responsiveness summary to public comments - US Environmental ...

Page 26 of 40
impairment. EPA, therefore, is retaining Willow Branch on the Missouri’s 303(d) list for an
“unknown” pollutant.
Bear Creek, Adair County (Unclassified)
Comment: Bear Creek should not be listed because it is not a classified stream and does
not have any designated beneficial uses. Therefore, Bear Creek cannot fail to meet that standard.
EPA Response: When there is existing and readily available water quality related data
or information indicating that a narrative criterion is being violated, EPA or MDNR can list a
water. Narrative criteria apply to all waters of the state, classified and unclassified. The
information presented for Bear Creek, demonstrates that the biological community is being
impacted; and, a link can be made to the general criteria at 10CSR7(3)(D) and (G). EPA is
retaining Bear Creek on Missouri’s 303(d) list for an “unknown” pollutant.
III. GENERAL COMMENTS
Designation of Categories of Impaired Waterbodies
Comment: There is no authority for designation of “categories” of impaired waterbodies
in Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act; moreover, despite such lack of authority, the Missouri
Clean Water Commission nevertheless had categorically delisted certain waters (i.e., Category
Two and Four Waters) and included only waterbodies in Categories One and Three.
EPA Response: 40 CFR 130.7, as proposed, included a four-part list requirement which
the State included in its 2002 listing methodology. However, this proposed change to the
existing regulation, which was to have become effective on April 30, 2003, was withdrawn as of
April 18, 2003. There is no language in the currently effective regulation which requires or
prohibits a four-part list. As it stands, the currently effective regulations under 130.7 for
implementing Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act require each State to assemble and evaluate
all existing and readily available water quality related data and information to develop its list of
water quality limited segments still requiring TMDLs. There is no specific statutory or
regulatory language governing the format in which the State must submit its list. Thus, States
have considerable latitude when it comes to describing how lists will be constructed, as long as
they adequately consider the existing and readily available data and information and
appropriately identify waters required to be listed. In addition, although EPA generally reviews
and comments on State listing methodologies, EPA does not approve or disapprove those
methodologies.
The format in which the State submits its list is not relevant to EPA’s review and
approval/disapproval action. EPA reviewed the portion of Missouri’s submission identified as
the Section 303(d) list to ensure the State complied with the requirements of the Clean Water Act
and EPA’s regulations. The State’s Section 303(d) list consisted primarily of Category One