My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01494
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01494
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:02:27 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:56:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/21/1998
Description
Federal "Clean Water Action Plan" and EPA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />How should the water quality standards.regulation, guidance or policy be modified to <br />provide more specificity on appropriate factors to consider in developing a use <br />attainability analysis? <br /> <br />3. EP A requests comment on whether variances, temporary standards and/or ambient-based <br />criteria can under certain circumstances offer an environmentally preferable altemative to <br />refinement or removal (downgrade) of the designated use? Under what circumstances? <br /> <br />CRITERIA <br /> <br />. EPA's Current Thinking: EPA believes that State and Tribal water quality standards <br />should incorporate new criteria and assessment science. Doing so will lead to more <br />_ thorough water quality assessments, more insightful suites of water quality criteria, and <br />better descriptions of aquatic life designated uses. EP A believes that water quality <br />standards should protect significant human populations and subpopulations from <br />unreasonable risk. States and Tribes should have a structured quantitative approach to <br />translating and implementing narrative criteria for toxics for both 307(a) (priority) <br />pollutants and non-307(a) pollutants (e.g., ammonia and sediment contaminants). The <br />regulation should be modified to specify the circumstances under which numeric criteria <br />for non-priority pollutants must be adopted. <br /> <br />L <br /> <br />Should EP A explore broadening the concept of site-specific criteria to include watershed- <br />specific or ecosystem-specific criteria perhaps in conjunction with a refined use <br />designation? If so, what type of additional guidance or policy is necessary to fully explain <br />these concepts and are any changes to the regulation needed to enable and/or facilitate use <br />of watershed or ecosystem-specific criteria? <br /> <br />2. Should EP A require States or Tribes to adopt narrative criteria and a narrative criteria <br />translation method for 3.07(a) toxics? Other pollutants which elicit toxic effects on <br />organisms? Non-toxics? Should the regulation include minimum requirements for these <br />implementation procedures? <br /> <br />3. Should EPA amend the regulation to explicitly require States and Tribes to ad' -,t <br />biological criteria or are there alternative approaches that EP A should consid. . Shoulc' <br />EP A seek to ensure that biological criteria will be developed and implemented in all Statt. <br />and Tribal water quality programs? <br /> <br />4. Would it be useful to explicitly identify physical criteria such as habitat and hydrologic <br />balance in 40 CFR 131 as a valid form of criteria that States and Tribes can adopt in their <br />water quality standards? <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.