Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'. . <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />States (and Tribes) have differing interpretations of the level of protection afforded <br />ONR W s; Should EP A further specifY in the regulation what maintaining and protecting <br />water quality in ONRWs means? <br /> <br />E'o1>EPENDENT APPLICA nON <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />EPA's Current Thinking: To employ a weight-of-evidence approach, a State or Tribe <br />would need to have a comprehensive set of water quality data to evaluate the full range of <br />quality of, and stressors affecting that water body. Once standards are set, based on <br />weight-of-evidence or independent application, reasonable potential evaluations must be <br />performed against all applicable standards. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1. How can conflicting interpretations of water quality assessment data be reconciled in a <br />scientifically defensible marmer? Should each kind of water quality information stand . <br />alone as a scientific measure of current water quality conditions ahd ecosystem health? <br />Altematively, are there sitUations where one type of data should be given more weight <br />than another in determining use attainment? . <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />Should an approach be instituted where independent application may be relaxed for water <br />quality assessment strategies and decisions when a State or Tribe has established a <br />comprehensive monitoring and assessment program including biological monitoring and <br />assessment? What guidelines should be used to evaluate a State or Tribal biological <br />monitoring and assessment program? <br /> <br />3. What is the rationale for modifying the independent application policy as it pertains to <br />NPDES permitting? Under what circumstances could it be justified? <br /> <br />4. Should EP A explicitly incorporate into the water quality standards regulation the <br />independent application policy? . <br /> <br />4 <br />