Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OJ2978 <br /> <br />Position No. 228 <br /> <br />already developed effective TMDL programs that have been endorsed by their stakeholders and elected <br />officials, Existing processes and approaches that either meet court decrees or provide positive and <br />beneficial results should not be set-aside by these new rules. At the same time, states should be <br />encouraged to be innovative in developing new processes and approaches that achieve the results <br />envisioned by these rules in a more efficient manner. The Council encourages EP A to add a "functional <br />equivalent" provision to the regulations that will allow states to demonstrate that a process, method or <br />approach not fully recognized in the regulations can be approved in a state program on the basis that it <br />achieves the same desired results as envisioned by the rules, There are numerous examples of these <br />cases, including how states prioritize their lists, incentives that states have built into their programs to <br />achieve correction of impaired conditions in lieu of a TMDL, and recognition of various approaches to <br />implementing TMDLs, such as adaptive management and use of bottom up watershed management <br />planning. <br /> <br />Listin~ Cycle <br /> <br />The Council supports the establishment of a five-year listing cycle under Section 303(d), <br />instead of the current two-year cycle. The Council agrees with EPA's suggestions that a shorter listing <br />cycle tends to "over-emphasize the listing of water bodies as opposed to establishing and implementing <br />TMDLs" and that a shorter cycle is "inefficient because states. "generally do not fmd significant <br />changes in water quality over such a short period of time." The shorter cycle disproportionately skews <br />resources toward listing efforts and away from TMDL development efforts, preventing a more optimal <br />allocation of limited resources in making progress ,in improving water quality. <br /> <br />EP A also proposes to change the year 2000 list submission deadline to October I, and to <br />require that the year 2000 lists be based upon the new requirements. The Council believes it is <br />unrealistic to expect the year 2000 lists be based upon the anticipated new regulations. Indeed <br />mandating that year 2000 lists be based upon major revisions to the regulations with little lead time will <br />simply encourage confusion, controversy and challenges to the next round of listing and will not <br />advance efforts to improve water quality, Many states have already begun the process of working with <br />the public toward the development of the year 2000 Section 303(d) list. In view of the time required <br />for EPA to review and react to the many comments it will receive on this major regulatory proposal <br /> <br />6 <br />