Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OJ2976 <br /> <br />Position No, 228 <br /> <br />data and analytical models for determining and allocating loads in such circumstances present major <br /> <br /> <br />barriers to TMDL development at present. Until such capabilities advance, it would be an inefficient <br /> <br /> <br />use of limited resources to develop technically weak TMDLs for these water bodies, <br /> <br />Listin~ Methodology <br /> <br />EPA's proposal would require that states "develop a methodology that explains how you will <br />consider and evaluate all existing and readily available data and information" to develop a Section <br />303(d) list and determine priority rankings. The Council believes such a demonstration is appropriate <br />and reflects the degree of flexibility for states that the Council feels is critical. EP A then proposes to <br />require the submission of this methodology to EPA eight months prior to submission of the Section <br />303(d) list. The Council believes that it would be an inefficient use of resources to mandate a totally <br />separate process and submission deadline for the listing methodology, It is appropriate for EP A to <br />require that a listing methodology be developed with public input. However, establishing a separate <br />submission requirement with a separate deadline would necessitate an additional administrative process <br />that will detract from efforts to develop and submit Section 303(d) lists in a timely manner. Instead, <br />EPA should merely require that states identify the listing methodology as part of the Section 303(d) list <br />submission, <br /> <br />States agree that consistent criteria are essential for determining whether water bodies should be <br />listed (or de-listed) pursuant to the requirements of Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Moreover, <br />these criteria should be consistent with the guidance for preparing state 305(b) reports, However, <br />listing decisions must be based, in part, upon the available data (which are often limited) and in part on <br />the policy judgements of public officials responsible for such decisions, The critical issue is that listing <br />decisions be made in public proceedings where input from all interested parties is both welcomed and <br />encouraged, Inevitably, there will be differences in the listing decisions made among the states using <br />similar criteria in different circumstances, <br /> <br />EPA should engage in the 303(d) listing process in each state and provide continuous input as <br />states proceed during the development of their list. The 303(d) list along with all pertinent supporting <br />information, including listing methodology and response to public input, should be submitted for <br /> <br />4 <br />