Consultation with Tribes on Proposed Rulemaking for Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Listing and TMDL Program April 29, 2014

Instructo rs:

• Rosaura Conde

, US EPA ’ s Assessment and Watershed Protection Division

• Sarah Furtak, Environmental Protection Specialist, USEPA ’ s Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

• Matthew Richardson, Acting Tribal Coordinator, USEPA ’ s Office of Water

Slide: Rulemaking to Provide More Opportunities for Tribes to Engage in the Clean Water Act Impaired Water Listing and Total Maximum Daily Load Program

Rosaura Conde : Good afternoon

, everyone , and welcome to today ’ s t ribes

- only webinar titled, “C onsultatio n with Trib es o n P roposed R ulemaking for Clean Water Act S ection 303( d ) Listing and TMDL P rogram. ” T his webinar sponsored by EPA ’ s O ffice of Wetlands, O ceans , and W atersheds

, also know n as OWOW. I am Rosaura Conde with EPA ’s A ssessment and Watershed Protection Division and I will be moderating today ’ s t ribes

- only webinar along with Matthew Richardson

, EPA ’ s Office of Water A cting T ribal C oordinator.

Slide: Webinar Logistics Thank you all for joining us today. We will start by g oing over a few housekeeping items. First, I would like to briefly summarize some of the features of today ’ s webinar. We hope you have lots of questions. Type your questions in the “Q uestions ” box on your control panel and click “S end. ” If your control panel is not working, simply click on the small orange box with the white arrow to expand it. Also

, we will open the phone line after the presentation and have time for questions and dialogue with our audience, speaker, and moderators. If you have any problem s viewing the broadcast, just let us know in the “ Questions ” box and we will post an answer in the same box.

Slide: Overview of Today ’ s Webinar The webinar will be archived for later viewing on EPA ’ s TMDL website at EPA.gov/OWOW /TMDL. A PDF copy of the sl ides is also posted on the TMDL website. As a reminder, members of the press should direct their questions to Julia Ortiz at the Press Office. Her number there is 202

- 564

- 1931.

Slide: Overview of Today ’ s Webinar Now that we have completed the discussion of housekeeping items, let ’ s kick off our webinar today. Today ’ s webinar concern s EPA ’ s proposed rulemaking to provide more opportunities to fully engage tribes in the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water listing and TMDL program. This action will clarify the process for t ribes to obtain “ treatment in a similar manner as a state ” authority over the program. The proposed rule will provide a process for eligible t ribes to assume the Clean Water Act 303(d) and TMDL portion of the Water Pollution Contro l P rogram

Page 1 of 12and more fully engage in restoring, maintaining

, and protecting t ribal w aters. We will cover the rulemaking itself and then have time for t ribal participants to ask questions or provide comments.

Without further delay, let me introduce our speak ers. First, is Sarah Furtak, she is an environmental protection specialist in EPA ’ s Watershed branch in the O ffice in We tlands, O ceans , and W atersheds. Sarah has worked on impaired waters listing and TMDL issues for number of years

, including strategic pla nning, working as a liaison to the EPA Regional I Office in Boston, coordinating with state and local governments, addressing polychlorinated biphenyls and other biocumulative pollutants, collaborating with the Superfund program and working with t ribes. Sa rah is the lead for developing the proposed rule to provide more opportunities to fully engage tribes in the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Impaired Waters Listing and TMDL program.

Matthew Richardson serv es as EPA ’ s acting t ribal coordinator for the Office of Water. He is charged with initiating

, coordinating

, and facilitating special projects and the review and analysis of policies, regulations

, and programs relating to clean water, drinking water, groundwater, wetlands prot ections protection , marine and estuaries protection and other water related programs under the Clean Water Act and Saf e D rinking W ater Act. He represents the Office of Water before tribal leaders, t ribal councils and t ribal representatives

, and a t signific ant EPA meetings. Mr. Richardson is the principal leader

, coordinator

, and facilitator of a multi

- agency tribal water infrastructure task force, which aims to improve access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation in Indian Country. Since 2008, Mr. Ric hardson has also led both the Alaska N ative V illages and the C lean W ater Indians SRS S et Aside Grant programs that build water infrastructure for tribal communities.

One final note, we will try to answer as many questions as possible throughout this webcas t. H owever, due to time constraints not all questions will be answered so please do contact the speakers after the webcast. T he speakers contact information is on our final slide.

And with that, we will begin ou r presentation. I will now turn it to Sarah F urtak. Sarah, the floor is yours. Take it away.

Sarah Furtak: Thank you, Rosa ura

. Today ’ s presentation is overview ed here on the slide. First, we will cover the issue and purpose of today ’ s presentation, some introductory information about the impaired water listing and Total Maximum Daily Load or TMDL program , o ur cons ultation and coordination with tribes for the impaired water listing an d TMDL program, some examples of valuable tribal input during this consultation

, and finally, a proposed working timeline of the project.

Slide: Issue So the issue at hand today is that there is trib al interest in obtaining treatment in a similar manner

as a state or TAS for the Clean Water Act S ection 303(d) I mpaired W ater L isting and TMDL P rogram. Existing regulations do not explicitly address TAS for the 303(d) program. The purpose of meeting with you here today in this trib es

- only webinar is to consult with trib es about a proposed rule to provide more opportunities for trib es to fully engage in the Clean Water Act S ection 303(d) I mpaired W ater L isting a nd TMDL P rogram. First , to clarify the process for t ribes to obtain TAS authority for the program, to inform and coordinate with trib es during the

Page 2 of 12rulemaking, which is now in development, and to engage trib es to increase the understanding of the listing and the TMDL program.

Slide: Clean Water Act Framework for Restoring Polluted Waters Which brings us to the next slide, the Clean Water Act framework for restoring polluted waters. This diagram shows the process of restoring polluted waters through various programs beginnin g at the top of the slide with Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act, Water Q uality St andards P rogram. States, territories, and authorize d trib es establish water quality standards. EPA reviews and approves these standards.

Under S ection 305(b) and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states, territories and authorize d trib es provide EPA reports every two years which include a synopsis of water qualit y within their boundaries and a list of impaired waters or waters not meeting water quality standards and need ing TMDLs

. TMDLs are developed for these waters and then as we impl ement the TMDL, regulatory permits and voluntary controls help turn written TMDLs into action.

Slide: What is the Impaired Waters Listing and TMDL Program?

What is the I mpaired W ater Listing and TMDL Program ? As just mentioned

, under the Clean Water Act Se ction 303(d) s tates, territories, and authorize d trib es solicit and compile existing and readily available information on water quality and develop list s of impaired waters every two years. For example, 2012, 2014, 2016 and establish TMDL s for waters on th e list.

Slide: Developing a 303(d) List of Impaired and Threatened Waters Developing a list of impaired waters and threatened waters. As mentioned, states, territories, and authorized trib es assess all readily existing and available information ensuring d ata accuracy that data are of good quality and direct important decisions and develop assessment methodology that explains how the water quality data and the applicable water quality standards will be used to make listing dec isions. The entities establish priority rankings of all listed waters and identify specific waters targeted for TMDL development over the next two years. And requesting and responding to public comments. So in submitting the final impaired and threatened water s list to EPA for approval on the two

- year cycle, there is also the requesting and responding to public comments aspect.

Slide: The National Picture This slide shows an overall national picture. The map here has colors, but the colors are not indicative of any particular scale or whatnot, just for differentiation among states and territories. Nationally, about 42,000 waters are listed as impaired. And the top five or so causes of impairments include pathogens, those are bacteria, meta ls, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, low dissolved oxygen, and sediment.

Slide: What is a TMDL? Moving into what is a TMDL. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards , a n allocation of that amount for the pollutant sources, and a margin of safety. And the TMDL comes in the form of a technical

Page 3 of 12document or a plan. Some people may think of the TMDL as a pollutant budget or a pollutant diet, so to speak.

Slide: Developing TMDLs TMDLs are established according to 303(d) list priority ranking for each water body, pollutant combination. Some priority factors for that ranking may include public health concern or a relatively low initial cost. TMDLs often address multiple impairments within a watershed. And TMD Ls and supporting documents typically include things like data summary and analysis, pollutant source assessment s , pollutant loading targets, calculations for loading capacity, waste load allocation, and that is the point source aspect of the TMDL, things like wastewater treatment plants, load allocation, that is the no n- point source part of the TMDL

-- for example, farm field runoff

-- a nd the margin of safety

, as well as a summary of and response to public comments. TMDLs may also be accompanied by an imp lementation plan designed to meet water quality standards and restore water quality.

Slide: Developing TMDLs, Cont. Developing TMDLs. States, territories, and authorized trib es , as we mentioned

, develop TMDLs for waters on the 303(d) list and in accordance with priority ranking. According to EPA guidance, EPA provides an 8

- 13 year time frame to complete the development of a TMDL once the water body has been listed. So for example, for a water body listed in 2016, the state or authorize d trib e develops a schedule for establishing the TMDL within 8

- 13 years. So typically a TMDL could take a year or two to develop, or more if it ’ s very complex, but EPA guidance provides an 8- 13 year time frame to complete development of a TMDL once a water body has been listed. And TMDL alternatives may exist in some circumstances. For example, where there are

non

- point source

- only pollutants.

Slide: How is a TMDL Used to Reduce Water Pollution? So how is a TMDL used to reduce water pollution? The National P ollutant Discharge E limination S ystem

, or NPDES permit

, must include numerical limits consistent with a TMDLs waste load allocation. The non

- point sources are not directly regulated under the Clean Water Act. Therefore, TMDL ’ s load allocation for non

- point sources provide guidance to inform federal, state, or tribal action under other authorities. For example, certain states have regulations for

non

- point sources . O ne example is California.

Slide: Graph 1 – Over 65,000 TMDLs Completed Over 65,000 TMDLs have been completed and this graphic shows the annual TMDL development in yellow and the cumulative TMDL development in orange. About 197 TMDLs for Indian Country waters have been established and those are in EPA region 10, t he states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

Slide: TAS Background Now that we have looked at some of the basics of the 303(d) program, let ’ s shift gears to look at achieving in a similar manner as a state for this program. The consultation and the coordination aspects of getting this rule making in place. As t he background, there are 566 federally recognized trib es. About 266 trib es have TAS or the 106 P rogram. 48 trib es have TAS for the

Page 4 of 12Water Q uality S tandards P rogram, none for listing in TMDLs, none for the permitting, and the

non

- point source, or 319 program, has 180 trib es and counting with T AS

.

Slide: TAS Background Under the Clean Water Act, specifically S ection 518 (e) , EPA shall, in consultation with Indian Tribes, promulgate final regulations, which specify how Indian Tribes shall be treated similar to a state for purposes of the act. Other Clean Water Act programs, for example, the 106 P rogram, the 303(c) W ater Q uality S ta ndards P rogram, N on

- Point Source Program 319, and permitting programs have promulgated final TAS regulations. Existing regulations do not explicitly address steps to take for obtaining TAS for 303(d).

Slide: 303(d) TAS Tribal Consultation and Coordination So through a rulemaking, EPA will propose a process for trib es to apply to EPA for TAS eligibility to establish lists of impaired waters and TMDLs pursuant to S ection 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Rulemaking is a process for developing and issuing regulat ions

, sometimes called rules. EPA will work with trib es to propose this rule. And as we know, trib al consultation is underway through May 22 nd

. Webinar, outreach

, and coordination efforts beginning this year will help trib al EPA coordination on this projec t.

Slide: 303(d) TAS Tribal Consultation and Coordination, Cont. (1) So you may ask

, who is interested in this rule making ? You may be interested in this rulemaking if your tribe is one of over 60 trib es found eligible for or seeking eligibility for TAS fo r the W ater Q uality S tandards P rogram under the Clean Water Act and is interested in submitting an applicati on for TAS for Clean Water Act S ection 303(d) I mpaired W ater L isting and TMDL Program

. Also

, you may be interested if you are submitting a joint application for water quality standards and interested in submitting a joint application for water quality standards and the I mpaired W ater L isting and TMDL P rogram or if you are interested in developing impaired water l ist s and TMDLs, or if you have an interest in an impaired water listing and TMDLs in other areas. For example, in an adjacent state.

Slide: 303(d) TAS Tribal Consultation and Coordination, Cont. (2) Some policy process and resource considerations for this rulemaking may include things like the importance of EPA approved or EPA promulgated water quality standards as a practical prerequisite for issuing 303(d) lists and TMDLs, streamlining and/or combining TAS applications for the 303(c) W ater Q uality S tandards Pr ogram and the 303(d) listing and TMDL P rogr am into a single application, and support for trib es as trib es take on additional responsibilities under the Clean Water Act.

Slide: Additional Reasons for Rulemaking Some additional reasons for the rulemaking aside from the Clean Water Act we pointed out earlier. The National Tribal Water Council would like to know more about and be involved in discussions with EPA regarding the development of a 303(d) TAS process

, following our sharing of the 303(d) long

- term vis ion with the council. As mentioned, there are 48 trib es that have TAS for water quality standards. And we see these trib es as perhaps standing on the doorstep of 303(d) TAS.

Page 5 of 12According to the 1984 Indian Policy, EPA will assist trib es to build capacity for environmental programs and commit EPA to assist trib es in assuming regulatory and program management responsibilities and remove any barriers to working with trib es.

Slide: EPA Values All Tribal Input, Including Some examples of valuable

-- especially val uable input from trib es include these listed here. Input from the 48 trib es that have undergone water quality standard TAS process, input from trib es regarding experiences that trib es have had in protecting, restoring, and maintaining water quality, and reasons why a tribe may or may not be interested in seeking TAS authority for the I mpaired Water Listing and TMDL P rogram.

Slide: Proposed 303(d) Rule Timeline This is our proposed 303(d) rule timeline, which is subject to change, but now thro ugh mid

- 2014 EP A begins to draft preamble, rule

, and supporting documents. Again

, concurrent trib al consultation taking place from April 8 th through May 22nd , 2014. And then later in 2014, publishing a proposed rule in the Federal Register for a 60 day pub lic comment period. And we look to reopen trib al consultation concurrent with that publication and public comment period. In late 2014 to mid

- 2015, reviewing and responding to comments and making any revisions to the preamble and rule. And then looking out ward toward late 2015, publishing the final rule and doing outreach, training, and other coordination with trib es.

Slide: Questions

Rosaura Conde: A ll right, thank you, Sarah

, for your excellent presentation. And we will have time now for questions for Sar ah and Matt Richardson will pose some questions from the audience.

Matthew Richardson: Okay, great. Hello

, everybody, this is Matthew Richardson. We ’ ve received some excellent questions from some of the attendees and there is kind of one that is sort of a theme but one , it is about funding and how trib es might be able to access Clean Water Act S ection 604 (b) funds.

Sarah Furtak: Thank you for that question . W e did hear from the National Tribal Water Council last week an interest in exploring 604(b) funds so that is something we will be exploring. So thank you for that.

One question that may come up is whether any additional funding will be available for trib es who want to come in for TAS for 303(d) . A nd no grant funding is available under 303(d) as exists w ith

, for example, the 319 N on -P oint S ource P rogram. For 106, that is something we are also exploring. My understand ing is that impairment does not impact how trib al funds are allocated nationally. But certainly as we look to do this proposed rulemaking funding is something that is a policy and a resource consideration.

Matthew Richardson: Okay, thanks, Sarah. Another question that came in was about the nature of this presentation. The question was : please clarify th at th is is a technical presentation and not a government to government consultation when in fact, that is not quite an accurate stateme nt. We are looking at

Page 6 of 12this as our government to government consultation . I f your organization would like an individual meeting with EPA, that can be arranged. Please contact the people

-- the contact names at the end of this presentation about that.

And another question came in, Sarah

-- maybe, what are the requirements that trib es must meet to be considered eligible TAS status?

Sarah Furtak: I’ m going to assume that is TAS status for 303(d) listing and TMDL program. So EPA

-- that ’ s a great question

-- EPA is exploring this question as part of the proposed rulemaking. We are expecting that the applications for the water quality standard TAS applications and the 303(d) Impaired Water Listing and TMDL applications would be very similar. As folks may know, we set it up in terms of TAS applications such that trib es only need to submit what would be different. So that is something to think about that we are looking to streamline the application process as much as possible. Clean Water Act S ection 518 (e) has three criteria and the criteria that may be slightly different for the criterion that may be slightly different for 303(d) as compared to 303(c) water quality standards is the capability criterion . A nd my understanding is that that should not be a very tall bar or a high bar, but the bottom line is this is a great question that we are exploring in the proposed rulemaking process.

Matthew Richardson: Okay. Thanks, Sar ah. Another question came in about workload. And I guess this example in the region they ’ ve had some challenges with the regions reviewing standards in a timely manner and they are expressing concern that with this new authority, how would we support the t echnical assistance required by trib es to create these. So I am not sure if we have a response to that.

Sarah Furtak: Well in terms of the workload, in situations where trib es do not yet have the 303(d) TAS eligibility, we are looking to work cooperatively with trib es and states on listing and TMDL issues with EPA staff and grant support. And we look forward to increasing our coordination with trib es , especially over the coming months of providing opportunities to more fully engage trib es in listing TMDL programs . A nd as mentioned during the presentation, we acknowledge that one resource and policy consideration is resources for the trib es and what resources will be available as trib es take on this additional work within the Clean Water Act.

Matthew Richards on: Okay, thank you. There is a question about : for existing TMDLs on trib al lands, were they only done in cooperative agreements with states?

Sarah Furtak: So as we touched on in the presentation with the TMDL developed specifically in region 10, EPA has developed TMDLs for Indian Country and in certain circumstances EPA has developed TMDLs for waters in Indian Country. EPA continues to explore its ability to do so

, especially in the absence of applicable water quality standards or where trib es lack water quality standards. In the example of region 10, the trib es, the state, and EPA have worked out cooperative approaches in which there has been agreement among the entities. And specifically

, on a water body by water body approach through an MOU, Memorandum of Understanding approach,

Page 7 of 12parties have agreed that state standards where appropriate, as a baseline to consider impairment. So I am not sure if

-- okay. I’ m not sure if my region 10 co unterpart joined us on the line, Dave Cro xton

. But I would encourage Dave to say a few words if he would like to as well. Dave?

Dave Croxton: Yes, hi. This is Dave. Can you hear me okay?

Sarah Furtak: Perfectly.

Dave Croxton: G reat. Sarah, you have that correct, we have done TMDLs jointly with trib es and in those cases we have come to an agreement with the trib es in terms of applying the state standard. In each case we do not necessarily have a cooperative agreement with the state, but we have some kind of an agreement with the tribe for those.

Sara h Furtak: Thank you, Dave.

Matthew Richardson: Okay. Another question came in related to water quality standards. It says: if the tribe has water quality standards, can a tribe request that the U.S. EPA lists the water body as impaired for the tribe and request that EPA develop the TMDL?

Sarah Furtak: So that is a great question. Similar to the previous question

, in certain circumstances, EPA has listed waters in Indian Country. EPA continues to explore its ability to do so

, especially in the absence of applicable water quality standards or where trib es lack water quality standards. States are not allowed to list waters in Indian Country but in the event that a state lists Indian Country waters on its 303(d) list submitted to EPA for review and approval, EPA may use language in its decision or approval documents excluding those Indian Country waters from the approval. So again, this is a great example of where we are exploring in this pre

- proposal process what we will do for listing waters in Indian Country.

Matthew Richardson: Okay, I have another type of funding type of question. I think it ’s something we ’ ve unfortunately been seeing throughout EPA and the federal government to some extent

, but the person posted about how 319 funds over the years have decreased and adding this TMDL component takes lots of resources and is kind of quizzing us on if it ’ s not working for the states, how w ill this l ead \ to effective restoration on tribal country. So I think the idea with this new authority is to give the trib es t he ability to develop their own program rather than relying on the states.

Sarah Furtak: Correct. So I think again

, the funding question is a good one. And that is something that we are exploring. Because again

, our program is not like the 319 program where we don ’ t have a dedicated grant or funding source for the 303(d) program, but we are looking into that. And

Page 8 of 12hopefully

-- you know, hopefully we will have some ideas through this consultation process what trib es need and how to better engage given that we are in this pre

- proposal process.

Matthew Richardson: Okay, thanks. Once or twice in your presentation, Sarah, you mentioned the National Tribal Water Council. Maybe you could provide a quick summary of what that organization is and how EPA works with the Water Council.

Sarah Furtak: Right, and Matt feel free to chime because we ’ ve all been working closely with the National Tribal Water Council

, most recently last week in the face- to

- face visit from the C ouncil . B ut the C ouncil is an Environmental Protection Agency, a funded project. It has its own website. Its purpose according to its bylaws is to advocate for the best interest of federally recognized Indian and Alaskan Native tribes and tribally authorized organization s in matters pertaining to water. It is the intent of the National Tribal Water Council to advocate for the health and sustainability of clean and safe water and for the productive use of water for the health and well

- being of Indian Country, Indian communities, Alaska N ative tribe s and Alaskan N ative villages. And membership is about 15 or so trib es , if I ’ m not mistaken.

Matthew Richardson: Yes.

And maybe one last question about : does this consultation period close on May 22nd or does it continue?

Sarah Furtak: So that is a great question. The consultation period does close on May 22nd so that we can continue to pull tog ether the preamble and the rule making

-- proposed rulemaking material. We do expect to restart trib al consultation coordination in late 2014 in tandem with the Federal Register notice and the public comment process. So we do anticipate reopening the trib al consultation pro cess in the late

- summer to late

- 2014 timeframe.

Slide: For More Information

Rosaura Conde: All right, well thank you, Sarah

, for those excellent answers to some of the questions submitted in writing. At this time we will open the phone lines and have time for more questions and dialogue with our audience and with Sarah and Matt. Also

, as time permits , Matt will pose some additional questions to Sarah that are submitted in writing from the audience.

Rosaura Conde: I will just remind everyone you can use the question box from the webinar link and I’ m al so displaying the contact information now for both Sarah and Matt s o that if you do have follow

- up questions or would like to continue the discussion, those are your resources. And there ’ s a few other references there as well that we talked about in the presentation and Sarah referred to in her slides, so you might want to look through some of those as well and I will turn it to Matt to see if there any other questions that are coming in.

Page 9 of 12Matthew Richardson: I guess, yes there is one question, just a tech question about the difference between a point source and a non

- point source.

Sarah Furtak: Great, so in terms of a point source that was mentioned in the description of what a TMDL is and the components of a TMD, a point source is a pollutant load that is discharged at a specific location , f or example, from pipes or from out falls or from a conveyance channel from either a municipal wastewater treatment plant or an industrial waste treatment facility. And then a nonpoint source is a pollutant load that is not released through pipe, but rather originates from multiple sources over relatively wide or large areas. And nonpoint sources can be divided into source activities related to either land or water use including failing septic tanks, im proper animal keeping practices, forestry practices, and urban or rural runoff.

Matthew Richardson: Okay, one question just came in about this proposed rulemaking . S hould this proposal become a policy, would it be mandatory for trib es?

Sarah Furtak: So that is a very important question, thank you. The proposed rulemaking is for trib es w ho are interested in obtaining treatment in a similar manner as a state for a 303(d) listing impaired waters and TMDL program. So if for trib es that are interested, EPA will provide thro ugh this rule making the process that trib es can obtain TAS. It is not considered or anticipated to create new requirements for trib es that are not interested in obtaining TAS for 303(d). And again

, we have received comments and interest from trib es includ ing the National Tribal Water Council regarding how trib es can obtain TAS for 303(d). It seems there is interest out there; perhaps more so for trib es that have TAS for water quality standards and ha ve EPA approved water quality standards but n onetheless, opening the door to TAS for 303(d) may raise more interest in other trib es.

Matthew Richardson: Okay, another question came in about currently there are some trib es with TMDLs established and apparently they are established under certain circumstances and this person is asking what were some of those circumstances.

Sarah Furtak: Okay, that is a great question about circumstances where in certain circumstances EPA has listed waters in Indian Country and if Dave from Region 10 is on the phone, perhaps Dave co uld say a few words. But my understanding is that this was again

, a cooperative approach. Is Dave

--

Dave Croxton : Yeah can you hear me all right again?

Sarah Furtak: Yes.

Page 10 of 12Dave Croxton: S o particularly

-- yeah in the state of Idaho, at one point based unde r a court order EPA actually did a listing of waters in the state and that included waters that were on trib al lands . A nd so as we follow through with TMDLs then we have done TMDLs for some of those listed waters. So that ’ s kind of a particular circumstance that occurred in Idaho.

Matthew Richardson: Sarah, are you aware of any other parts of the country where trib es have a TMDL established ?

Sarah Furtak: I am not aware. And as we showed in the graph of the TMDLs completed to date, those data are from our o btained database, which is listed on this reference page and that database is estimated TMDL tracking to implementation d atabase includes 197 TMDLs for Indian Country and those are in the region 10 state s.

Matthew Richardson: But t hey ’ re all in region 10?

Sarah Furtak: Correct.

Dave Croxton: I can elaborate . T here are some other circumstances where we may have a water body that is both

-- that is divided and it is shared between the state and the tribe. And again, that ’ s a case where EPA ’ s involved in development of those TMDLs both on behalf of and in cooperation with the tribe s ince as the state develops TMDL s for those waters it also is affecting trib al reservation waters at the same time.

Matthew Richardson: Okay, that makes sense. Thank you.

A question came in about : will trib es need to develop anti

- degrad ation policies along with TMDLs?

Sarah Furtak: So that is a great question. I would open that or turn that to Fred from the W ater Q uality S tandards Program if he is available if there are any words abou t that. However, that is a question that I don ’ t have further information on and can get back to

-- if Fred does not have anything to add. So Fred Leu tn er, are you interested in commenting at all on th at question?

We do have our office of General C ounsel, Jim Curtin

, is here to comment on that. So thank you, Jim. Take it away.

Jim Curtin: I would just briefly say that any degradation polic y is a part of water quality standards and the proposed rule Sarah is talking about today is the process for trib es to get treatment in a similar manner as a state to be able to undertake that 303(d) listing and establish TMDLs. So it is a very different part of the Clean Water Act program or the 303(d). And I don ’ t believe anything that

Page 11 of 12would be established here would set up a requirement that trib es establish any degradation policies. Questions about that would really relate to the tribe ’ s TAS for establishing water quality standards and what kind of water quality standards a program is setting

.

Sarah Furtak: Thank you very much, Jim.

Matthew Richardson: Okay, I think maybe one last question about the timeline. Is the proposed rule timeline subject to change ? I think you mentioned in one of your slides rolling this out in 2015.

Sarah Furtak: Exactly. So we are looking for this project to extend over the next year or two and it is subject to change. The proposed rule timeline

, factors that may change that timeline include the number and the nature of public comment s that we get through the public comment period or thr ough the tribal consultation in parallel with that public comment period. So yes, it is subject to change, but hopefully it provides you an idea of where we are going and our way of getting there.

Rosaura Conde: All right. Well at this time I would like to conclude today ’ s webcast. Thank you, Sarah Furtak

, talking to us today about the proposed rulemaking regarding encouraging greater involvement by tribe s in the 303(d) listing and TMDL programs . A nd thank you to Matt Richar dson for serving as our Q&A moderator. And of course, thanks to everyone that has joined us. That ends our webcast for today. Thank you

, again

, for joining us.

Matthew Richardson: Goodbye. Thanks.

Sarah Furtak: Thanks.

Page 12 of 12