{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["Sheet1"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Sheet1","index":0,"n_rows":38,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":38,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Designated Uses and Classification Systems","Categories Designated Uses and Classification Systems"]
["With the idea of lumping with aquatic categories and going to a watershed approach, assigning the subbasin with a lumped category, does that mean there will be things in the area are treated equally even if the components in the watershed are not equal, red ribbon trout stream is now equal with a stream with no fishery, concerned about areas.","Anti-degradation"]
["For discharge permits, there is a system in place, an allocation comes from SEO. For changes within uses and a change from numbers to narrative, doesn’t see the impact on the availability of water or water quality. Thinks DEQ is diligent and would consider that SEO would manage volume and that DEQ standards would meet or exceed existing standards for constituents.","Basin and sub-basin approach"]
["Lindsay had a slide with the Class I and antidegradation, noted people may not want to change much, agrees with approaching cautiously. ","Basin and sub-basin approach"]
["Support for going towards basin approach vs waterbody approach.   They use basin and sub-basin. ","Basin and sub-basin approach"]
["Trout Unlimited- Also uses basin wide mapping approach but specific segment designations are important","Basin and sub-basin approach"]
["Keep naming convention close to federal regulations ","Basin and sub-basin approach"]
["Likes idea of combining aquatic life. With warm water 1 and warm water 2, though intuitiveness is lost. ","Combining Uses"]
["Provide examples of states that use “use-based” systems.","Downstream waters"]
["Likes the idea of combining, more descriptive/intuitive for a layperson to understand.  If we go to a narrative, would we summarize the standards for the individual uses?","From numbered to narrative system."]
["Also likes separating agriculture. Biological with livestock is different from sedimentation from irrigation. ","From numbered to narrative system."]
["Basin-wide works for some, but something like Belle Fourche going from ephemeral to perennial would need different standards. ","From numbered to narrative system."]
["Would be good to have consistency with other agencies like SEO and WGFD- but could be difficult","From numbered to narrative system."]
["Seasonal designation would be good to explore for fish spawning ","From numbered to narrative system."]
["Potentially use/explore basin and sub basin approach.  Sub basins important because of perennial/ephemeral changes and water quality downstream.","From numbered to narrative system."]
["Going to uses versus classification would make it easier to understand the standards.","From numbered to narrative system."]
["Potentially list uses from most to least restrictive.","From numbered to narrative system."]
["Recommends caution in implying that particular uses represent degradation.","From numbered to narrative system."]
["Important to understand the implications for dischargers.","From numbered to narrative system."]
["Putting this all on the permitting process seems problematic because the impacts have to be modeled.","From numbered to narrative system."]
["Change is hard and can be disruptive and may cause confusion.","From numbered to narrative system."]
["Concerned about how radical the changes may be.","From numbered to narrative system."]
["Important to ensure that aquatic life designations are sufficiently protecting the most sensitive species.","From numbered to narrative system."]
["What would long-term effects be for permittees, especially municipal dischargers, small systems often have lagoons with 1970 technology? New standards would make it hard to comply/upgrade systems for small systems","Impacts for dischargers"]
["Scenic value is confusing. Can we get rid of scenic value and lump it into other uses?","Impacts for dischargers"]
["From a permitting perspective, if the system changes, will that be more restrictive to permittees? If we change the classification, would that change effluent limits and impact operations in order to be compliant? What happens when the water is dependent on the discharge, if it is discharge-dependent for animals, how does this affect effluent limits and permitting requirements?","Impacts for dischargers"]
["Going to designated uses from classifications would be easier to understand.","Impacts for dischargers"]
["How do you ensure sufficient protection of downstream surface waters if the designated uses and water quality criteria of an upstream water are less stringent than the downstream water","Impacts of changes"]
["Would like to better understand the implications associated with the changes.","Impacts of changes"]
["Clarification regarding agricultural uses of surface waters would be beneficial.","Need examples"]
["Would be useful to pick a few streams, from simple to complex, to show the current classification and what they would look like with a use-based system.","Need examples"]
["Concerned that any revisions to the classification system still protects existing uses; if going from a numbered to a narrative system and we have existing and designated uses in a stream, if we remove water from a stream how would we protect the uses? Between splitting current categories and lumping them together, concerned that nothing is lost. Water quantity does affect water quality. Also interested in how a narrative standard would affect enforcement. What are the advantages/disadvantages of approaching from a basin/watershed perspective? How would that approach differ from the current approach?","Scenic value"]
["It’s complicated to use current system because they tried to put flexibility in for changes with uses when the stream changes- flexibility is good but can make it more complicated","Seasonal designation"]
["Likes the idea of separating agriculture and combining livestock with wildlife. irrigation may have different needs later. ","Separating Uses"]
["Interested in understanding whether the changes are worth it such that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.","Species protection"]
["Urban—likes the idea of having that included. "]
["Also support using the uses for naming vs the Class levels"]
["Likes the uses rather than the classifications."]