Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OD2977 <br /> <br />Position No. 228 <br /> <br />approval in one package after EPA's input has been fully factored into the state's decision-making <br />process, <br /> <br />How TMDLs Are Ex.pressed <br /> <br />The proposed rules will significantly reduce states' flexibility with regard to how approvable <br />TMDLs may be expressed and their effectiveness evaluated, The potential consequences include <br />significantly increased monitoring costs, reduced public acceptance of TMDL program requirements, <br />and an overall decrease in states' abilities to effectively address water quality impairment problems. <br />The existing rules accommodate TMDL expression in terms of pollutant loads or other appropriate <br />measures, This provision has allowed many western states to define impairment problems, and to <br />establish restoration goals and implementation plans, in terms that are not only understandable by <br />stakeholders, but which are also more cost effective relative to states' abilities to monitor for TMDL <br />effectiveness. These are key issues with many western states, Our experience has shown the need for <br />flexibility and innovation in order to stretch available budgets, and to accommodate the needs and <br />secure the participation of the many, varied stakeholders that must be engaged in resolution of the <br />prevailing nonpoint source pollution problems, Surrogate measures of TMDL effectiveness, in lieu of <br />actual pollutant loading data, have become the norm for many states as their TMDL effectiveness <br />monitoring responsibilities increase relative to the available monitoring budgets, <br /> <br />A rigorous requirement that all TMDLs must include an expression of the pollutant load or load <br />reduction is, in our view, impractical, expensive to implement, and discouraging to the many current <br />western efforts to develop, implement and evaluate TMDL plans for nonpoint pollution problems. The <br />Council encourages you to carefully consider the implications of Sections 130,2, 130,33 and 130.34, as <br />proposed, and to retain a considerable degree of latitude in how TMDLs may be expressed. <br /> <br />Functional Equivalency Provision <br /> <br />In adopting these new rules, EP A must also recognize that many states have already developed <br /> <br /> <br />processes, methods and approaches to meet court, legislative or stakeholder demands for their existing <br /> <br /> <br />TMDL programs, In many cases, these new substantive rules may be disruptive to programs that have <br /> <br />5 <br />