Opinion ID: 3184650
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Maximum Extent Practicable

Text: The Water Groups argue that the 20% restoration requirement is too opaque to comply with 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii), the MEP standard. They so argue because, they contend, MDE “failed to provide a specific performance standard for restoration activities” or a “numeric limitation . . . for what pollution reductions must be accomplished by the permittees’ twenty-percent restoration efforts.” They also argue that MDE failed to explain what impervious surface is “not restored to the MEP.” We disagree because (1) the applicable law does not impose a specific performance standard on MS4s and (2) MDE did actually select a performance standard for the Counties to adhere to. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii) states: Permits for discharges from municipal storm sewers shall require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques and system, design and engineering 33 methods, and such other provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants. From the text, we discern that Congress established a broad requirement for MS4s. The list of required controls is not exclusive. See 55 Fed. Reg. at 48,038 (“[MS4] controls may be different in different permits.”). And the purpose of the controls—reducing the discharge of pollutants—exists alongside the flexible, undefined standard “to the maximum extent practicable.” See City of Abilene v. EPA, 325 F.3d 657, 659–60 (5th Cir. 2003); Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation, 25 N.Y.3d 373, 406 (N.Y. 2015) (Rivera, J., dissenting in part) (“The CWA does not define the maximum extent practicable standard. However, it appears to provide broad authority to agencies to control stormwater pollution.”); 55 Fed. Reg. at 48,038 (“In enacting section 405 of the WQA [Water Quality Act], Congress recognized that permit requirements for [MS4s] should be developed in a flexible manner to allow site-specific permit conditions to reflect the wide range of impacts that can be associated with these discharges.”). 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii) imposes no minimum standard or requirement on MDE other than to establish controls for MS4s to reduce the discharge of pollutants. See Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 966 F.2d 1292, 1308 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Congress did not mandate [in § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii)] a minimum standards approach or specify that EPA develop minimal performance requirements. . . . . Congress could have written a statute requiring stricter standards, and it did not.”). Thus, we reject the Water Groups’ 34 argument that MDE committed legal error by “fail[ing] to provide a specific performance standard for restoration activities.”41 Moreover, MDE tethered restoration to the practices in the Manual, which MDE incorporates into the Permits by reference. See Part III.E (“These management programs are designed to control stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable . . . .”); Part III.E.1 (“At a minimum, the County shall . . . [i]mplement the stormwater management . . . practices found in the [Manual] . . . .”). The Manual explains that the list of acceptable stormwater management practices is tied to the WQv. “The Water Quality Volume (denoted as the WQv) is the storage needed to capture and treat the runoff from 90% of the average annual rainfall.” CWP & MDE, Manual, § 2.1, at 2.2. 42 The Manual further explains that the “WQv is directly related to the amount of impervious cover created at a 41 A review of the EPA’s guidance on MS4s shows that the restoration requirement does have a numeric limitation—20%, which denotes the minimum percentage of impervious surface with respect to which the Counties must implement stormwater management practices from the Manual in order to fulfill this Permit requirement. See EPA, 2014 Memo at 4 n.5. (A numeric effluent limitation has “a quantifiable or measurable parameter related to a pollutant . . . . Numeric WQBELs may include . . . limits on pollutant discharges by specifying parameters such as . . . percentage or amount of effective impervious cover . . . .”). In other words, the EPA’s guidance shows that numeric limits need not be limits on pollution reduction to be acceptable. The limits can, alternatively, specify parameters such as percentage of impervious cover. 42 By connecting restoration practices to the water quality volume (“WQv”) standard, MDE acted in accordance with the EPA’s then most recent guidance on the development of BMPs. See EPA, Revisions to the November 22, 2002 Memorandum “Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs” 3 (Nov. 12, 2010) (“Where WQBELs in permits for stormwater discharges from MS4s . . . . are expressed in the form of BMPs, the permit should contain objective and measurable elements (e.g., schedule for BMP installation or level of BMP performance).”) [hereinafter “2010 Memo”]. 35 site.” Id. In other words, MDE chose a standard that relates to the very problem the 20% restoration requirement serves to abate: the increase in stormwater runoff and the discharge of pollutants because of the increase in impervious surfaces. See CWP & MDE, Manual, § 1.1., at 1.4 (“As can be seen, the volume of stormwater runoff increases sharply with impervious cover.”). Thus, the record reflects that MDE has established a performance standard, WQv, that defines as acceptable those practices the Counties may choose from to fulfill the 20% restoration requirement. See id. § 2.7 (Acceptable Urban BMP Options). Moreover, our discussion of restoration is instructive as to why, despite the Water Groups’ contention, the “impervious surface area that is not restored to the MEP” is sufficiently clear and measurable. (Emphasis added.) The area that is not restored to the MEP is the area without the restoration controls described in the Manual. Moreover, the Manual explains that impervious area refers to an area “that does not have vegetative or permeable cover.” CWP & MDE, Manual, § 2.1, at 2.4. Put together, the “impervious surface area that is not restored to the MEP” refers to a defined type of area (impervious surface) lacking a type of stormwater management control (the BMPs in the Manual). By way of example, previous MS4 reports delineate these criteria so that MDE can evaluate whether Montgomery County (in this example) installed the required controls. See Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, Annual Report for 2006 NPDES MS4 Permit F2, at III-64; see also 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii) (MS4 permits “shall require controls” such as management practices.). Because 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii) does not require a specific performance standard, and because the concepts of restoration and impervious surface “not restored 36 to the MEP” are sufficiently clear as to the controls that the Counties must install, the 20% restoration requirement in the Permits complies with the MEP standard. See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii). B. Substantial Evidence and Arbitrary and Capricious The Water Groups also argue that MDE has not explained why it selected 20% as the restoration goal or how this Permit provision will promote necessary pollution reduction. The Water Groups contend that MDE ineffectively justifies its choice based on the Bay TMDL because the Permits do not assure that the Counties will achieve the Bay TMDL’s objectives or reductions. Even accepting a connection between the 20% restoration requirement and the Bay TMDL, the Water Groups argue that MDE still failed to take into account numerous other TMDLs related to the Counties’ waters. We disagree with the Water Groups’ position because (1) the applicable law affords permitting authorities flexibility in establishing controls for MS4s and (2) MDE has justified its decision based on a well-developed and vetted strategy. Natural Res. Def. Council, 808 F.3d at 569 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). (“We must be ‘satisfied from the record that the agency . . . examine[d] the relevant data and articulate[d] a satisfactory explanation for its action.’”). Congress established a flexible framework in 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii). As the text states, MS4s shall require controls “and such other provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants.” 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii) (emphasis added). MDE has determined that the 20% restoration requirement is a key strategy in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. See Part VI.A 37 (Chesapeake Bay Restoration by 2025.). The Permits in particular state that the Counties will carry out the 20% restoration requirement in order to comply with the Bay TMDL. Id. A review of Maryland’s Watershed Implementation Plan (“WIP”) is instructive as to why the 20% restoration requirement will help to restore the Chesapeake Bay. MDE, Basis for Final Determination. As we have discussed, WIPs are “roadmaps” setting forth a plan for how and when a jurisdiction will reach the pollution reduction goals in the Bay TMDL. EPA, Bay TMDL ES at ES-8. The EPA developed the Bay TMDL “in reliance on” the WIPs that each affected jurisdiction submitted to the EPA. Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n, 792 F.3d at 291 (emphasis added). Moreover, the EPA approved the Bay TMDL “only after” determining that each jurisdiction provided “reasonable assurance” that it would meet the pollutant reductions in its WIP. Id. (emphasis added); see EPA, Bay TMDL ES at ES-8 (The WIPs are the “cornerstone” that ensures accountability to achieve pollution reductions).43 Importantly, the strategies in Maryland’s WIP for urban stormwater include, among other things, the reduction of impervious surface area by 20% over a five-year period, just as the Permits do. Compare Maryland Phase I Watershed Implementation Plan: Executive Summary ES-15 (Dec. 3, 2010) [hereinafter Phase I WIP ES], with Part III.G.2. In fact, restoration of “twenty percent of the counties’ impervious surface area that is not already restored to the maximum extent practicable (MEP)” is listed in the “key elements” that 43 Notably, the EPA expressed no concerns about Maryland’s WIP, whereas the EPA had to implement backstop allocations and adjustments in other Bay jurisdictions so that the EPA had reasonable assurance that all jurisdictions would achieve necessary reductions. See EPA, Bay TMDL ES at ES-10–13. 38 provide reasonable assurance of the implementation of Maryland’s WIP. Maryland Phase I Watershed Implementation Plan: § 5.2.2, at 5-30 (Dec. 3, 2010). MDE incorporated another important element from the WIP to bolster compliance with the 20% restoration requirement. The EPA explained that the WIPs were to include “mechanisms to track and report implementation activities” and “provide alternative approaches.” EPA, Chesapeake Bay TMDL ES at ES-8–ES-9. Maryland’s WIP thus includes what we refer to as the adaptive management approach, whereby additional or alternative practices are implemented if existing programs are not meeting target reductions. Phase I WIP at 5-30.44 MDE incorporated this approach from the WIP into the Permits as part of the agency’s review of the Counties’ annual reports: “BMP and program modifications shall be made” if the Counties fail to comply with the Permits or fail to show progress in meeting WLAs of EPA-approved TMDLs.45 We are satisfied from the record that MDE “examine[d] the relevant data and articulate[d] a satisfactory explanation for its action.” Natural Res. Def. Council, 808 F.3d at 569 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude, then, that MDE’s decision to include the 20% restoration 44 We also sometimes refer to this as the “iterative” process, a phrase MDE uses to refer to the same sequence of events in the Permits. 45 We will explore the relationship between TMDLs and WLAs in more detail in our discussion of the Water Groups’ challenge to the TMDL planning requirement in the Permits. 39 requirement in the Permits was supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary and capricious.46 Although we recognize that MDE issued the Montgomery County Permit before Maryland’s WIP and the Bay TMDL were prepared, the Bay TMDL was not an isolated event. See Am. Farm Bureau, 984 F. Supp. 2d at 298 (The Bay TMDL “is not a new or recent idea,” and thus, “it would be improper to view the Final TMDL in a vacuum as a single, isolated effort to restore water quality to the Chesapeake Bay.”). As we have discussed, an important prior effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay was the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. To achieve the restoration goals of that agreement, the Governor of Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay Cabinet prepared a draft of the State’s plan. Department of Legislative Services, Office of Policy Analysis, Chesapeake Bay Restoration and the Tributary Strategy: An Analysis of Maryland’s Efforts to Meet the Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement iii (2007). The strategy for stormwater included restoration of impervious surface in Montgomery County, the first County to successfully implement this program. Id. at 13. The State conceived of this 46 To the extent that the Water Groups seek to challenge the soundness of a past action, i.e., Maryland’s WIP, this is not the proper forum for such a challenge. See In re City of Moscow, Idaho, 10 E.A.D. 135, 2001 WL 988721, at  (EAB July 27, 2001) (“[W]e find that this is not the appropriate forum for raising this issue [of a time period incorporated into a TMDL]. We agree with the Region (Ten of the EPA) that Petitioner’s allegations are in essence challenges to,” among other things, “the Region’s decision to approve the Paradise Creek TMDL.” Petitioner “should have” raised that challenge earlier.). As to the soundness of Maryland’s WIP, for example, the Water Groups should have raised that challenge in the litigation over the EPA’s decision to promulgate the Bay TMDL. See Brief for Water Groups at 40, Blue Water Balt. v. Md. Dep’t of the Env’t (No. 44) (“Nor does Appendix A to the Phase II WIP . . . explain how the twenty-percent restoration requirement relates to the need to reduce the discharge of pollutants . . . .”). 40 strategy as an effective state-wide method of improving the Chesapeake Bay. See Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy Statewide Implementation Plan 16 (2008) (stormwater strategy). Thus, MDE’s decision to include the 20% restoration requirement in the Montgomery County Permit was also supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious. We further disagree with the Water Groups’ position that the 20% restoration requirement is insufficient because it does not relate to other TMDLs. Indeed, the Permits incorporate a requirement to submit plans regarding WLAs for all EPA-approved TMDLs. That requirement ensures the Permits address all applicable TMDLs.47 C. The Methodology in the Guidance Finally, with respect to the 20% restoration requirement, the Water Groups object to MDE’s method of calculating impervious surface area not restored to the MEP. They assert that the Guidance, which MDE incorporated into these Permits by reference, is flawed because MDE arbitrarily selected 2002 as the baseline for measuring impervious surface area. For example, the Water Groups allege that MDE has ignored the current definition for MEP in the agency’s own regulations. 47 We also find unpersuasive the Water Groups’ reliance on the EPA’s discussion of the MEP standard when the EPA promulgated rules for MS4 permitting. See NPDES— Regulations for Revision of the Water Pollution Control Program Addressing Storm Water Discharges, 64 Fed. Reg. 68,722, 68,754 (Dec. 8, 1999). Although the Water Groups stress that “specific local concerns” are a factor for MS4s to consider in selecting controls to reduce pollutant discharges, that factor is one of many from a non-exclusive list. The more enlightening aspect of the EPA’s commentary is that the agency “intentionally [did] not provide[] a precise definition of MEP to allow maximum flexibility in MS4 permitting.” Id. 41 We disagree with the Water Groups because MDE reasonably justifies its decision based on the accurate determination that 2002 marked a significant milestone in the State’s treatment of water quality. See Najafi, 418 Md. at 173, 12 A.3d at 1261 (discussing the substantial evidence test); Natural Res. Def. Council, 808 F.3d at 569 (discussing the arbitrary and capricious test). MDE explained its selection of 2002 in the Guidance: “Maryland regulations and local ordinances began requiring BMPs [around this time] to address a specific suite of volumes [recharge (Rev), water quality (WQv), and channel protection (Cpv)] and it can therefore be justified that water quality treatment has been provided to the MEP.” MDE, Guidance at 4. In proposing new regulations for stormwater management in 2000, MDE explained: “The resulting program will provide water quality treatment of up to 90 percent of the average annual rainfall throughout the State, establish ground water recharge standards, and outline a channel erosion control strategy.” 27 Md. Reg. at 1168. Additionally, MDE explained that prior regulations had provided “sparse guidance” on “water quality enhancement.” Id. To bolster MDE’s focus on water quality, the agency incorporated the Manual by reference into the 2000 regulations. See id. at 1170; see also CWP & MDE, Manual § 2.1, at 2.2 (“The WQv is directly related to the amount of impervious cover created at a site.”). The Water Groups reject MDE’s decision by arguing that Maryland’s regulations currently define “maximum extent practicable” based on a different requirement the State imposed after 2002. That is, COMAR 26.17.02.02B(22) defines MEP as the design of “stormwater management systems so that all reasonable opportunities for using ESD 42 planning techniques and treatment practices are exhausted and, only where absolutely necessary, a structural BMP is implemented.” (Emphasis added.) MDE has explained, however, that pursuant to the Stormwater Management Act of 2007, which precipitated the regulatory change the Water Groups refer to,48 the performance requirement ESD pertains to “future development,” not to restoration. MDE, Basis for Final Determination. As set forth in EN § 4-203(b)(1), “[t]he rules and regulations shall [i]ndicate that the primary goal of the State and local programs will be to maintain after development, as nearly as possible, the predevelopment runoff characteristics.”) (emphasis added). See also COMAR 26.17.02.01B (“These regulations for stormwater management apply to the development or redevelopment of land . . . .”). MDE has reached a correct legal conclusion, and one regarding the law in which the agency has expertise. See John A., 400 Md. at 381–82, 929 A.2d at 147 (“In reviewing an agency’s legal conclusions, it is a fundamental principle of administrative law that a reviewing court should not substitute its judgment for the expertise of those persons who constitute the administrative agency.”). We find no error here. Although the agency selected ESD as the MEP via regulation in 2009,49 MDE chose 2002 because that year marked the beginning of the stormwater management era when BMPs were subjected to performance standards to better treat water quality. 27 Md. Reg. at 1168. WQv is one such standard. CWP & MDE, Manual § 1.2, at 1.13. The Manual 48 See Fiscal and Policy Note, H.B. 786, 2007 Sess. (2007). 49 See 36 Md. Reg. 652, 652 (April 24, 2009) (to be codified at COMAR 26.17.02.02B(22)). 43 shows a direct relationship between the amount of impervious surface and WQv. Id. § 2.1, at 2.3 (Figure 2.2). Thus, beginning in 2002, Maryland connected stormwater management practices to the restoration of impervious surface area, which is the Permit requirement at issue. MDE’s conclusion that the Counties should calculate impervious surface area using 2002 as a baseline as part of the 20% restoration requirement was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious. See Banks, 354 Md. at 69, 729 A.2d at 381 (“[T]he expertise of the agency in its own field should be respected.”).50 Because we uphold the Guidance as a component the Counties may legally use to achieve the 20% restoration requirement, we must address whether Montgomery County can use this methodology, too. We recognize that MDE issued the Montgomery County Permit before MDE prepared the Guidance. Compare Montgomery County Permit: Part I: C (Effective Date: February 16, 2010), with MDE, Basis for Final Determination at 10 (MDE held meetings with the Counties about the Guidance from August 2010 to February 2011 before completing it in June 2011.). As we have discussed, MDE limited the practices the County could implement by connecting restoration to the Manual. But, importantly, MDE did not limit the manner in which Montgomery County could show its compliance with the 20% restoration requirement. See, e.g., Montgomery County Permit: Part G.2 50 Moreover, MDE explained that it designed the Permit to incentivize use of ESD even though it did not tailor the 20% restoration requirement to this concept. MDE, Basis for Final Determination (“[T]he Guidance clearly shows that ESD practices will be given greater pollutant load reductions than other acceptable water quality treatment practices.”); see MDE, Accounting for Stormwater Wasteload Allocations and Impervious Acres Treated, Guidance for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Permits at 10, Table 4: Structural BMP Retrofit Matrix (2011) [hereinafter “the Guidance”]. 44 (Watershed Restoration), Part IV.A (Annual Reporting). Because the Permit does not restrict how the County must show its progress in achieving the 20% restoration requirement and because of the important links we have already analyzed between the Guidance and the Manual (i.e., the WQv standard), we conclude that Montgomery County can rely on the Guidance in showing its compliance with this requirement. Part II: TMDL Plans As we discussed at the outset of this opinion, TMDLs are informational tools, of which WLAs—wasteload allocations—are critical. As the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania aptly noted, “WLAs are not permit limits per se; rather they still require translation into permit limits . . . .” Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n, 984 F. Supp. 2d at 328 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). The EPA requires such translation pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B), which the Water Groups argue MDE failed to comply with.51 Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B), MDE included a provision that requires the Counties to submit plans for all EPA-approved TMDLs one year after the issuance of the Permits (or alternatively, one year after the EPA approves the TMDL).52 51 After analyzing this challenge, we will return to discuss the TMDL planning requirement in the final section of this opinion, which concerns the Water Groups’ argument that all the Permits fail to comply with federal and state public participation laws. 52 We shall sometimes refer to this Permit requirement as the TMDL implementation plans or the restoration plans. We stress that this requirement is distinct from the 20% restoration requirement. The operative word here is plan whereas the operative phrase with respect to the 20% restoration requirement is restoration of 20% of impervious surface area. In other words, MDE is assessing the former by looking for the submission of a 45 In creating these restoration plans, the Counties must select actions (including cost estimates) and set forth a schedule (including deadlines and pollution reduction benchmarks) to meet WLAs. Because MDE foresaw the process of meeting WLAs as “iterative,” the Counties must also describe what actions they will take when they fail to make progress in meeting WLAs.53 Effluent Limitations Must Be Consistent with WLAs 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B) requires MDE to establish effluent limitations that take into account WLAs: When developing water quality-based effluent limits under this paragraph the permitting authority shall ensure that[] . . . [e]ffluent limits developed to protect a narrative water quality criterion, a numeric water quality criterion, or both, are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of any available wasteload allocation for the discharge prepared by the State and approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 130.7. (emphasis added). The Water Groups construe the contents of the TMDL implementation plans, that is, the actions and deadlines discussed supra, as effluent limitations. As they put it, nothing else in the Permits is “remotely capable of . . . impos[ing] effluent limitations that are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of TMDLs.” Thus, the Permits can only be in compliance with 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B) when MDE has reviewed the planning document and analyzing the latter by reviewing the amount of impervious surface area the Counties have restored. 53 As we mentioned earlier, we sometimes refer to this process as the adaptive management approach to the Counties’ implementation of BMPs. 46 contents of the TMDL implementation plans. The problem for MDE, then, is one of timing. Because MDE will review the contents one year after issuing the Permits, the Water Groups conclude that MDE cannot know whether the effluent limitations in the Permits are consistent with the WLAs. We disagree with the Water Groups because (1) 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B) is, like the MEP standard, flexible as to how a permitting authority complies with this regulation and (2) MDE has complied with the regulation by incorporating the WLAs (the most critical element of the regulation) into the Permits and by using an “iterative” process of agency review and program change to ensure progress in meeting the WLAs. Before we analyze MDE’s “iterative” process, we must take issue with the Water Groups’ position that the contents of the restoration plans are effluent limits. We understand the effluent limits to be best management practices (“BMPs”).54 But, importantly, the Permits do not incorporate these effluent limits in the restoration plans but in another section of the Permits—Part III.E. That is, the Counties must implement a stormwater management program (“SWMP”), including the “practices found in the 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual.”55 Importantly, the Permits instruct that “these 54 The EPA provided guidance that, at the time MDE was designing the Permits, endorsed this approach. See EPA, 2002 Memo at 4 (Effluent limits “should be expressed as best management practices (BMPs) or other similar requirements, rather than as numeric effluent limits.”); EPA, 2010 Memo at 3 (“Where WQBELs in permits for stormwater discharges from MS4s . . . are expressed in the form of BMPs, the permit should contain objective and measurable elements (e.g., . . . level of BMP performance.).”). The level of BMP performance, as we have discussed, is the WQv standard. 55 These practices are best management practices. See, e.g., CWP & MDE, Manual § 1.3 (“[Chapter 2] also briefly outlines the six groups of acceptable BMPs that can be used 47 [management] programs shall be integrated with other permit requirements to promote a comprehensive adaptive approach toward solving water quality problems.” In this light, we understand the TMDL implementation plans as roadmaps because they describe a plan for achieving a goal (using BMPs to meet WLAs). See, e.g., Montgomery County Permit Part III.J (In the TMDL implementation plans, the County must “describe those actions necessary to meet the storm drain system’s share of WLAs in EPA approved TMDLs.”). The requirement to implement BMPs, however, exists independent of the requirement to submit the TMDL implementation plans. Having clarified this matter, we turn to the regulation to better understand MDE’s obligation with respect to effluent limits and WLAs. We note that the plain text imposes a duty on the permitting authority to ensure that effluent limits are consistent with WLA assumptions and requirements. See In re City of Moscow, Idaho, 2001 WL 988721, at  (“[T]he governing regulations require consistency . . . .”) (emphasis in original). But the text does not instruct the permitting authority as to how it must ensure this consistency. See id. at 8 (noting the lack of detail in the regulation). Instead, the EPA set a minimal, flexible requirement in which the permitting authority is to design a scheme where effluent limits are compatible or in agreement with WLAs. See National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, 54 Fed. Reg. 23,868, 23,870, 23,879 (June 2, 1989) (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 122.44) (“Subparagraph (vii) does not prescribe detailed procedures for to meet recharge and water quality volume sizing criteria.”); see also COMAR 26.17.02.02A, B(5) (defining BMP as it relates to the Manual and the stormwater management chapter of COMAR). 48 developing water quality-based effluent limits. Rather, the regulation prescribes minimum requirements for developing water quality-based effluent limits, and at the same time, gives the permitting authority the flexibility to determine the appropriate procedures for developing water quality-based effluent limits.”); The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 392 (4th ed. 2006) (Consistent means in agreement or compatible.)56; cf. Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n, 984 F. Supp. 2d at 328 (“Accordingly, in some circumstances, a state may write a NPDES permit limit that is different from the WLA, provided that it is consistent with the operative assumptions underlying the WLA.”). In re City of Moscow, Idaho is illustrative of the flexibility the regulation affords MDE. There, the Environmental Appeals Board rejected the City of Moscow’s petition for review of an EPA-issued NPDES permit. 2001 WL 988721, at . In pertinent part, the Board concluded that the EPA (Region X) did not err in creating permit limits although the EPA did not incorporate the design flow rate of an applicable TMDL. Id. at –9. After reviewing 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B) and the regulatory history, see 54 Fed. Reg. 23,868, 23,879, the Board explained that there was no law or rule prescribing how the EPA was to select a flow rate to create effluent limits, In re City of Moscow, Idaho, 2001 WL 988721, at . The Board concluded that the agency acted “well within the discretion accorded [it] under the applicable regulatory scheme.” Id. at . 56 “When conducting a ‘plain meaning analysis,’ dictionary definitions ‘provide a useful starting point for discerning what the legislature could have meant in using a particular term.’” Preston v. State, 444 Md. 67, 84, 118 A.3d 902, 912 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). 49 So too here. No law or regulation specifies how or burdens MDE in undertaking the process of complying with 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B). In fact, as we have discussed, the overarching federal law for MS4s—33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii)—is broad and flexible, too. See Natural Res. Def. Council, 966 F.2d at 1308. Under the Permits, the Counties must include in the TMDL implementation plans the actions needed to meet “WLAs in EPA approved TMDLs.” Part III.J.1. Thus, the Permit ties the activities to WLAs, not to some other benchmark that could be inconsistent with the WLA. As the Permits make clear, “[a]ll EPA approved TMDL’s that establish WLA’s applicable to the County’s storm drain system are incorporated by reference into this permit.” Id. The Counties must also submit “documentation of progress toward meeting applicable WLAs developed under EPA approved TMDLs.” Reporting on WLA progress is reinforced through watershed assessment and restoration requirements. See Part III.F (“[W]atershed assessments shall [s]pecify how restoration efforts will increase progress toward meeting any applicable WLAs included in EPA approved TMDLs.”); Part III.G (The Counties shall annually report on progress toward meeting WLAs.). Moreover, “MDE will review program implementation, annual reports, and periodic data submittal on an annual basis.” The Permit requires “BMP and program modifications” if this report fails to “show progress toward meeting WLAs.” The modifications are a product of the “iterative approach” the Counties must follow if they do not make progress in achieving WLAs. That is, the Counties must propose “additional or alternate stormwater controls” to meet WLAs, which MDE will review and approve, if adequate. 50 Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EDC”) is instructive on the importance of permittee reporting and agency review to ensure compliance with the law. 344 F.3d 832, 858 (9th Cir. 2003). In EDC, the Ninth Circuit vacated a portion of an EPA rule that permitted small MS4s to discharge under a general permitting scheme, and remanded for the EPA to revise the rule to comply with the CWA. Id. at 858.57 The Ninth Circuit stated that the rule did not require the permitting authority to review the MS4 operator’s stormwater management program “to ensure” that the operator’s program would “in fact” comply with the relevant law. Id. at 855 (emphasis in original). Thus, the Ninth Circuit concluded that “nothing prevents the operator of a small MS4 from misunderstanding or misrepresenting its own stormwater situation.” Id. The scheme the Ninth Circuit rejected in EDC is materially different from the scheme in the Permits here. MDE requires reporting, assessment, and adaptation to ensure that the Counties’ BMPs will make progress to achieve WLAs. We find the effluent limits under this scheme to be consistent with approved WLAs. See id. at 856 (“However, stormwater management programs that are designed by regulated parties must, in every instance, be subject to meaningful review by an appropriate regulating entity . . . .”). Thus, the Permits comply with 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B). 57 In a general permitting scheme, a general permit is established with set limits and requirements. See Envtl. Def. Ctr., Inc. v. EPA, 344 F.3d 832, 853 (9th Cir. 2003). Then, a discharger may file a notice of intent (“NOI”), through which the discharger agrees to discharge under the terms of the general permit. Id. “[T]he NOI represents no more than a formal acceptance of terms elaborated elsewhere.” Id. 51 Part III: Monitoring Here, the Water Groups raise two arguments: the Permits do not include federally mandated monitoring to (1) produce representative data in the MS4 jurisdictions and (2) assure compliance with Permit requirements. They contend that MDE elected not to comply with federal regulations that impose the above requirements and that the record does not otherwise show that MDE complied with these laws. MDE responds by defending its monitoring scheme as sufficient to comply with the applicable federal regulations. Moreover, MDE argues that some of the federal provisions are inapposite because they only pertained to the initial application for MS4 permits in the 1990s. A. The Permit’s Monitoring Requirements We begin by noting what the Permits require. Under Part III.F, each County must conduct chemical, biological, and physical monitoring at one outfall and an associated instream station.58 The Permits set forth the number of required monitoring events, sampling methods, pollutants, and locations.59 The Counties must also conduct monitoring of stream 58 The designated locations in Anne Arundel County are the Parole Plaza outfall and Church Creek in-stream station in the South River watershed. The watershed in Baltimore County is the Scotts Level Branch watershed. The watershed in Prince George’s County is the Bear Branch watershed. Baltimore City’s location is the Moores Run. Although Montgomery County’s Permit states that the watershed is the Lower Paint Branch watershed, Part III.H.1, the location was changed to the Sligo Creek Watershed after it was determined that the prior location was no longer effective for monitoring purposes. See Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, Annual Report for 2010 NPDES MS4 Permit, at III-26. 59 For chemical monitoring, the Counties must monitor 12 storm events each year, use automated or manual sampling methods, submit three representative samples for laboratory analysis under EPA approved methods, and record continuous flow measurements. Part IV.F.1. The Counties must obtain pollutant samples for biochemical 52 channel protection.60 These two levels of monitoring occur at different locations. Compare note 58, with note 60.