@eei.org or 

202/508-5641 or Henri Bartholomot at hbartholomot@eei.org or 202/508- 5622. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1610
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0135.001.001 

Author Name: Hofmann John 

Organization: Brazos River Authority 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0136.001.001 

Author Name: Elton Wallace 

Organization: NA 

See attached 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0137.001.001 

Author Name: Flowers Bobbie 

Organization: NA 

See attached 

Response 

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

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1611
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.c 

Comment ID 0138.001.001 

Author Name: Albers Catherine 

Organization: NA 

See attached 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0139.001.001 

Author Name: Mickowski Patrice 

Organization: NA 

See attached 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0140.001.001 

Author Name: Schmitt Donna 

Organization: NA 

See attached 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1612
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0141.001.001 

Author Name: Clements Jane 

Organization: NA 

See attached 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0142.001.001 

Author Name: Kaplan Phyllis 

Organization: NA 

See attached 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0143.001.001 

Author Name: Wellman James 

Organization: NA 

See attached 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1613
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0144.001.001 

Author Name: Septoff Alan 

Organization: NA 

See Attached 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0145-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Shea III Quinlan 

Organization: Edison Electric Institute 

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI)) appreciates the opportunity to submit the attached comments on EPA's proposed 

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606, 78 Fed. Reg. 54517 (Sept. 4, 2013) 

(proposed rule). 

If you have any questions about these comments, please contact either C. Richard Bozek at rbozek@eei.org or 

202/508-5641 or Henri Bartholomot at hbartholomot@eei.org or 202/508-5622. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0145.001.001 

Author Name: Shea III Quinlan 

Organization: Edison Electric Institute 

see attachment 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1614
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0146-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Kessler Katrina 

Organization: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

Please find attached the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency comments on the proposed rulemaking published in Vol. 7 

8 No. 171 of the Federal Register on September 4, 2013. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0146.001.001 

Author Name: Kessler Katrina 

Organization: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0147-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Gaskin David 

Organization: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

We respectfully submit the attached comments for your consideration. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1615
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0147.001.001 

Author Name: Gaskin David 

Organization: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0148-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Rice Patrick 

Organization: Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Attached is a letter with comments from the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality regarding the Proposed 

Rule regarding Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0148.001.001 

Author Name: Rice Patrick 

Organization: Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

see attachment 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1616
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0149-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Michael Gene 

Organization: City of Pueblo Wastewater Department 

Comments attached for Docket identification (ID)No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0149.001.001 

Author Name: Michael Gene 

Organization: City of Pueblo Wastewater Department 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0150.001.001 

Author Name: Heisig-Mitchell Jamie 

Organization: Hampton Roads Sanitation District 

Please see attached comments. 

Response 

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

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1617
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.c 

Comment ID 0151.001.001 

Author Name: Tate Michael 

Organization: Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

Attached comments provided on behalf of the Kansas Deparmtment of Health and Environment by: 

Michael B. Tate, PE, Director 

Kansas Dept of Health and Environment - Bureau of Water 

1000 SW Jackson St, Ste 420 

Topeka, KS 66612 

785-296-5504 

mtate@kdheks.gov 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0152.001.001 

Author Name: Stevens Bruce 

Organization: Indiana Coal Council, Inc. 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0153-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Bishop Jonathan 

Organization: California State Water Resources Control Board 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1618
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

I work for the California State Water Resources Control Board, Chief Deputy Director Jonathan Bishop. I have attached 

a letter addressed from Mr. Bishop to Nancy Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water. The original letter has 

been mailed to Ms. Stoner, and I am emailing that letter to this email. 

Please let me know if you have any difficulty with the attachment. Thank you, lisa 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0153.001.001 

Author Name: Bishop Jonathan 

Organization: California State Water Resources Control Board 

Comment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0154-A1.001.001 

Author Name: McGee Beth 

Organization: Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

Attached please find comments from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation on proposed revisions to sections of the federal 

water quality standards regulations - Docket ID No. EPAHQOW20100606. 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1619
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0154.001.001 

Author Name: McGee Beth 

Organization: Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

Comment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0155.001.001 

Author Name: Ortiz Ryan 

Organization: Wind River Environmental Quality Commission 

See attached comments submitted on behalf of the Wind River Environmental Quality Commission, Shoshone and 

Arapaho Tribes 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0156.001.001 

Author Name: Jackie Kepke Adam Link 

Organization: California Association of Sanitation Agencies and Tri-TAC 

Please find attached the comments of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) and Tri-TAC regarding 

proposed changes to the federal water quality standards (WQS) regulations. We appreciate the opportunity to provide 

feedback on this proposal, and please feel free to contact Adam Link, CASA's Director of Government Affairs, at 

alink@casaweb.org or (916) 446-0388 if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you. 

Response 

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

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1620
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.c 

Comment ID 0157.001.001 

Author Name: Harpole Chad 

Organization: Kentucky Chamber of Commerce 

For your consideration, please find the attached comments on behalf of the members of the Kentucky Chamber of 

Commerce representing the business interests of 92,000 Kentucky-based businesses. 

Chad Harpole 

Vice President, 

Government Affairs Kentucky Chamber of Commerce 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0158.001.001 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

Please find attached the Kentucky Division of Water's comments regarding Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Clarifications; Proposed Rule: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606. 

The Kentucky Division of Water would like to thank EPA for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking, 

and we appreciate your consideration of our recommendations. The Kentucky Division of Water encourages EPA to 

continue discussions with its State coregulators, and remain ready to answer questions regarding these comments. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me at (502) 564-3410 ext. 4012 or at Peter.Goodmann@ky.gov if you have any 

questions or wish to discuss these issues in more detail. 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1621
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0159.001.001 

Author Name: Smithee Derek 

Organization: Oklahoma Water Resources Board 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0160-A1.001.001 

Author Name: West Jeff 

Organization: Xcel Energy 

Please find attached the comments of Xcel Energy for the above reference docket. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0160.001.001 

Author Name: West Jeff 

Organization: Xcel Energy 

See attachment(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0161-A1.001.001 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1622
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Author Name: Ehm William 

Organization: Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Please find attached a signed letter detailing Iowa Department of Natural Resources' questions and concerns relating to 

the proposed Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarification Rule. Thank you for the opportunity to provide 

comment. 

If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0161.001.001 

Author Name: Ehm William 

Organization: Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0164.001.001 

Author Name: Allmon Eric
 

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

Please see attached comments submitted on behalf of Clean Water Action, Public Citizen, Caddo Lake Institute, Save 

Our Springs Alliance, Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, Texas Center for Policy Studies, 

and Working Effectively for Clean Air Now (WE CAN). 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1623
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0165-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Gunderson Steven 

Organization: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

Please review the attached comments on the proposed water quality standards (WQS) regulation, and forward them to 

colleagues and other parties who might have an interest in the outcome. In case of questions, contact Sarah Johnson 

at 303-692-3609 or sarah.johnson@state.co.us. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0165.001.001 

Author Name: Gunderson Steven 

Organization: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0166-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

Please find attached the Kentucky Division of Water's comments regarding Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Clarifications; Proposed Rule: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606. 

The Kentucky Division of Water would like to thank EPA for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking, 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1624
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

and we appreciate your consideration of our recommendations. The Kentucky Division of Water encourages EPA to 

continue discussions with its State co-regulators, and remain ready to answer questions regarding these comments. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me at (502) 564-3410 ext. 4012 or at Peter.Goodmann@ky.gov if you have any 

questions or wish to discuss these issues in more detail. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0166.001.001 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

See attachment(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0167.001.001 

Author Name: Anderson Paul 

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

Please see the attached comments submitted on behalf of the Lower Fountain Metropolitan Sewage Disposal District. 

Thank you. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0168.001.001 

Author Name: Walker Roger 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1625
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: Regulatory Environmental Group for Missouri 

Re: Comments Submitted on behalf of the Regulatory Environmental Group for Missouri (REGFORM) regarding the 

EPA proposed rule, "Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications," published in the Federal Register 78 FR 

54517, September 4, 2013. 

The Regulatory Environmental Group for Missouri (REGFORM) is pleased to submit these comments (attached) on 

EPA's above referenced proposed rule. REGFORM, a nonprofit organization created in 1993, is committed to the 

development of environmental regulations, policies, and laws that are grounded in sound science and designed to 

produce demonstrated environmental improvements commensurate with the cost of compliance. We advocate on 

behalf of our Missouri members to develop regulations and policies that protect the State's remarkable natural 

resources and environment - but without unduly burdening the regulated community - which has invested tremendous 

financial and human resources to create thousands of jobs and provide economic opportunity in our communities. 

REGFORM's member companies own and operate facilities located on and near waters of the United States. Many of 

these facilities hold individual and/or general National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for the 

direct and indirect discharge into those waters. Accordingly, REGFORM has a direct interest in the matters addressed 

in the September 4, 2013 proposed water quality standards rulemaking. 

As noted, our comments were sent by email and also herein attached. 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1626
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0169.001.001 

Author Name: Letient Henri 

Organization: Teck Alaska Incorporated 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606 comments by Teck Alaska Incorporated. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0170.001.001 

Author Name: Faggert Pamela
 

Organization: Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
 

Attached are Dominion's comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's Water Quality Standards Clarifications. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0171-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Borkowski Winston
 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams on behalf of CF Industries, Inc.
 

CF Industries, Inc. (CF), submits the attached comments in response to the propose rule published by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Wednesday, September 4, 2013, titled Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Clarifications; Proposed Rule. 

I attempted to file through the eRulemaking Portal but could not confirm PDF properly attached; to err to caution, filing 

by email as well. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1627
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0171.001.001 

Author Name: Borkowski Winston
 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams on behalf of CF Industries, Inc.
 

Comment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0172-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Foster Tad 

Organization: Tad S. Foster Attorney at Law on behalf of three small municipal dischargers 

Tad Foster 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0172.001.001 

Author Name: Foster Tad 

Organization: Tad S. Foster Attorney at Law on behalf of three small municipal dischargers 

Comment 

Response 

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

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1628
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.c 

Comment ID 0173.001.001 

Author Name: Borkowski Winston
 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams on behalf of CF Industries, Inc.
 

CF Industries, Inc. (CF), submits the attached comments in response to the propose rule published by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Wednesday, September 4, 2013, titled Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Clarifications; Proposed Rule. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0174-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Peoples Zachary 

Organization: Dallas Water Utilities 

United States Environmental Protection Agency Officials: 

Please note the attached letter (comments) from the City of Dallas related to the subject Docket. I will also submit a 

hard copy. 

Thanks, 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0174.001.001 

Author Name: Peoples Zachary 

Organization: Dallas Water Utilities 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1629
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0175.001.001 

Author Name: Canton Steven
 

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

Comment submitted on behalf of GEI Consultants, Inc., Wharf Resources (USA), Inc., and the International Copper
 

Association, Ltd. 

Please see attached comments.
 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0176-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Lazarus Jay
 

Organization: Glorieta Geoscience, Inc. on behalf of Dairy Producers of New Mexico (DPNM)
 

Attached please find comments on the proposed Clarifications to Water Quality Standards from Dairy Producers of New 

Mexico. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0176-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Lazarus Jay 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1630
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: Glorieta Geoscience, Inc. on behalf of Dairy Producers of New Mexico (DPNM) 

Enclosed please find comments from Dairy Producers of New Mexico (DPNM) on the Proposed Water Quality 

Standards Regulatory Clarifications (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OW- 2010-0606). 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0176.001.001 

Author Name: Lazarus Jay
 

Organization: Glorieta Geoscience, Inc. on behalf of Dairy Producers of New Mexico (DPNM)
 

Comment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0177-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Klotz Mark 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Attached are comments from Mr. Mark A. Klotz, P.E., Director of the Division of Water, New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606, Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Clarifications. 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1631
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0177.001.001 

Author Name: Klotz Mark 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0178-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Burnell Barry 

Organization: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

Attached please find the State of Idaho's comments on EPA's proposed changes to the federal regulations regarding 

water quality standards. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0178.001.001 

Author Name: Burnell Barry 

Organization: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1632
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0179-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Spotts David 

Organization: Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

Please find comments submitted by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission for Water Quality Standards 

Regulatory Clarifications proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency as Docket identification (ID) No. 

EPAHQOW20100606. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0179.001.001 

Author Name: Spotts David 

Organization: Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

Comment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0180-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Hobson Chris 

Organization: Southern Company 

Southern Company submits the attached comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Water Quality 

Standards Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule published in the Federal Register on September 4, 2013 (78 Fed. 

Reg. 54,517). Southern Company provides these comments on behalf of itself and its six subsidiaries potentially 

affected by the proposal: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi 

Power Company, Southern Nuclear Company, and Southern Power Company. Please contact Donna Hill at (205) 257-

5234, if you have questions, comments, or issues with the submittal. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1633
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0180.001.001 

Author Name: Hobson Chris 

Organization: Southern Company 

Comment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0181-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Sims Shaun 

Organization: Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts 

Please see attached. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0181.001.001 

Author Name: Sims Shaun 

Organization: Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts 

Comment 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1634
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0182-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Hahn Martha 

Organization: The Colorado Wastewater Utility Council 

Please find attached The Colorado Wastewater Utility Council's comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA) proposed Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606, 78 Fed. Reg. 

54518, September 4, 2013 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0182.001.001 

Author Name: Hahn Martha 

Organization: The Colorado Wastewater Utility Council 

See attachment(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0183.001.001 

Author Name: Rich Eric 

Organization: Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency 

See Attached 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1635
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0184-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Curley Ed 

Organization: The Western Coalition of Arid States 

Attention Docket ID No. EPAHQOW20100606: Please see the attached comments from the Western Coalition of Arid 

States (WESTCAS) on ARPM Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications. We appreciate the opportunity to 

provide these comments on behalf of our members. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0184.001.001 

Author Name: Curley Ed 

Organization: The Western Coalition of Arid States 

See attachment(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0185.001.001 

Author Name: Poltak Ronald 

Organization: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission 

See attached file(s) from the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission on behalf of the states of 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1636
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0186.001.001 

Author Name: Claff Roger 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute 

Comments of the American Petroleum Institute on Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications, 78 Fed. Reg. 

54518, September 4, 2013. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0187.001.001 

Author Name: Allmon Eric 

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

To Whom it May Concern: 

Please see the attached comments submitted on behalf of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, in order to join in 

comments previously submitted on behalf of Clean Water Action, Public Citizen, Caddo Lake Institute, Save Our 

Springs Alliance, Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, Texas Center for Policy Studies, and 

Working Effectively for Clean Air Now (WE CAN) in regards to the above-referenced matter. 

Thank you for your attention in this matter. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0188-A1.001.001 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1637
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Author Name: Ehm William 

Organization: Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Please find attached a signed letter detailing Iowa Department of Natural Resources' questions and concerns relating to 

the proposed Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarification Rule. Thank you for the opportunity to provide 

comment. 

If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0188.001.001 

Author Name: Ehm William 

Organization: Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

Comment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0189.001.001 

Author Name: Margaret Watkins Nancy Schuldt 

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

Environmental Department 

The Fond du Lac and Grand Portage Bands of Lake Superior Chippewa jointly submit comments on EPA's proposed 

WQS clarifications (2013) 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1638
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0190.001.001 

Author Name: Wagener Fritz 

Organization: NA 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0191-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Hirst Barbara 

Organization: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Attached please find comments from the NJ Department of Environmental Protection on the above docket: "Water 

Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications". Contact information is included within the attached letter. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0191.001.001 

Author Name: Hirst Barbara 

Organization: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1639
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0192.001.001 

Author Name: Reeder Thomas 

Organization: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

To whom it may concern: 

Attached comments provided on behalf of the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NC DWR). 

Comments regard the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications; Proposed Rule: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW2010-0606. 

We welcome questions related to these comments. 

Please contact: Connie Brower, NC Water Quality Standards Coordinator, at 919-807-6416 or 

connie.brower@ncdenr.gov 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0193-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Biggs Barbara 

Organization: Metro Wastewater Reclamation District 

Please find attached comments on the proposed Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications From the Metro 

Wastewater Reclamation District in Denver, Colorado. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0193.001.001 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1640
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Author Name: Biggs Barbara 

Organization: Metro Wastewater Reclamation District 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0194.001.001 

Author Name: Stonestreet Robert 

Organization: West Virginia Chamber of Commerce 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0195.001.001 

Author Name: Norton Ken 

Organization: National Tribal Water Council 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0196.001.001 

Author Name: Bostic Jason 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1641
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: West Virginia Coal Association 

Attached please find the comments of the West Virginia Coal Association on the proposed water quality standards 

clarification rule. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Jason D. Bostic 

West Virginia Coal Association 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0197.001.001 

Author Name: Garrison Naoh 

Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0198.001.001 

Author Name: Card Bethany 

Organization: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1642
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0199.001.001 

Author Name: Rogers Gilbert 

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

Please find the attached comments submitted on behalf of the Southern Environmental Law Center, Alabama Rivers 

Alliance, and the North Carolina Conservation Network. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0200.001.001 

Author Name: Covar Zak 

Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is providing comments on the proposed revisions to the federal Water 

Quality Standards Rule. Regarding the proposed revisions, TCEQ would like to emphasize the importance of applying 

the resulting regulations with reasonable flexibility, in order to accommodate the various approaches that have proven 

effective in each state's and tribe's water quality management program. Concerns and suggestions regarding the key 

revisions are attached. 

Response 

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

14.c 

3.a 

Comment ID 0201.001.001 

Author Name: Godfrey Mike 

Organization: Alabama Power 

Please find attached Alabama Power Company's comments to EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Clarifications. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1643
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0202-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Frederick Kevin 

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division 

Please see attached comments regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's Water Quality Standards Regulatory
 

Clarifications.
 

Please contact Lindsay Patterson at Lindsay.Patterson@wyo.gov or 307-777-7079 with any questions about the
 

attachment.
 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0202.001.001 

Author Name: Frederick Kevin 

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division 

See attachment(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0203.001.001 

Author Name: Christman Jim 

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

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1644
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Attached are the Comments of the Utility Water Act Group on EPA's Proposed Rule on Water Quality Standards 

Regulatory Clarifications. Please contact Jim Christman, Hunton & Williams, jchristman@hunton.com (804/788-8368) if 

you have any questions. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0204.001.001 

Author Name: Thomas John
 

Organization: Law office of John R. Thomas on behalf of Chassahowitzka River Restoration Committee, et al.
 

Please find attached comments submitted by Florida Interest Groups. Thank you. John R. Thomas 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0205.001.001 

Author Name: Burd Charlie
 

Organization: Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia Inc.
 

For your consideration, please find attached the comments of the Independent Oil and Gas Association of West 

Virginia, Inc. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0206.001.001 

Author Name: Foster Kelly 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1645
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. and Waterkeeper Organizations 

Attached please find comments from Waterkeeper Alliance and Waterkeeper Organizations on "Water Quality 

Standards Regulatory Clarifications" Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606. If you have any questions about these 

comments, you may contact Kelly Foster, Waterkeeper Alliance Senior Attorney, at kfoster@waterkeeper.org. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0207.001.001 

Author Name: Bodine Susan 

Organization: American Farm Bureau Federation et al. 

Attached please find comments submitted by the following 30 agriculture and silviculture organizations: 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

Agricultural Retailers Association 

American Sugar Alliance 

Georgia Poultry Federation 

Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association 

Michigan Sugar Company 

Mississippi Poultry Association 

National Alliance of Forest Owners 

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 

National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

National Chicken Council 

National Corn Growers Association 

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives 

National Milk Producers Federation 

National Pork Producers Council 

North Carolina Poultry Federation 

Ohio AgriBusiness Association 

Ohio Corn & Wheat Growers Association 

Ohio Soybean Association 

South Dakota Agri-Business Association South 

East Dairy Farmers Association 

The Fertilizer Institute 

U. S. Poultry & Egg Association 

United Egg Producers 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1646
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

US Cattlemen's Association 

USA Rice Federation 

Virginia Poultry Federation 

Wyoming Ag-Business Association 

Wyoming Crop Improvement 

Wyoming Wheat Growers 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0208.001.001 

Author Name: Foster Wade 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0209.001.001 

Author Name: Gilzow Floyd 

Organization: Missouri Public Utility Alliance 

In partial support and partial opposition to the proposed rule 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0210.001.001 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1647
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Author Name: Connelly Kent 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0211.001.001 

Author Name: Lane David 

Organization: Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board 

Attached please find the comments of the Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board (MESERB) 

on EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606-0061. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0212.001.001 

Author Name: Norton Kelly 

Organization: Arizona Mining Association 

The Arizona Mining Association would like to submit the attached comments. Thank you for the opportunity to 

comment. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0213.001.001 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1648
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Author Name: Coyne Kevin 

Organization: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

See attached comments submitted on behalf of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0215.001.001 

Author Name: Callaway Casi 

Organization: Mobile Baykeeper 

Attached you will find comments from Mobile Baykeeper recommending changes to the Water Quality Standards rule 

changes. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Casi (kc) 

Callaway 251-433-4229; callaway@mobilebaykeeper.org. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0216-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Brisson Brook
 

Organization: Trustees for Alaska on behalf of the Alaska Center for the Environment et al.
 

Attached are comments submitted by Trustees for Alaska on behalf of the Alaska Center for the Environment, Alaska 

Community Action on Toxics, Cook Inletkeeper, Native Village of Port Graham, and the Northern Alaska Environmental 

Center on EPA's proposed Water Quality Standards rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPAHQOW20100606. Please contact 

me with any questions. 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1649
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0216.001.001 

Author Name: Brisson Brook
 

Organization: Trustees for Alaska on behalf of the Alaska Center for the Environment et al.
 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0217-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Hale Michelle 

Organization: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has reviewed the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA) proposed rule for Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications published in the Federal Register 

on September 4, 2013 (Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 171, pp. 54518-54546). ADEC appreciates the opportunity to 

provide input on this important matter and offers general and specific comments on this proposal in the attached letter. 

Please contact me if you have any questions. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0217.001.001 

Author Name: Hale Michelle 

Organization: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

See attachment 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1650
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0218.001.001 

Author Name: Elardo Pam 

Organization: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 

Attached document includes comments from King County regarding the EPA's Proposed Rule: Water Quality 

Standards, Clarifications. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0219.001.001 

Author Name: McNelly Jeff 

Organization: ARIPPA 

ARIPPA
 

2015 Chestnut Street Camp Hill PA 17011 Phone: (717) 763-7635, Fax: (717) 763-7455 Cell:
 

(717) 319-1457 

Email:jamcnelly1@arippa.org Alt Email: office@arippa.org Web: www.arippa.org 

SUBMISSION DATE: Jan. 2, 2014 

SUBMITTED VIA E-MAIL TO: ow-docket@epa.gov 

SUBMITTED VIA web site TO: www.regulaltions.gov 

SUBMITTED VIA FAX TO: (202) 566-2426 

Water Docket 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Code 2822T 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1651
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606
 

Re: Response to Request for Comments on EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications (78 Fed. Reg.
 

54518)
 

To Whom It May Concern:
 

I. Introduction 

ARIPPA, on behalf of its member companies, hereby provides comments (see attached) to EPA on the information 

presented or described in the Federal Register of September 4, 2013, regarding 40 CFR Part 131 Water Quality 

Standards Regulatory Clarifications; Proposed. 

Jeff A McNelly, Executive Director, ARIPPA 

2015 Chestnut Street Camp Hill PA 17011 

Phone: 717 763 7635, Fax: 717 763 7455 Email: jamcnelly1@arippa.org 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0220-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Anderson Paul 

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

Good afternoon, attached are the comments of the Lower Fountain Metropolitan Sewage Disposal District (LFMSDD) to 

the proposed rule published under the above docket ID number. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Thank you. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0220.001.001 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1652
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Author Name: Anderson Paul 

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

See attachment(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0221.001.001 

Author Name: Coyne Kevin 

Organization: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

See attached comments submitted on behalf of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0222.001.001 

Author Name: Modeer David 

Organization: Western Urban Water Coalition 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0223.001.001 

Author Name: Lindekugel Buck 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1653
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: Grassroots Attorney on behalf of Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0224.001.001 

Author Name: Ternieden Claudio 

Organization: Water Environment Federation 

Please accept the attached document as WEF's Comments to the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications 

Proposed Rule pubhsed in the FR Vol. 78, No. 171, September 4, 2013. 

For additional information or any questions, please contact Claudio Ternieden at cternieden@wef.org or at (703) 684-

2416. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0225.001.001 

Author Name: Blackham Leonard 

Organization: Utah Department of Agriculture and Food 

See attached file(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0226.001.001 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1654
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Author Name: Jones Lewis 

Organization: King and Spalding LLP on behalf of Georgia Water Quality Stakeholders 

See attached comments submitted on behalf of the Georgia Water Quality Stakeholders. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0227-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Williams Christopher 

Organization: AMERICAN RIVERS 

Please find attached American Rivers' comments on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606, the Environmental 

Protection Agency's Proposed Rule on Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important rulemaking. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0227.001.001 

Author Name: Williams Christopher 

Organization: AMERICAN RIVERS 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1655
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0228-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Conn Rachel 

Organization: Amigos Bravos 

Comments attached 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0228.001.001 

Author Name: Conn Rachel 

Organization: Amigos Bravos 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1656
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0229-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Tillison Naomi 

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

Please see the attached document containing comments from the Bad River Tribe regarding the proposed water quality 

standards regulatory clarifications (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606). 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0229.001.001 

Author Name: Tillison Naomi 

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

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0230.001.001 

Author Name: Ettinger Albert
 

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

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1657
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0231-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Sanderson Stuart 

Organization: The Colorado Mining Association 

The comments of the Colorado Mining Association in the above rulemaking are attached. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0231.001.001 

Author Name: Sanderson Stuart 

Organization: The Colorado Mining Association 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0232-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Grayum Mike 

Organization: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

Please find attached comments from the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission regarding EPA's Water Quality 

Standards Regulatory Clarifications, Proposed Rule Docket ID No. EPAHQOW20100606. Should you have any 

questions regarding these comments please contact Fran Wilshusen at (360)4381180. 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1658
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0232.001.001 

Author Name: Grayum Mike 

Organization: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0233-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Pippy John 

Organization: Pennsylvania Coal Alliance 

I am writing on behalf of the Pennsylvania Coal Alliance, representing underground and surface bituminous coal 

operators in Pennsylvania, and the businesses that service and supply the industry. The Alliance appreciates the 

opportunity to comment on the U.S. EPA's proposed rule, "Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications" 78 Fed. 

Reg. 54518 (September 4, 2013). Because the Alliance is a member of the National Mining Association, we hereby 

incorporate NMA's comments on this matter by reference. 

Alliance members are subject to regulations emanating from to the Clean Water Act. Any alteration to the existing CWA 

regulations will have a significant impact on the Pennsylvania coal industry. 

Because Pennsylvania is a leading energy-producing state, its economy and residents would be disproportionately 

affected by overly restrictive regulations. The coal industry supports nearly 50,000 direct and indirect jobs in 

Pennsylvania and contributes $7 billion annually to the state's economy. 

The Alliance is concerned that several of the provisions contained in the draft rule infringe upon the primary role of the 

states in setting water quality standards under the CWA. We believe states should have the latitude to set such 

standards in a manner that recognizes their own unique circumstances. 

The proposals unnecessarily restrict the use of currently available CWA mechanisms to establish appropriate and 

attainable standards and permit limits. In short, these proposals are unnecessary, overly restrictive and not sufficiently 

justified. 

In addition, there is no immediate need to make these considerable revisions to the Water Quality Standard Regulation. 

This proposal is not required by the CWA nor is it required by a court order. Therefore, we do not believe that the 

proposed clarifications are necessary. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1659
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.c 

3.a 

12.a 

1.a 

1.b 

Comment ID 0233.001.001 

Author Name: Pippy John 

Organization: Pennsylvania Coal Alliance 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0234-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Andes Fredric 

Organization: Federal Water Quality Coalition 

Attached are the comments of the Federal Water Quality Coalition on the Proposed Rule regarding Water Quality 

Standards Regulatory Clarifications (with attachment). Please feel free to call or e-mail if you have any questions or 

would like any additional information. Thanks much. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0234.001.001 

Author Name: Andes Fredric 

Organization: Federal Water Quality Coalition 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1660
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0235-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Lumley Babtist 

Organization: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

Attached are the CRITFC comments on Docket #EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606, Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Clarifications Proposed Rule. Please let us know if you are unable to access the attachment. 

Thank you for your time. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0235.001.001 

Author Name: Lumley Babtist 

Organization: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0236-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Weigel Brian 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1661
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

Attached please find our comments on docket no. EPAHQOW20100606 (FRL98397). These are commonly referred to 

as EPA Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications to 40 CFR 131. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0236.001.001 

Author Name: Weigel Brian 

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0237-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Tucker James 

Organization: Idaho Power Company 

Please see attached: Comments of the Idaho Power Company on EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Clarifications Proposed Rule. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0237.001.001 

Author Name: Tucker James 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1662
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: Idaho Power Company 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0238-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Gonet Phillip 

Organization: Illinois Coal Association 

Please accept the attached comments of the Illinois Coal Association on the Proposed Water Quality Standards 

Regulatory Clarifications. Thank you. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0238.001.001 

Author Name: Gonet Phillip 

Organization: Illinois Coal Association 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0239-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Easterly Thomas 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1663
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

[No comment provided] 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0239.001.001 

Author Name: Easterly Thomas 

Organization: Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0240-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Turner Jr. James 

Organization: Murray Energy Corporation 

To Whom this may concern, 

Please find our comments attached for your review. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0240.001.001 

Author Name: Turner Jr. James 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1664
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: Murray Energy Corporation 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0241-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Licata Angela 

Organization: New York City Department of Environmental Protection 

[No Comment Provided] 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0241.001.001 

Author Name: Licata Angela 

Organization: New York City Department of Environmental Protection 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0242-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Allmon Eric
 

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

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1665
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

To Whom it May Concern: 

Please see attached comments submitted on behalf of Clean Water Action, Public Citizen, Caddo Lake Institute, Save 

Our Springs Alliance, Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, Texas Center for Policy Studies, 

and Working Effectively for Clean Air Now (WE CAN) in regards to the above-referenced matter. 

Thank you. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0242.001.001 

Author Name: Allmon Eric
 

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

Comment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0243-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Daniels Zane 

Organization: Ohio Coal Association 

Please accept these comments (attached) on behalf of the Ohio Coal Association and our members and include this 

letter in the docket for the U.S. EPA's Proposed Rule changing the federal water quality standards regulatory 

implementation under the Clean Water Act. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1666
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0243.001.001 

Author Name: Daniels Zane 

Organization: Ohio Coal Association 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0244-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Loomis Marion 

Organization: Wyoming Mining Association 

Please find comments from the Wyoming Mining Association regarding EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Clarifications (78 Federal Register 54518). 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0244.001.001 

Author Name: Loomis Marion 

Organization: Wyoming Mining Association 

Comment 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1667
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0245-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Krapas Douglas 

Organization: Inland Empire Paper Company 

Please see attached comment letter from Inland Empire Paper Company in reference to the above Docket ID No. 

Please advise if you have any trouble opening or viewing the attachment. Thank you. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0245.001.001 

Author Name: Krapas Douglas 

Organization: Inland Empire Paper Company 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0246-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Childs David 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams on behalf of Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council 

Attached for your consideration are comments regarding EPA's proposed amendments to its water quality standards 

rule, respectively submitted on behalf of the Florida Water Environment Association (FWEA) Utility Council. The FWEA 

Utility Council appreciates EPA's consideration of the enclosed comments. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1668
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0246.001.001 

Author Name: Childs David 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams on behalf of Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0247-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Turner Judson 

Organization: Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Please accept the attached comments. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0247.001.001 

Author Name: Turner Judson 

Organization: Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

see attachment 

Response 

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

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1669
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.c 

Comment ID 0248-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Jellerson David 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Please see the attached comments of Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC on the EPA Proposed Rule on Water Quality Standards 

Regulatory Clarifications, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0248.001.001 

Author Name: Jellerson David 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0249-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Calamita F. Paul
 

Organization: General Counsel on behalf of The Wet Weather Partnership et al.
 

Please see the attached. 

Response 

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

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1670
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.c 

Comment ID 0249.001.001 

Author Name: Calamita F. Paul
 

Organization: General Counsel on behalf of The Wet Weather Partnership et al.
 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0250-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Batterton Carol 

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

Conservation Association 

Please accept the attached comments on behalf of WEAT, TACWA and TWCA on the Water Quality Standards 

Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional 

information. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0250.001.001 

Author Name: Batterton Carol 

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

Conservation Association 

see attachment 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1671
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0251-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Wigal Jennifer 

Organization: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Please consider the attached comments on EPA's Water Quality Standards Proposed Rules, Docket ID 

EPAHQOW20100606. 

We would be happy to discuss any of our thoughts and suggestions in more detail if it would be helpful. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0251.001.001 

Author Name: Wigal Jennifer 

Organization: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0252-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Fry Eric 

Organization: Peabody Energy 

Please accept the attached comments from Peabody Energy Corporation regarding EPA's proposed Water Quality 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1672
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Standards Regulatory Clarifications. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0252.001.001 

Author Name: Fry Eric 

Organization: Peabody Energy 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0254-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Hoffman Ray 

Organization: Seattle Public Utilities 

The attached document contains public comment from Seattle Public Utilities on "Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Clarifications." 

Thank you. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0254.001.001 

Author Name: Hoffman Ray 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1673
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: Seattle Public Utilities 

See attachment(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0255-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Quaempts Eric 

Organization: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

Attached please find the comments of the Department of Natural Resources of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Indian Reservation regarding the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule (Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606). 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0255.001.001 

Author Name: Quaempts Eric 

Organization: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0256-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Shepherd Hal 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1674
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: The Center for Water Advocacy 

Please accept the attached comments on the above docket number. Please contact me if you have any questions 

regarding these comments. Thank you. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0256.001.001 

Author Name: Shepherd Hal 

Organization: The Center for Water Advocacy 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0257.001.001 

Author Name: Harpole Chad 

Organization: Kentucky Chamber of Commerce 

See attachment(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0258.001.001 

Author Name: Cochran Tom 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1675
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: The United States Conference of Mayors 

See attachment(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0259-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Naylor Char 

Organization: Puyallup Tribe of Indians 

Attached is the Puyallup Tribe's comment letter on the water quality standards regulatory clarifications proposed rule. 

The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission's letter regarding this subject matter is also attached for reference. The 

latter letter is draft and the final letter from the Commission supercedes the draft as attached. Please confirm you 

received this e-mail and attachments. If you have questions, I can be reached at (253)680-5520. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0259.001.001 

Author Name: Naylor Char 

Organization: Puyallup Tribe of Indians 

See Attached 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0260-A1.001.001 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1676
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Author Name: Drazowski Barry
 

Organization: Izaak Walton League Minnesota Division et al.
 

Attached, please find comments submitted on behalf of several Minnesota Clean Water Groups. WaterLegacy is 

serving as the contact point for these Minnesota groups, and we would appreciate a return email confirming that our 

comments have been received. 

Please also address any questions or responses to our Minnesota Clean Water Groups comments to the email, street 

address and/or phone number reflected in this email. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0260.001.001 

Author Name: Drazowski Barry
 

Organization: Izaak Walton League Minnesota Division et al.
 

See attachment(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0261-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Bartlett Drew 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Please see Florida Department of Environmental Protection's comments on the above referenced docket, attached. 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1677
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0261.001.001 

Author Name: Bartlett Drew 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0262-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Rawlings Laurent 

Organization: Home Builders Association of Kentucky 

Please see the attached as comments from the Home Builders Association of Kentucky re Docket ID No 

EPAHQOW20100606 (Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications, EPAHQOW20100606, 78 Fed. Reg. 54518 

(Sept. 4, 2013)) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0262.001.001 

Author Name: Rawlings Laurent 

Organization: Home Builders Association of Kentucky 

see attachment 

Response 

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

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1678
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

14.c 

Comment ID 0263-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Gretchen Watkins Larry Wawronowicz 

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

Please see attached comment letter for Docket ID No. EPAHQOW20100606 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0263.001.001 

Author Name: Gretchen Watkins Larry Wawronowicz 

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

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0264-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Chard-McClary Shellie 

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators 

Please find attached comments submitted on behalf of the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) on 

EPA's Proposed Rulemaking to Clarify the WQS Regulation (Docket ID No. EPAHQOW20100606). 

Please contact Alexandra Dunn with any questions, or to discuss these comments, at (202) 7560600 ext.1 or 

adunn@acwaus.org. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1679
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0264.001.001 

Author Name: Chard-McClary Shellie 

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0265.001.001 

Author Name: Beach Paul 

Organization: NA 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0266-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Reese Thomas 

Organization: Attorney on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation and Al and Cindy Davis 

I represent the Florida Wildlife Federation (FWF) and Al and Cindy Davis (the Davises), and submit these comments 

and discussion of implementation of the Clean Water Act's (CWA) antidegradation implementation policy their behalf. 

These comments specifically address Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed September 4, 2013 Water 

Quality Standards Regulatory Clarification regarding water quality standards WQSs) and implementation criteria 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1680
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

(Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 171, pg. 45518). EPA has extended the comment period to on or before January 2, 2014. 

See, Fed. Reg. November 27, 2013, pg. 70,905. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0266.001.001 

Author Name: Reese Thomas 

Organization: Attorney on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation and Al and Cindy Davis 

See attachment(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0267.001.001 

Author Name: Ingle April 

Organization: Georgia River Network 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0268-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Bell Nina 

Organization: Northwest Environmental Advocates 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1681
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Please find attached comments of Northwest Environmental Advocates on Docket ID No. EPAHQOW20100606. 

Attachments are in two separate emails. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0268.001.001 

Author Name: Bell Nina 

Organization: Northwest Environmental Advocates 

See attachment(s) 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0269-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Klotz Mark 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Attached are comments from Mr. Mark A. Klotz, P.E., Director of the Division of Water, New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606, Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Clarifications. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0269.001.001 

Author Name: Klotz Mark 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1682
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0270.001.001 

Author Name: Todd Andrew 

Organization: Colorado Water Quality Control Commission 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0271.001.001 

Author Name: Montoya Victor 

Organization: Pueblo of Sandia 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0272-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Jennifer Chavez Janette Brimmer 

Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of 28 Environmental Organizations. See pages 23-27 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1683
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Attached please find comments on EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule, 78 Fed. 

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

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0272.001.001 

Author Name: Jennifer Chavez Janette Brimmer 

Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of 28 Environmental Organizations. See pages 23-27 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0273.001.001 

Author Name: Dean Ron 

Organization: NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1684
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0274-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Yeaton Violet 

Organization: Region 10 Regional Tribal Operations Committee 

Find attached comments of the Tribal Caucus of the EPA Region 10 Tribal Operations Committee on the Water Quality 

Standards Regulatory Clarifications. Please include these comments in the record for this matter. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0274.001.001 

Author Name: Yeaton Violet 

Organization: Region 10 Regional Tribal Operations Committee 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0275-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Reeves Sarah 

Organization: Colorado Monitoring Framework 

Please find, attached, the comments of the Colorado Monitoring Framework on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606, 

EPA Water Quality Standards Rule. 

Response 

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

14.c 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1685
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0275.001.001 

Author Name: Reeves Sarah 

Organization: Colorado Monitoring Framework 

See attachments 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0276-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Alves James
 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams on behalf of Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc.
 

Comments of WQS Regulatory Clarifications 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0276.001.001 

Author Name: Alves James
 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams on behalf of Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc.
 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0277-A1.001.001 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1686
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Author Name: Walsh Kevin 

Organization: Massachusetts Department of Transportation 

Greetings, 

Please find attached MassDOT's comments on EPA's proposed "Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications 

Proposed Rule." 

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much for considering MassDOT's comments. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0277.001.001 

Author Name: Walsh Kevin 

Organization: Massachusetts Department of Transportation 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0278-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Hornback Chris 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Attached are comments from the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) on Docket ID 

EPAHQOW20100606. 

Please let me know if you have any difficulty accessing the attached file. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1687
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0278.001.001 

Author Name: Hornback Chris 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0279-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Coyne Kevin 

Organization: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

On behalf of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, I would like to submit the attached comment 

letter pertaining the proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule ‘‘Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Clarifications''. 

Thank you, 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0279.001.001 

Author Name: Coyne Kevin 

Organization: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

see attachment 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1688
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0280-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Aspatore Amanda 

Organization: National Mining Association 

Attached please find the comments of the National Mining Association on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 

proposed rule, "Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications" (78 Fed. Reg. 54518). Please do not hesitate to 

contact me with any questions. Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0280.001.001 

Author Name: Aspatore Amanda 

Organization: National Mining Association 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0281-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Smith Brooks 

Organization: National Water Quality Trading Alliance 

Please find attached the comments of the National Water Quality Trading Alliance. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1689
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0281.001.001 

Author Name: Smith Brooks 

Organization: National Water Quality Trading Alliance 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0282-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Gildersleeve Melissa 

Organization: State of Washington, Department of Ecology 

Attached please find comments from the Washington State Department of Ecology on the proposed national rulemaking 

to clarify the water quality standards regulations. A hard copy is also in the mail. 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0282.001.001 

Author Name: Gildersleeve Melissa 

Organization: State of Washington, Department of Ecology 

see attachment 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1690
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0283.001.001 

Author Name: Thorme Melissa 

Organization: Downey Brand Attorneys LLP on behalf of several clients 

See attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0284-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Gildersleeve Melissa 

Organization: State of Washington, Department of Ecology 

Hi Assem, 

For completeness (and quickness?), I'm forwarding an electronic copy of Washington State's comments for our docket.
 

They also mailed in a hard copy, so I defer to you if you want to wait for it to arrive in the mail.
 

Thank you,
 

Janita
 

----- Forwarded by Janita Aguirre/DC/USEPA/US on 01/10/2014 01:05 PM -----

From: "Braley, Susan (ECY)" <SUBR461@ECY.WA.GOV>
 

To: WQSRegulatoryClarifications@EPA
 

Cc: "Gildersleeve, Melissa (ECY)" <MGIL461@ECY.WA.GOV>
 

Date: 01/02/2014 03:07 PM
 

Subject:
 

Attached please find comments from the Washington State Department of Ecology on the proposed national rulemaking
 

to clarify the water quality standards regulations. A hard copy is also in the mail. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1691
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0284.001.001 

Author Name: Gildersleeve Melissa 

Organization: State of Washington, Department of Ecology 

See Attached 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0285.001.001 

Author Name: Sheahan Judy 

Organization: The United States Conference of Mayors 

See Attached 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0286.001.001 

Author Name: Mizera Christopher 

Organization: 

See attachment 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1692
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.c 

Comment ID 0287.001.001 

Author Name: Dunham Christopher 

Organization: 

see attachment 

Response 

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

14.c 

14.D - ADDITIONAL DATA 

Comment ID 0118-A1.001.008 

Author Name: Lakkad Manish 

Organization: NA 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of a bibliography. See original letter. 

Response 

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

14.d 

1.a 

5.a 

Comment ID 0204-A1.001.009 

Author Name: Thomas John
 

Organization: Law office of John R. Thomas on behalf of Chassahowitzka River Restoration Committee, et al.
 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1693
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of: 

• Attachment B: Bulletin No. 69 "Regional and Statewide Trends in Florida's Spring and Well Groundwater Quality 

(1991-2003)". 

• Attachment C: Florida Administrative Code, 62-302.700. "Special Protection, Outstanding Florida Waters, Outstanding 

Natural Resource Waters". 

• Attachment D: July 15, 2012 Report, "Recommended Minimum Flows for the Homosassa River System". 

• Attachment E: Florida water quality and quantity F.A.C. requirements. 

See original letter. 

Response 

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

14.d 

7.f.i 

7.l 

Comment ID 0207-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Bodine Susan
 

Organization: American Farm Bureau Federation et al.
 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of a Memorandum to Water Management Division Directors, 

Regions 1-10 from Ephraim S. King, Director, USEPA/OST. See original letter. 

Response 

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

14.d 

7.i 

Comment ID 0207-A3.001.001 

Author Name: Bodine Susan 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1694
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Organization: American Farm Bureau Federation et al. 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of a May 2007 letter to David C. Peeler, from Michael F. 

Gearheard, regarding EPA review of the 2003 water quality standards regulations for antidegradation. See original 

letter. 

Response 

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

14.d 

7.e.ii 

Comment ID 0211-A2.001.001 

Author Name: Lane David 

Organization: Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of an October 2012 letter to the Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency regarding the proposed permanent rules relating to antidegradation of state waters. See original letter. 

Response 

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

14.d 

7.f.i 

Comment ID 0211-A3.001.001 

Author Name: Lane David 

Organization: Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of a United States Court of Appeals (No. 11-3412) Petition for 

Review. See original letter. 

Response 

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

14.d 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1695
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

7.f.i 

Comment ID 0216-A2.001.007 

Author Name: Brisson Brook
 

Organization: Trustees for Alaska on behalf of the Alaska Center for the Environment et al.
 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of: 

• A memo from March 17, 2010 regarding NPDES Appeal No. 10-04 for Red Dog Mine - NPDES Permit No. AK003865-2. 

• A State of Alaska Policy and Procedure document dated July 14, 2010. 

• A memo to the trustees for Alaska dated November 2, 2010. 

• A memo to the Water Quality Programs Administrator for EPA Region 10 dated May, 10, 2012 regarding EPA 

disapproval of new and revised human health water quality criteria for Toxics, Idaho Docket 58-0102-0503. 

See original letter. 

Response 

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

14.d 

7.f.i 

Comment ID 0233-A3.001.001 

Author Name: Pippy John 

Organization: Pennsylvania Coal Alliance 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of a letter regarding the National Mining Association (NMA) 

comments on 78 Fed. Reg. 54518. See original letter. 

Response 

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

14.d 

Comment ID 0234-A3.001.001 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1696
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Author Name: Andes Fredric 

Organization: Federal Water Quality Coalition 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of regulatory clarification of EPA's review of the 2003 water 

quality standards regulations for antidegradation. See original letter. 

Response 

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

14.d 

7.e.ii 

Comment ID 0252-A2.001.040 

Author Name: Fry Eric 

Organization: Peabody Energy 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of a 2010 Comment on Notice RE Stakeholder Input; Revisions 

to Water Quality Standards. See original letter. 

Response 

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

14.d 

Comment ID 0259-A3.001.001 

Author Name: Naylor Char 

Organization: Puyallup Tribe of Indians 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of a letter from the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission's 

comments on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606. See original letter. 

Response 

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

14.d 

4.b 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1697
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0266-A3.001.001 

Author Name: Reese Thomas 

Organization: Attorney on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation and Al and Cindy Davis 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of a petition to initiate rulemaking to promulgate revised 

antidegradation regulations for the State of Florida. See original letter. 

Response 

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

14.d 

7.g.iii 

Comment ID 0266-A4.001.001 

Author Name: Reese Thomas 

Organization: Attorney on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation and Al and Cindy Davis 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of a letter from September 24, 1987 regarding the Florida 

Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) review of Chapters 17-3 and 17-4 of the Florida Administrative Code. 

See original letter. 

Response 

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

14.d 

7.f.i 

7.g.iii 

Comment ID 0268-A3.001.001 

Author Name: Bell Nina 

Organization: Northwest Environmental Advocates 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of a Petition for Rulemaking Under the Clean Water Act: Water 

Quality Criteria for Toxics in the State of Washington from Northwest Environmental Advocates'. See original letter. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1698
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Response 

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

14.d 

2.c 

Comment ID 0268-A4.001.001 

Author Name: Bell Nina 

Organization: Northwest Environmental Advocates 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of a letter to Dan Opalski, EPA Region 10, and John King, 

NOAA, from Nina Bell, NWEA, Re: Oregon Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program; Protection of the Designated 

Use of Amphibians in Non-Fish-Bearing ("Type N") Streams Through the MidCoast Implementation Ready TMDL (Oct. 

5, 2012). See original letter. 

Response 

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

14.d 

5.j 

Comment ID 0268-A5.001.001 

Author Name: Bell Nina 

Organization: Northwest Environmental Advocates 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of a public notice from the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality, Proposed water quality permit renewal for the Oak Lodge Water Reclamation Facility (June 13, 

2013). See original letter. 

Response 

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

14.d 

7.l 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1699
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous 

Comment ID 0268-A6.001.001 

Author Name: Bell Nina 

Organization: Northwest Environmental Advocates 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of a support document titled, The EPA's Review of Portions of 

Oregon's March 2001 Antidegradation Policy Implementation Internal Management Directive for NPDES Permits and 

Section 401 Water Quality Certifications (Aug. 8, 2013). See original letter. 

Response 

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

14.d 

7.f.i 

Comment ID 0268-A7.001.001 

Author Name: Bell Nina 

Organization: Northwest Environmental Advocates 

Original letter contains additional information in the form of a letter to Gregory Aldrich, Oregon DEQ, from Dan Opalski, 

EPA Region 10 (Aug. 8, 2013). See original letter. 

Response 

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

14.d 

7.f.i 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1700