Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ANPRM Comments <br />December 8, 1998 <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />2. 11I.D.4.a. "Tier 2"; Identification of "High Quality" Waters: <br /> <br />Colorado adopted a "designational" approach to determining which waters are "high <br />quality" in 1988. Under the current version of its regulations, Colorado designates <br />what are essentially "Tier 1" and "Tier 3" waters, and everything else is considered <br />to be Tier 2 waters subject to antidegradation review requirements. We believe that <br />this approach has been successful and has advantages over a "definitional" <br />approach. In particular, the planning benefits of advance designations are <br />important for government agencies, the regulated community and the general <br />public. With this approach, everyone knows in advance which waters may be <br />protected to a level higher than specified by use-based water quality standards and <br />can plan their activities and input accordingly. We are certainly hopeful that EPA <br />will not pursue changes to the regulation that would limit Colorado's ability to <br />continue to implement an approach that has been working. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />III.DA.b. Tier 2 Implementation: . <br /> <br />The ANPRM raises issues regarding whether EPA should provide additional detail <br />in the regulation as to various aspects of Tier 2 antidegradation implementation. In <br />general, Colorado believes that there may be a benefit to EPA providing further <br />clarification of key concepts or basic elements of the antidegradation program, but <br />that EPA should leave substantial flexibility to states in addressing the details of <br />implementation. For example, it may be useful for EPA to confirm for Tier 2 <br />implementation that insignificant or de minimis impacts are not subject to full <br />antidegradation review analysis, while putting sideboards on the concept of <br />"significant degradation". EPA could clarify that cumulative impacts matter and that <br />there should be reasonable caps on loading and concentration increases that are <br />considered insignificant, while leaving the details of "significance tests" to states. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />III.DA.b.iii. Tier 2 Implementation; Identification of "important" Activities: <br /> <br />We agree strongly with EPA's current thinking that the determination of what <br />activities constitute "important economic or social development" should be left to <br />state and local governments. This question is a land use issue, not a water quality <br />issue. While there is a legitimate federal interest in managing the water quality <br />impacts of development, it is not appropriate for EPA to be imposing its judgment <br />as to the relative "importance" of different types of potential development. <br />