# CHAPTER 2 Issue Category: Miscellaneous Pages 2- 1451 – 2- 1700

Response to Public Comments Water Quality Standard s Regulatory Revisions

August 2015

40 CFR Part 131 Docket #: EPA - HQ - OW - 2010 - 0606

This document is part of a larger document .Chapter 2 - Comment Documents 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 2-1451Chapter 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 2-1452Chapter 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 2-1453Chapter 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 2-1454Chapter 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 2-1455Chapter 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 2-1456Chapter 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 2-1457Chapter 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 2-1458Chapter 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 2-1459Chapter 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 2-1460Chapter 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 2-1461Chapter 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 2-1462Chapter 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 2-1463Chapter 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 toindividual 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 2-1464Chapter 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 2-1465Chapter 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 of1972, 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 2-1466Chapter 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 2-1467Chapter 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 2-1468Chapter 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 businessassociation 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 2-1469Chapter 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 2-1470Chapter 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 2-1471Chapter 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 2-1472Chapter 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 2-1473Chapter 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 2-1474Chapter 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 2-1475Chapter 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 2-1476Chapter 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 2-1477Chapter 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 2-1478Chapter 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 2-1479Chapter 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 2-1480Chapter 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 2-1481Chapter 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 2-1482Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) offers the following comments on Water Quality StandardsRegulatory 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 2-1483Chapter 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 2-1484Chapter 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 2-1485Chapter 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 2-1486Chapter 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 2-1487Chapter 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 2-1488Chapter 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 2-1489Chapter 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 2-1490Chapter 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 2-1491Chapter 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 2-1492Chapter 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 2-1493Chapter 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 2-1494Chapter 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 2-1495Chapter 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 2-1496Chapter 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 2-1497Chapter 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 2-1498Chapter 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 2-1499Chapter 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 2-1500Chapter 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 2-1501Chapter 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 2-1502Chapter 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 2-1503Chapter 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 2-1504Chapter 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 2-1505Chapter 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 2-1506Chapter 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 2-1507Chapter 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 2-1508Chapter 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 2-1509Chapter 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 2-1510Chapter 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 2-1511Chapter 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 2-1512Chapter 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 2-1513Chapter 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 2-1514Chapter 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 2-1515Chapter 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 2-1516Chapter 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 AssociationOn 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 2-1517Chapter 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 2-1518Chapter 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 2-1519Chapter 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 2-1520Chapter 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 2-1521Chapter 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 2-1522Chapter 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 2-1523Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Miscellaneous provide clarifications to important aspects Clean Water Act (CWA) implementation. With this letter, I wish to providecomments 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 2-1524Chapter 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 2-1525Chapter 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 2-1526Chapter 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 2-1527Chapter 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 2-1528Chapter 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 2-1529Chapter 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 2-1530Chapter 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 2-1531Chapter 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 2-1532Chapter 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 2-1533Chapter 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 2-1534Chapter 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 Reservationboundaries in the territory ceded under the Treaty of 1842. The Tribe's cultural, subsistence, health, and economic well08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1535Chapter 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 2-1536Chapter 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 2-1537Chapter 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 2-1538Chapter 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 2-1539Chapter 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 2-1540Chapter 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 2-1541Chapter 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 e mail 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 2-1542Chapter 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 2-1543Chapter 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 2-1544Chapter 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 2-1545Chapter 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 2-1546Chapter 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 2-1547Chapter 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 2-1548Chapter 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 2-1549Chapter 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 2-1550Chapter 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 2-1551Chapter 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 2-1552Chapter 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 2-1553Chapter 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 2-1554Chapter 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 2-1555Chapter 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 2-1556Chapter 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 2-1557Chapter 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-OW 2010-0606, 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 2-1558Chapter 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 2-1559Chapter 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 2-1560Chapter 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 2-1561Chapter 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, EPA HQ-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 2-1562Chapter 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 well 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 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 2-1563Chapter 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 2-1564Chapter 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 2-1565Chapter 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 2-1566Chapter 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 2-1567Chapter 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 2-1568Chapter 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 2-1569Chapter 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 2-1570Chapter 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 2-1571Chapter 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 2-1572Chapter 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 2-1573Chapter 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 2-1574Chapter 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 2-1575Chapter 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 2-1576Chapter 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 2-1577Chapter 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 2-1578Chapter 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 2-1579Chapter 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 2-1580Chapter 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 2-1581Chapter 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 2-1582Chapter 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 2-1583Chapter 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 2-1584Chapter 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 2-1585Chapter 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 2-1586Chapter 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 2-1587Chapter 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 an d 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 2-1588Chapter 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 2-1589Chapter 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 2-1590Chapter 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 2-1591Chapter 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 2-1592Chapter 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 2-1593Chapter 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 2-1594Chapter 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 2-1595Chapter 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 2-1596Chapter 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 FoodConsumption 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 2-1597Chapter 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 2-1598Chapter 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 2-1599Chapter 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 2-1600Chapter 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 2-1601Chapter 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 inrecent 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 2-1602Chapter 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 2-1603Chapter 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 2-1604Chapter 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 2-1605Chapter 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 2-1606Chapter 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 2-1607Chapter 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 2-1608Chapter 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 2-1609Chapter 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 2-1610Chapter 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 2-1611Chapter 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 2-1612Chapter 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 2-1613Chapter 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 2-1614Chapter 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 2-1615Chapter 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 2-1616Chapter 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 2-1617Chapter 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 2-1618Chapter 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 2-1619Chapter 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 2-1620Chapter 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 2-1621Chapter 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 2-1622Chapter 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 2-1623Chapter 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 2-1624Chapter 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 2-1625Chapter 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 2-1626Chapter 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 2-1627Chapter 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 2-1628Chapter 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 2-1629Chapter 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 2-1630Chapter 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 2-1631Chapter 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 2-1632Chapter 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 2-1633Chapter 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 2-1634Chapter 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 2-1635Chapter 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 2-1636Chapter 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 2-1637Chapter 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 2-1638Chapter 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 2-1639Chapter 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-OW 2010-0606. 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 2-1640Chapter 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 2-1641Chapter 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 2-1642Chapter 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 2-1643Chapter 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 2-1644Chapter 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 2-1645Chapter 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 2-1646Chapter 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 2-1647Chapter 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 2-1648Chapter 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 2-1649Chapter 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 2-1650Chapter 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 2-1651Chapter 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 2-1652Chapter 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 2-1653Chapter 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 2-1654Chapter 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 2-1655Chapter 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 2-1656Chapter 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 2-1657Chapter 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 2-1658Chapter 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 2-1659Chapter 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 2-1660Chapter 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 2-1661Chapter 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 2-1662Chapter 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 2-1663Chapter 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 2-1664Chapter 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 2-1665Chapter 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 2-1666Chapter 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 2-1667Chapter 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 2-1668Chapter 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 2-1669Chapter 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 2-1670Chapter 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 2-1671Chapter 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 2-1672Chapter 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 2-1673Chapter 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 2-1674Chapter 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 2-1675Chapter 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 2-1676Chapter 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 2-1677Chapter 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 2-1678Chapter 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 2-1679Chapter 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 2-1680Chapter 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 2-1681Chapter 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 2-1682Chapter 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 2-1683Chapter 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 2-1684Chapter 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 2-1685Chapter 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 2-1686Chapter 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 2-1687Chapter 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 2-1688Chapter 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 2-1689Chapter 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 2-1690Chapter 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 2-1691Chapter 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 2-1692Chapter 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 2-1693Chapter 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 2-1694Chapter 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 2-1695Chapter 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. AK 003865-2.
• 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 2-1696Chapter 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 2-1697Chapter 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 2-1698Chapter 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 2-1699Chapter 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