Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />_ Should the regulation require, or should guidance recommend, higher intake assumptions <br />for site-specific or regional situations when subpopulations that are highly exposed have <br />been identified? If so, what should be the basis for such intake assumptions? <br /> <br />6. Should the regulation specifically require States and Tribes to adopt and implement <br />numeric nutrient criteria? <br /> <br />MIXING ZONES <br /> <br />. EPA's Current Thinking: The regulation needs to specify the minimum necessary <br />elements of State and Tribal mixing zone policies-and implementation procedures. <br /> <br />- 1. Should the regulation be modified to identify the minimum requirements or elements for <br />State and Tribal mixing zone policies (including size, location, and methodologies)? <br /> <br />ANTIDEGRADA nON <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />EPA's Current Thinking: Antidegradation policy and its implementation should be <br />clarified and strengthened in order to attain and maintain water quality, especially <br />regarding its use in developing point source controls and nonpoint source BMPs. The <br />level of protection provided by classifying a water ONRW needs to be clarified. The <br />protection can be defined narrowly to mean for example, no new or increased discharge of <br />any kind. It can also be defined broadly to mean for example, no new or increased <br />discharge that will degrade the ONR W qualities of the water. If the protection is defined <br />narrowly, EP A' s thinking is that there should be a fourth anti degradation tier between tier <br />2 and tier 3 (tier 2112). <br /> <br />1. What changes or clarifications could be made to the current tiered approach to protecting <br />waters under antidegradation that would streamline and enhance antidegradation <br />implementation? _ <br /> <br />2. Should the regulation be amended to identify the basic elements that must be included in <br />an antidegradation implementation method and would such changes assist States and <br />Tribes in understanding"the requirements and in utilizing the flexibility available? <br /> <br />3. How should "significant degradation" be defined? Is there a need for a nationally <br />consistent approach? Should EP A issue additional guidance, or revise the regulation tQ <br />include, for purposes of implementing tier 2 requirements, a definition of significant <br />degradation? Are categorical exemptions appropriate, and if so, under what <br />circumstances? <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />Would it be appropriate to revise the regulation to clarify the relationship between - <br />nonpoint source controls and tier 2 anti degradation requirements? <br /> <br />3 <br />