70 likes | 264 Views
308 VS. 309 DECISION PROCESS November 2001 WRAP Meeting. Andy Ginsburg, Oregon DEQ Co-Chair IOC Forum. States that can choose 309. Why is this decision important?. Critical Mass Opportunity for regional approach Economic & Workload issues WRAP assistance to states/tribes.
E N D
308 VS. 309 DECISION PROCESSNovember 2001 WRAP Meeting Andy Ginsburg, Oregon DEQ Co-Chair IOC Forum
Why is this decision important? • Critical Mass • Opportunity for regional approach • Economic & Workload issues • WRAP assistance to states/tribes
Process To Meet 2003 SIP/TIP Deadline WRAP Forum Work Local Stakeholder Meetings Local Stakeholder Meetings 308/309 Decision Legislative SIP/TIP Approval Legislative Authority Submit SIP/TIP To EPA Rulemaking WRAP Forum Work
Oregon Time Line Example WRAP Forum work Stakeholder Meetings Rulemaking & submittal Planning process for Legislature Legislative Authority 1/2002 1/2003 7/2003 12/2003
Section 308 More time (2008) Strategies TBD Must address BART Must show Reasonable Progress (2064) Section 309 Less time (2003) Strategies identified Annex satisfies BART Assumes Reasonable Progress (2018) 308 vs 309 Considerations
308 vs 309 Considerations Section 308 • Regional Coordination • WRAP does some work • Economic impact greater? Section 309 • Critical Mass • WRAP does most work • Economic impact less?