The following is a sample letter that may be sent to DEP to express your comments on their proposed antidegradation regulations. This letter must be received by February 22, 1999, therefore you should send it no later than February 19, 1999.

You may send this letter electronically by typing in the appropriate spaces the date, your name and address, and sending it to Brezina.Edward@al.dep.state.pa.us . This electronic letter also must be received by February 22, 1999. You may send it the same day.

**************

Date:

Edward R. Brezina, Bureau of Watershed Conservation
P.O. Box 8555
Rachel Carson State Bldg-10th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555

Dear Mr. Brezina:

Enclosed are comments on Pennsylvania's proposed antidegradation regulations that will amend 25 Pa. Code Chapters 92, 93 and 95. Above all else, DEP must meet minimum federal requirements and must fulfill the goals of antidegradation which is to keep clean waters clean.

A. We agree with your decision in the following matters:

1. Withdrawal of provision allowing general permits in High Quality (HQ) waters;

2. Withdrawal of provision to eliminate HQ and Exceptional Value (EV) as protected uses;

3. Withdrawal of 25% assimilative capacity provision;

4. Change of HQ qualifying test from chemical and biological to chemical or biological;

5. EV test that requires either 1) meeting HQ criteria and a specified objective criteria such as in a National Wildlife Refuge or 2) Meet certain definitions;

6. The process for protecting existing uses when such a stream is considered for permits, approvals or petitions; and

7. The public participation opportunities.

B. We recommend the following changes:

1. Antidegradation must cover activities, and not just discharges. Bottled water companies and mining valley fills must also be covered by antidegradation.

2. The definition of EV waters must include "national and state parks", as required by federal law.

3. Chemical qualifying tests for HQ must be specific for stream uses. If a stream is used for fish, then the parameters of concern should be for fish, not drinking water or some other standard.

4. Biological qualifying tests should be quantified in the policy, not in the regulations. The 83% figure is untested. DEP should try it for three years, issue a report, and if successful then propose it for the next Triennial Review.

5. All wild trout streams should be HQ, not just Class A Trout Streams.

6. Existing use protection should include data from more sources.

7. The public should not be required to submit comments on permits to the permittee. This would have a chilling effect on public participation.

8. The language in Section 93.4c (b) (1) (iii), known as SEJ (Social and Economic Justification), should meet minimum federal requirements that require "public participation and intergovernmental review."

9. The language in SEJ that adds economic and social benefits as a requirement for HQ degradation should also apply to the local area.

10. DEP should either require no new or additional discharges or activities to EV streams or require bonding to cover the cost of failing systems.

C. Comments on specific questions asked by DEP

1. Chemical parameters should be use specific, as requested above.

2. Petitioners for stream upgrades should not be required to notify all stream landowners, but rather should only be required to post notices in the Pa. Bulletin or local newspapers.

Very truly yours

(Name)

(Address)

<<<<END>>>>