Opinion ID: 1269179
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence Supporting the Categorical Exclusion of Impaired Waters From Tier II Protection

Text: Plaintiffs next argue that, even if Kentucky's use of a water body-by-water body approach in classifying waters for Tier II protection is permissible, the Kentucky rules cannot be upheld because the method for selecting waters to be left unprotected is arbitrary and without support in the record. Pl. Br. at 24. Relying on Ohio Valley, Plaintiffs claim that merely listing a water body as impaired is insufficient to justify denial of Tier II protection. They maintain that [t]he fact that a water body fails to meet one or more water quality criteria is not determinative of the overall quality of its water or whether existing `quality of the waters exceed[s] levels necessary to support propagation of fish shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.' Id. at 26 (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2)). Instead of focusing on whether the water is impaired, Plaintiffs argue, Kentucky must look at a full range of `qualification criteria' to determine if a water body is of sufficient quality for Tier II protection. Id. at 25. Because the Kentucky implementation procedures fail to classify Tier II waters on this basis, Plaintiffs contend that the EPA erred in approving them. Defendants counter that exclusion of Tier II protection from impaired waters is consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2). They argue that, because the regulation requires Tier II protection only for waters whose quality supports both aquatic life-based uses and recreation-based uses, Kentucky may reasonably exclude bodies of water from Tier II protection if the water is impaired for any of those uses. [8] We agree with Defendants that Kentucky's exclusion of impaired waters from Tier II protection is consistent with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a). Kentucky's antidegradation implementation procedures provide Tier II protection to the State's exceptional waters and its high quality waters. 401 Ky. Admin. Regs. 5:030 §§ 1(2)(b) and (3)(b). In contrast, Kentucky extends only Tier I protection to surface water categorized as impaired for applicable designated uses unless the surface water is listed as an outstanding state resource water in 401 KAR 5:026. 401 Ky. Admin. Regs. 5:030 § 1(4)(a). The Kentucky regulation clarifies that a surface water categorized as impaired for applicable designated uses shall be a water identified pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1315. Id. Section 1315 (§ 305 of the CWA), however, does not provide a definition of impaired water. Rather, § 1315 requires each State to submit a biennial report to the EPA (§ 305 report) which includes, inter alia: (A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in [the] State during the preceding year . . . (B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of [the] State provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational activities in and on the water; [and] (C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge of pollutants and a level of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the water, have been or will be achieved by the requirements of [the CWA], together with recommendations as to additional action necessary to achieve such objectives and for what waters such additional action is necessary. 33 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1). Section 1315 does not require this report to include an identification of impaired waters. Instead, the requirement to identify impaired waters in this § 305 report seems to come from 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1) (§ 303(d) of the CWA) which requires each State to identify those waters within its boundaries for which the effluent limitations required by [the CWA] are not stringent enough to implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1)(A). Kentucky submits its § 303(d) list of such impaired waters as part of its annual § 305 report. See, e.g., J.A. at 788 (2004 Kentucky Report to Congress on Water Quality). This list of impaired waters includes all waters not supporting one or more designated uses. Final 2006 Integrated Report to Congress on the Condition of Water Resources in Kentucky, Volume II, p. 1 (April 4, 2007). Thus, the Kentucky antidegradation implementation regulation clarifies that [s]urface water categorized as impaired shall be assessed by the [C]abinet as not fully supporting any applicable designated uses. 401 Ky. Admin. Regs. 5:030 § 1(4)(a). The EPA approved Kentucky's exclusion of impaired waters from Tier II protection, finding it to be consistent with the federal requirement that high quality waters have water quality that supports both aquatic life-based uses and recreation-based uses. J.A. at 184 (EPA Approval Document). In approving Kentucky's classification of Tier II waters, the EPA noted that, as Plaintiffs have argued, Kentucky did not implement a strict water body-by-water body approach: Kentucky's combined selection criteria for classification of waters for antidegradation purposes combines some elements of the designational approach and some elements of the pollutant-by-pollutant approach. Qualification for the exceptional waters category [which receive Tier II protection] is based on meeting certain criteria, which include high levels of biological diversity, recognition of outstanding values through other statutory provisions, exceptional aesthetic or ecological values, historical significance, or high levels of water quality. This is typically considered a designational approach. However, in adopting the category high quality waters [which are also afforded Tier II protection], Kentucky has chosen to create a default category that contains all other waters of the Commonwealth, unless the water is an ONRW or has been show to be impaired for a designated use. This approach is clearly not a designational approach, since no data are required for a water to be placed in the high quality waters category, and Kentucky does not maintain a listing of high quality waters that have been classified in that category. Qualification for the impaired waters category (i.e., the only waters of the Commonwealth that are not considered for [Tier II] protection, at a minimum) is based solely on a determination by Kentucky that a water body does not meet the 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2) requirement for waters that exceed levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water. (emphasis added). This method of exclusion of waters from consideration as [Tier II] waters combines some concepts of both approaches, in that chemical and biological data are evaluated in making an impairment decision, but the final decision to include waters in this category is based on whether each designated use for the water body is being attained. J.A. at 185-86 (EPA Approval Document) (emphasis in original). The EPA found that Kentucky's use of this hybrid approach for classifying Tier II waters is consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2). The EPA also noted that Kentucky's categorization approach is similar to the approach approved by EPA Region 4 in Alabama and Tennessee. J.A. at 186 (EPA Approval Document). Plaintiffs nevertheless contend that merely listing a water as impaired for its designated uses is insufficient to justify denial of Tier II protection. Plaintiffs rely on Ohio Valley for support. This reliance, however, is misplaced. In Ohio Valley, the issue faced by the court was whether there was sufficient evidence in the record to permit the EPA's approval of West Virginia's exclusion of Tier II protection from particular segments of the Monongahela and Kanawha rivers. 279 F.Supp.2d at 746. The court found the that the administrative record was insufficient to support the EPA's decision because the only evidence pertaining to the water quality of those river segments was the fact that both river segments [were] on a list of impaired waters prepared by the WVDEP for submission to the EPA under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Id. at 748. The court noted that other waters on that list had been classified as Tier II and that the EPA had provided no justification for why the particular impairments to Monongahela and Kanawha river segments rendered those rivers Tier I as opposed to other listed waters with similar impairments. Id. at 749. In other words, the problem that the court found with the EPA's evidence was not that it classified the rivers as Tier I based upon their impairment, but rather that the EPA did not have any evidence to justify treating some impaired waters as Tier I while classifying others as Tier II. Accordingly, Ohio Valley cannot properly be read to stand for the proposition that a water's impairment is not enough to exclude it from Tier II protection when all impaired waters are treated the same for antidegradation purposes. Perhaps recognizing the flimsy support provided by Ohio Valley, Plaintiffs alternatively argue that excluding impaired waters from Tier II protection is arbitrary because, under such an approach, a water body's exclusion from Tier II protection is determined by the designated uses of the water rather than by the water's overall quality. However, this argument overlooks the fact that 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2) links a water body's relevant quality level to its designated uses. Under this regulation, Kentucky's implementation procedures must provide Tier II protection to all of Kentucky's waters whose quality exceed levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water. 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2) (emphasis added). In other words, Kentucky must provide Tier II protection to waters whose quality is better than the minimum level of quality needed to support aquatic-life based uses, wildlife uses, and recreational uses. Impaired waters, which, by definition do not have the quality needed to support their uses and must be assessed by the [C]abinet as not fully supporting any designated uses, 401 Ky. Admin. Regs. 5:030 § 1(4)(a) (emphasis added), do not fall within this category of Tier II waters. Impaired waters do not even have the minimum quality level that is necessary to support their designated uses, let alone a quality that is better than necessary to support aquatic-life based uses, wildlife uses, and recreational uses. Plaintiffs have failed to convincingly explain how the exclusion of such waters from Tier II protection is problematic under 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the EPA's approval of Kentucky's exclusion of impaired waters from Tier II protection was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.