Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />ANPRM Comments <br />Decernoer 8, 1998 <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />current section 319 program guiel8l1ce. [Nete;: TMi3 3J9ccific C6fflffiC19t i3 a 3taff <br />fCCGffil,lCl9datiel9 tMat MS3 I96t yet becn eli3cu33cel by tMc COffiffii33ion.] <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />III.C.11, Biological Criteria: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Colorado believes that biological assessments are a very useful water quality <br />management tool, since they provide information on the overall condition of a water <br />body that integrates the cumulative effects of any chemical, physical, and biological <br />stressors on aquatic life. However, Colorado believes that it would be premature <br />to mandate the adoption of biological criteria as enforceable water quality <br />standards. We are concerned that issues regarding the variability or biological <br />assessment results and the comparability of "reference" streams are exacerbated <br />in the arid West, where there are fewer streams for comparison and extensive water <br />development has already occurred. q~'yelo"-ifieir!ni~~'resul!~gT(r9~9r~as~.Q~k~.?n! <br />f1bwS'iif man 'ihstances"'but, has':also-:-resUlted:il1:'tfieS'resefiEe'bfj'eliablifflciws in <br />.........._.;........,. ..^-".-.Y...~_ ............ '<._ ...;..1 ,~__""""'-___....~.~.......,,. .,..,_~~.."~_,,,;..r...~~__-.,,_. ~,_""'__''''''''._'__.... _ ~'_',,",.._. <br />6thei'Wise~e'hemeral-strea'ms '.as-a"1~sultToffa\i""waterorwastewafeTCOnvEf'af1ce <br />_..._,.~._.",-I?.......,-.. ^" - ~ "_ ._......'...M.. ,r - _...,...............'_.._._._.b~'- ~""".". ",,-.~._,._.,";O.....i<I.:,... ....-w__ ;...C..,... ,..~'__..~,.~~. y~......~...... <br />2WI~plf!'!f9~~ EPA has never clarified its understanding of how biological criteria <br />should be developed for and applied to streams where uses are impacted by ~ <br />extensive hydrologic modifications that are the basis for most agricultural and urban <br />development in the West. Enforceable biological criteria should not be mandated <br />without an understanding of the legal relationship of such criteria to rights <br />established under western water allocation systems. ' <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />III.C.13. Physical Criteria: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />As noted above, extensive hydrological modifications of natural stream flow <br />conditions have already occurred in much of the West over the last century, <br />including extensive diversion of water from streams. Over the last quarter century, <br />western states have developed a variety of state-specific systems that also <br />recognize the benefits of instream water uses, such as protection of aquatic life. <br />EPA's discussion in the ANPRM of options such as the potential development of <br />"regional minimum stream flow criteria" does not even appear to acknowledge the <br />existence of long-established western water allocation systems, much less to <br />consider legal and policy issues regarding the relationship of such criteria to such <br />systems. It would be totally inappropriate for EPA to move forward with <br />consideration of criteria related to hydrological modifications without first addressing <br />issues regarding the relationship of such criteria to the policy set forth in section <br />101(g) of the Clean Water Act, which recognizes states water quantity management <br />authorities and calls for federal agencies to cooperate with their state and local <br />counterparts in addressing these issues. <br />