Laserfiche WebLink
<br />032980 <br /> <br />Position No, 228 <br /> <br />It is unrealistic to expect that a comprehensive schedule for the development of all TMDLs <br />needed in a state (over, e,g" a IS-year time frame) can be maintained without modification over time, <br />To help avoid unrealistic expectations and an illusion of certainty regarding the initial schedules <br />submitted, EPA should explicitly recognize the potential need for modifications of schedules during <br />subsequent listing cycles and establish some parameters for such modifications, For example, <br />modifications should be allowed where a rationale is provided by the state that demonstrates that <br />substantial efforts have been undertaken and that new information or unanticipated difficulties make the <br />previous schedule unrealistic or make a revised schedule more effective in making overall progress <br />toward water quality improvement. In order to evaluate the need for such modifications, a review <br />should be performed periodically, perhaps every five years, Alternatively, EPA may wish to consider <br />requiring states to set more definitive, shorter term TMDL development goals. This option would be <br />especially compatible with our proposed five-year reporting cycle and would allow greater assurances <br />of compliance on the part of states, <br /> <br />Transitional TMDLs <br /> <br />EPA is proposing that it will approve any TMDL submitted within 12 months of the final rule <br />changes if it meets either the pre-amendment requirements or the post-amendment requirements. The <br />Council strongly supports this proposal. TMDL processes are often lengthy and many TMDL <br />development efforts are currently underway, Without a provision in the amended rule such as that <br />proposed to address transitional TMDLs, there would be a need to stop and re-evaluate or revise <br />pending TMDL development efforts to assure that the new requirements were met, This result would <br />be an inefficient use of resources and would hinder the progress of efforts toward water quality <br />improvement. <br /> <br />Implementation Plans <br /> <br />EPA proposes than an implementation plan be developed and submitted to EPA for approval as <br /> <br /> <br />part of each TMDL. The new provisions add confusion and controversy to an already burdened <br /> <br /> <br />process, The Council supports implementation ofTMDL's, however suggests that EPA should utilize <br /> <br /> <br />the established function of water quality management plans under current regulatory provisions of <br /> <br />8 <br />