ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095; FRL-] 

RIN 2040-AF33

Response-to-Comments for Water Quality Standards; Withdrawal of Certain Federal 

Water Quality Criteria 

Applicable to California, New Jersey and Puerto Rico

SUMMARY: On April 5, 2012 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking to amend the federal regulations to withdraw certain human health and 

aquatic life water quality criteria applicable to waters of New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and 

California’s San Francisco Bay. 

In 1992, EPA promulgated the “National Toxics Rule” (“NTR”) to establish numeric water 

quality criteria for 12 states and two Territories, including New Jersey, Puerto Rico and parts of 

California. On May 18, 2000, EPA then promulgated a final rule known as the ‘‘California 

Toxics Rule’’ (‘‘CTR’’) in order to establish numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic 

pollutants for the State of California that were not previously in the NTR. These two states and 

one territory have now adopted, and EPA has approved, water quality criteria for certain 

pollutants included in the NTR. Since California, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico now have criteria 

effective under the Clean Water Act, for the same priority toxic pollutants in the NTR, EPA has 

determined that the federally promulgated criteria are no longer needed for these pollutants. The 

comments received and the EPA’s Response to those comments is listed below.
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: December 04, 2012

Received: April 09, 2012

Status: Posted

Posted: April 10, 2012

Tracking No. 80fec2fc

Comments Due: June 04, 2012

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095

Proposed Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to California, New 

Jersey and Puerto Rico

Comment On: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095-0001

Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to California, New Jersey and 

Puerto Rico

Document: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095-0002

Anonymous public comment

The EPA should not withdraw the federally promulgated water quality criteria for the 

state of New Jersey because establishing less stringent standards for the listed pollutants is 

contrary to the purpose and goals of both the CWA and the National Toxics Rule, particularly 

with regard to protecting human health.

As laid out in 40 CFR 131.2, the National Toxics Rule (codified in 40 CFR 131.36) was 

promulgated under §303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA for “the dual purposes of establishing the water 

quality goals for a specific water body and serve as the regulatory basis for the establishment of 

water-quality-based treatment controls and strategies beyond the technology-based levels of 

treatment required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act.” (emphasis added).

The phrase “beyond the technology-based levels of treatment” indicates that water 

quality standards for bodies of water were enacted to improve water quality in addition to the 

effluent limitations of the CWA, so that both strategies could work in tandem. Water quality 

criteria were not produced to replace effluent limitations, but rather, were necessary to reach the 
goals of the CWA which could not be attained simply through effluent limitations due to the 

difficulty in regulating point sources.

All but one of the pollutants to which New Jersey seeks to apply laxer standards are toxic 

pollutants, as listed under 40 CFR 401.15. These pollutants are numbered on the list: 22. 

Copper, 27. Ichloroethylene, 43. Isophrone, 44. Lead, 45. Mercury, 47. Nickel, 59. 

Tetrachloroethane, and 63. Trichloroethane. The one pollutant not on the toxic list, gamma-BHC 

(also called Lindane) is still of serious concern as it was dubbed “moderately toxic” by the World 

Health Organization in 2005. 

Looking only at the effluent standards for toxic pollutants clearly shows the will of our 

Legislature to treat all toxic pollutants with more rigorous standards to carry out the purpose of 

the CWA: “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 

Nation's waters.” Toxic pollutants are subject to the most rigorous technology treatment 

standard for existing sources under the CWA, the “best available technology economically 

achievable... which will result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of 

eliminating the discharge of all pollutants...” §301(b)(2)(A). Since the EPA only is required to 

consider costs in determining the BAT and does not have to carry out a cost-benefit analysis, 

weighing costs against the benefits of effluent reduction as it does with the BPT and BCT 

standards, the choice to apply BAT to toxic pollutants confirms Congress’s intent to regard them 

with heightened caution.

Since the CWA unambiguously established its goal of treating toxic pollutants more 

rigorously than conventional pollutants, any regulation promulgated to explicitly further this 

interest should be read to require states to impose standards at least as stringent as federal 

standards. Giving states power to regulate their water bodies is a reasonable goal as far as it 
recognizes the familiarity state agencies have with their geographic area and how that can make 

them more effective in responding to the specific water quality challenges than the EPA. This 

concept, however, should not translate into an allowance for states to pick and choose which 

federal regulations they wish to implement, particularly in states like NJ that have a troubled 

history of compliance.

Given the current problems in NJ’s ability to meet water quality criteria for aquatic life, 

and the fact that NJ exceeds federal phosphorus standards, it is inappropriate to consider lower 

standards of any kind on water quality. According to the 2010 Integrated Water Quality Report 

published by the NJDEP, the number of limited use and impaired waterways in the state grew by 

9.8% in the past two years. The report also stated that the three largest sources of pollution are 

non-point, stormwater discharges, and combined sewer overflow. Since all three of these are 

difficult or impossible to regulate through effluent limitations, it is necessary to maintain 

stringent quality standards for the surface waters to meet the overall goal of improving water 

quality nationwide.

Additionally, as the 2010 report suggests, NJ should not be taken off of NTR because it 

has been sanctioned in the past for not expanding their water quality monitoring network, 

indicating that the state is not yet ready to take on the full responsibility of regulating its waters.

Furthermore, NJ's proposed changes could lead to harmful conditions in the Delaware 

and Chesapeake bay as water body specific criteria ignores that water moves between water 

bodies and ultimately ends up in bays that provide water to other states. In this sense, allowing 

NJ an exemption to the strict federal standards would be inequitable as it could negatively impact 

other states that are held to higher standards.

“The [NJDEP's] goal is for all waters to fully support all uses, except for 

fish consumption. Non-support of the fish consumption use is caused by unsafe 
levels of toxic contaminants in fish tissues, which is generally due to legacy 

pollutants (like PCBs) or air deposition (like mercury), rather than active point 

source discharges. These types of pollutants generally require national or regional 

approaches to restore water quality. In New Jersey, non-support of the fish 

consumption use is addressed through public health advisories rather than 

pollution control measures.” 

(http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bwqsa/generalinfo.htm)

It is imperative that the standards for the toxic pollutants listed by the NJDEP remain 

subject to the more protective federal standards. Consideration of just two of the pollutants, lead 

and copper, illustrates this point:

Lead is "a highly toxic metal the agency considers a major public health threat.", 

according to the EPA. The national Centers for Disease Control considers lead to be the 

country's number one preventable pediatric health problem. More than 30 Million Americans 

are drinking water with lead levels in excess of the Maximum Contaminant Level set by the 

EPA. (http://www.pure-earth.com/lead.html)

The “Action Level” (concentration which, if exceeded, triggers treatment) for copper has 

also been set at 1.3 ppm because EPA believes, given present technology and resources, this is 

the lowest level to which water systems can reasonably be required to control this contaminant 

should it occur in drinking water at their customers home taps. EPA has found copper to 

potentially cause the following health effects when people are exposed to it at levels above the 

Action Level. (http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water-contamination/copper-contaminantsremoval-water.htm)

In order to further the goals of both the CWA and the NJDEP, NJ should remain subject to the 

NTR, and be required to adopt standards at least as stringent as the federal ones.

EPA Response: 

EPA appreciates the comments and to the extent a response is necessary, within the scope of this 

final rule, are addressed below.
The Clean Water Act tasks the States, Territories and authorized Tribes with adopting designated 

uses for their surface waters, and in adopting criteria to protect those uses. Federal criteria are 

being withdrawn for New Jersey where the state has adopted, and EPA has approved criteria 

that, while not as stringent as the promulgated criteria, are scientifically defensible, protective of 

the designated uses and consistent with the Clean Water Act and EPA's implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 131.11. 

The following is the list of pollutants (12 criteria) for which New Jersey adopted criteria, and 

which EPA approved, that are less stringent than the promulgated federal criteria, but that 

nonetheless meet the requirements of the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

131.11 covered in this proposal:

• Copper (aquatic life—marine (acute and chronic)).

• Lead (aquatic life—freshwater (chronic) and marine water (chronic)).

• Mercury (aquatic life—freshwater (chronic) and marine water (chronic)).

• Nickel (aquatic life—marine water (chronic)).

• 1,1–Dichloroethylene (human health—organisms only).

• 1,1,2,2–Tetrachloroethane (human health—organisms only).

• 1,1,2–Trichloroethane (human health—organisms only).

• Isophrone (human health— organisms only).

• gamma-BHC (human health—organisms only).

The following six New Jersey criteria are less stringent than the NTR because they are equal to 

EPA’s most recent 304(a) criteria recommendations:

• Copper (aquatic life – marine (acute and chronic))

• Mercury (aquatic life – freshwater (chronic) and marine water (chronic))

• Isophrone (human health – organisms only)

• gamma-BHC (human health – organisms only)

The following three New Jersey criteria are less stringent than the NTR because New Jersey 

developed applicable criteria as outlined below:

• Lead (aquatic life – freshwater (chronic) and marine water (chronic)): New Jersey 

updated its aquatic freshwater criteria for lead as nonhardness-dependent criteria. In 

addition, the State used conversion factors recalculated by the Delaware River Basin 

Commission for both fresh and marine criteria, which are more stringent than the 

nationally recommended conversion factors, as well as the national species list and 

updated toxicity data reviewed and accepted by EPA (Great Lakes Water Quality 

Initiative, 1991). 

• Nickel (aquatic life – marine water (chronic)): New Jersey adopted saltwater criteria for 

nickel which were recalculated based upon the most recent peer reviewed saltwater 

toxicity data available. 
The following three New Jersey criteria are less stringent than the NTR because New Jersey 

developed applicable criteria following the scientific methodology recommended by EPA, but 

used toxicity factors recommended by the New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute 

(NJDWQI) rather than the toxicity factors available in IRIS to ensure consistency with the 

State’s Safe Drinking Water Program

• 1,1-Dichloroethylene (human health – organisms only) 

• 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (human health – organisms only)

• 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (human health – organisms only)

In summary the above-referenced criteria have all been found to be scientifically defensible, 

protective of the designated uses, and consistent with the Clean Water Act and EPA's 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.11. 

In terms of the specific concerns raised by the commenter, EPA offers the following:

• In terms of the development of water quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs) for 

point source discharges, where such limits are found to be required the resultant criteria 

are used by States to derive these WQBELs in order to protect designated uses.

• The withdrawal of the federal criteria is not intended to impact the scope of the State’s 

water quality monitoring network.

• With regard to the protection of Delaware and Chesapeake Bay, New Jersey remains 

obligated to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 131.10(b) which states that, “in 

designating uses of a water body and the appropriate criteria for those uses, the State shall 

take into consideration the water quality standards of downstream waters and shall ensure 

that its water quality standards provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water 

quality standards of downstream waters.”

• Finally, with regard to the protection of drinking water, States adopt different sets of 

water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life or human health. One of the 

purposes of this rule is to withdraw the federal aquatic life criteria, not human health 

criteria, for chronic and acute copper and lead, for fresh and marine waters designated for 

aquatic life use. The removal of the federal aquatic life criteria will allow New Jersey to 

implement its adopted and EPA-approved aquatic life criteria for copper and lead, and 

will not impact any drinking water-based criteria that are already adopted by the State. 

Therefore, the level of protection currently provided by the State for drinking water will 

not change with this rulemaking. 
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: December 04, 2012

Received: May 17, 2012

Status: Posted

Posted: May 17, 2012

Tracking No. 81012611

Comments Due: June 04, 2012

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095

Proposed Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to California, New 

Jersey and Puerto Rico

Comment On: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095-0001

Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to California, New Jersey and 

Puerto Rico

Document: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095-0027

Anonymous public comment

Submitter Information

Government Agency Type: Federal

General Comment

HELP ! Our water which falls from the sky onto our neighborhoods, fields and mountains, runs 

down our gutters and creeks, swells our rivers and cleans and maintains the Sacramento Delta is 

being 'sold' by folks I don't remember electing ! I know those folks and corporations in southern 

California need some of our water but they are killing the Delta, an area that supports vast 

amounts of 'Aquatic nurseries'. If this was happening in Brazil, ecologist from Davis to 'Frisco 

would be screaming and signing petitions about how 'We Must Save....', But..because its in our 

back yard, We say / do nothing. 

As a remedy I suggest we triple the price of our water being shipped via the massive salmon 

killing pumps. When water is expensive to the mega corporations they will find a more 

sustainable means to farm the desert! I personally am willing to pay 25 cents more per melon for 

wanting my grand kids see a delta I saw when I was young.

EPA Response:

EPA thanks you for your interest in water issues concerning the San Francisco Delta. Your 

comment concerns water quantity (water flow) issues in the Delta, while our proposed rule 

concerns water quality in the Bay, specifically, the aquatic life saltwater cyanide criteria in San 

Francisco Bay. EPA is only taking comment on the water quality criteria for cyanide in San
Francisco Bay at this time. However, we appreciate your interest in the Delta, and hope you 

continue to express your thoughts and concerns on these important matters.

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: December 04, 2012

Received: May 21, 2012

Status: Posted

Posted: May 22, 2012

Tracking No. 81018a68

Comments Due: June 04, 2012

Submission Type: E-mail

Docket: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095

Proposed Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to California, New 

Jersey and Puerto Rico

Comment On: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095-0001

Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to California, New Jersey and 

Puerto Rico

Document: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095-0028

Comment submitted by Naomi Feger, Division Chief, San Francisco Bay Regional Water 

Quality Control Board

Submitter Information

Submitter's Representative: Barbara Baginska

Organization: San Francisco Bay Water Board

Government Agency Type: State

General Comment

See attached file(s)

Attachments

Cover Letter

Comment
May 17, 2012

CWIQs Place no. 718825

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street, WTR-3

San Francisco, California 94105

Sent via email to ow-docket@epa.gov

Sent via email to Diane Fleck: fleck.diane@epa.gov

Subject: PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF CERTAIN FEDERAL WATER QUALITY 

CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO CALIFORNIA, NEW JERSEY AND PUERTO RICO

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095

Dear Ms. Fleck:

Please accept these comments into the docket for the withdrawal of the federally

promulgated saltwater aquatic life cyanide criteria for San Francisco Bay, as referenced

above.

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) is the State of 

California’s regional office with responsibility for enhancing and maintaining the water quality 

of the San Francisco Estuary. The San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan establishes 

applicable water quality standards, including beneficial uses and water quality objectives, to 

protect water quality in the Estuary. The Water Board strives to implement water quality 

standards that are most relevant and protective of beneficial uses in the Bay.

We fully support the EPA action to amend the federal regulations to withdraw promulgated 

federal water quality criteria for cyanide applicable to San Francisco Bay and the EPA’s 

approval of the site-specific aquatic life objectives put forward by the Water Board.

In December 2006, the Water Board adopted Resolution (R2-2006-0086) to establish sitespecific marine cyanide objectives (acute 9.4 μg/L and chronic 2.9 μg/L) for all segments of San 

Francisco Bay to replace the existing National Toxics Rule (NTR) acute and chronic objectives 

of 1 μg/L. The adopted site-specific objectives reflect the relevant aquatic organisms present in 

the Bay and follow both state and federal guidance and policy guiding development of sitespecific objectives. The state Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface 

Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California allows for consideration of site-specific 

objectives when permit limits based on existing water quality objectives may not be attainable, 

the current objectives are not appropriate for the water body, and there is no evidence of adverse 

water quality impacts. All these conditions are met for cyanide in San Francisco Bay. In 

particular, the NTR water quality criteria are heavily influenced by toxicological data for one 

species that is not present in San Francisco Bay, and are therefore not fully applicable. Despite 

the fact that the site-specific objectives are less stringent than the NTR criteria, cyanide data 

collected in the Bay consistently show concentrations that are well below the NTR objective. 

Furthermore, cyanide does not persist in natural waters and does not bioaccumulate in biota. We 

appreciate the opportunity to support the EPA action to update the NTR criteria for cyanide in 

San Francisco Bay.

If you have any further questions, please contact Barbara Baginska at 510 622-2474, or

via e-mail at bbaginska@waterboards.ca.gov.
Sincerely,

Naomi Feger

Division Chief

EPA Response:

EPA appreciates this letter of support from the State of California’s San Francisco Bay Regional 

Water Quality Control Board. We look forward to continuing to work with the Board on water 

quality issues.

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: December 04, 2012

Received: June 04, 2012

Status: Posted

Posted: June 05, 2012

Tracking No. 81031243

Comments Due: June 04, 2012

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095

Proposed Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to California, New 

Jersey and Puerto Rico

Comment On: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095-0001

Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to California, New Jersey and 

Puerto Rico

Document: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095-0029

Comment submitted by Jill Lipoti, Director, Water Monitoring and Standards, New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)

Submitter Information

Submitter's Representative: Jill Lipoti, Director of Water Monitoring and Standards

Organization: Water Monitoring and Standards, New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection (NJDEP)

Government Agency Type: State

Government Agency: Water Monitoring and Standards, New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP)

General Comment

See attached file(s)
Attachments

Comment

June 4, 2012

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code: 28221 T

Water Docket

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

PO Box 420 (Mail Code 401-041)

401 East State Street

Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0420

Telephone: 609-292-1623

Fax: 609-633-1276

http://www.nj.gov/dep/wms/

Attn: Docket ID No. EPA- HQ-OW-2012-0095

Via email to: OW-Docket@epa.gov

Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095

Proposed Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to California, New 

Jersey and Puerto Rico

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) appreciates the opportunity 

to comment on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA), Proposed Withdrawal of 

Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to California, New Jersey and Puerto Rico 

(Proposed Withdrawal) (66 FR 20585, April 5, 2012). NJDEP is pleased with USEPA's action to 

withdraw National Toxics Rule (NTR) aquatic life and human health water quality criteria 

applicable to New Jersey. NJDEP adopted criteria for those pollutants under the NTR through 

several revisions to the New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards (N.J.A.C. 7:9B) since 1992. 

These criteria were approved by the USEP A subsequent to each revision.

USEPA has identified nine pollutants (12 criteria), which New Jersey adopted and USEPA 

approved, that are less stringent than the Federal promulgated NTR criteria. USEPA has 

compared NJDEP's current surface water quality criteria with the 1992 NTR criteria to arrive at 

the conclusion that these criteria are less stringent. However, USEPA has updated several of their 

criteria since 1992. When compared with the current USEPA National Recommended Water 

Quality Criteria http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/current/index.cfm), only six 

criteria are less stringent than USEPA's current recommended criteria. The following are 

comments on the criteria that are less stringent than current USEP A current recommendations.

Lead:

NJDEP has updated aquatic freshwater criteria for Lead in 2002 (34 N.J.R. 537(a); January 22, 

2002), as a non-hardness-dependent criteria. In addition, NJDEP used conversion factors 

recalculated by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) for both fresh and marine 

criteria. USEPA approved these criteria on August 16, 2002 and indicated that they are in the 
process of updating criteria for lead. NJDEP may review its aquatic criteria for lead when

USEPA updates its recommendations to determine if NJDEP criteria are still protective using the 

most recent scientific data.

Nickel:

NJDEP has updated aquatic marine criteria for update in 2006 (38 N.J.R. 4449(a); October 16, 

2006) based on newer scientific information because USEPA failed to include its criteria 

recommendations based on new information. Marine criteria were recalculated using Technical 

Information Related to Developing a Saltwater Nickel Addendum to the Ambient Water Quality 

Criteria Document, 2003 (http://www.state.nj .us/dep/wms/bwqsa/support_ docs.htm).

USEPA approved these criteria on December 20, 2006. On April 6, 2010, USEPA, through a 

letter to Ronald Popowski, USFWS, indicated these criteria are more scientifically-sound and are 

not likely to adversely affect any applicable federally-listed aquatic or aquatic-dependent species 

under USFWS jurisdiction.

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 1,1-Dichloroethylene:

NJDEP has updated human health criteria for saline water based upon fish only exposure for 1,1 

,2,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2- Trichloroethane, and 1,1 - Dichloroethylene in 2006 (38 N.J.R. 

4449(a); October 16, 2006).

NJDEP developed these criteria following the scientific methodology recommended by USEPA. 

However, the NJDEP used toxicity factors recommended by the New Jersey Drinking Water 

Quality Institute (NJDWQI) rather than the toxicity factors available in IRIS to ensure 

consistency with our Safe Drinking Water Program. USEPA approved these criteria on 

December 20, 2006.

As part of the 2009 NJDWQI review, 1,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,1 ,2-Trichloroethane, and 1, 

1-Dichloroethylene, were classified as Suggestive Carcinogens (Possible Human Carcinogens). 

NJDWQI has reviewed the health effects information and has recommended revisions to these 

health based criteria. NJDWQI recommendations are: the human health criteria in saline waters 

for 1,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane should be 14 )μg/L which is equal to the current USEPA 

recommendation; the human health marine criteria for 1,1,2- Trichloroethane should be 14 )μg/L 

which will be more stringent than the current US EPA recommendation of 16 μg/L; and the 

human health marine criteria for 1,1 -Dichloroethylene should be 1,286 μg/L which will be more 

stringent than the current US EPA recommendation of 1700 μg/L. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 

7:9B-1.5(c) 6, once the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL)'s for these criteria are revised in 

the Safe Drinking Water Act Rules, the Department will publish a notice of administrative 

change in the New Jersey Register to update these criteria in the Surface Water Quality 

Standards.

I hope that the above comments on the Proposed Withdrawal will assist you in finalizing the 

document. Feel free to contact Debra Hammond by email at Debra.hammond@dep.state.nj .us or 

by phone at 609-777-1753 if you have any questions.

Sincerely

Jill Lipoti, Director, Water Monitoring and Standards

NJ Department of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 420 (Mail Code 401-041)

401 East State Street

Trenton, NJ 08625-0420

EPA Response:

EPA appreciates this letter of support from the State of New Jersey’s Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP). We look forward to continuing to work with the NJDEP on 

water quality issues.