Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002979 <br /> <br />Position No. 228 <br /> <br />and to finalize revisions to the regulation, and in view of the substantial lead time required to <br />implement any major changes to the current system, EP A should provide that year 2000 lists be based <br />on the existing regulations, with the next list thereafter to be based upon the new requirements, <br />Alternatively, EPA could move immediately to a five-year listing cycle, so that the next list (after the <br />1998 list) is due in 2003, based upon the new regulations. <br /> <br />Prioritization and Scheduling <br /> <br />EPA unwisely equates priority ranking of listed water bodies with the development of a <br />schedule for TMDL development. The proposal would require that "TMDLs for high-priority water <br />bodies and pollutant combinations should be established before medium and low-priority water body <br />and pollutant combinations," This absolute requirement ignores the fact that TMDL development for <br />some high priority water bodies can be complex and time-consuming, On the other hand, the <br />development of TMDLs for some lower priority water bodies may be relatively simple and easy to <br />accomplish, It is very inefficient to require that all TMDL development for lower priority water bodies <br />be delayed -- potentially for many years -- until all of the complex TMDLs needed for higher priority <br />water bodies are completed, <br /> <br />Consistent with our proposal for a functional equivalency provision, the Council also believes <br /> <br /> <br />that states should be allowed to develop their own prioritization process. Many states have such a <br /> <br /> <br />process in place. As long as equivalent results can be realized, a state should be free to pursue a <br /> <br /> <br />process geared to its circumstances and needs. <br /> <br />Encouraging, but not mandating, that water bodies where threatened or endangered species are <br /> <br /> <br />impacted by impaired water quality be given a high priority is appropriate, However, EPA's proposed <br /> <br /> <br />mechanism for achieving this goal is inappropriately based on requiring states to prove a negative. <br /> <br /> <br />Instead, the rules should require states to consider the effects on endangered and threatened species in <br /> <br /> <br />establishing priorities and schedules, <br /> <br />Schedule Modifications <br /> <br />7 <br />