Opinion ID: 1269179
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: EPA's Approval of Kentucky's Selection of Waters for Tier II Protection

Text: Plaintiffs first challenge concerns the EPA's approval of the way in which Kentucky designates waters for Tier II protection. Kentucky's antidegradation implementation procedures divide Kentucky's water bodies into four categories: (1) outstanding national resource water (ONRW); (2) exceptional water; (3) high quality water; and (4) impaired water. See 401 Ky. Admin. Regs. 5:030. ONRWs, which consist of about 30 miles of two streams and all of the underground rivers in Mammoth Cave National Park, are afforded Tier III protection. See 401 Ky. Admin. Regs. 5:030 § 1(1)(a)-(b). Exceptional water, which consists of water bodies satisfying the criteria set forth in 401 Ky. Admin. Regs. 5:030 § 1(2)(a), receives Tier II protection. See 401 Ky. Admin. Regs. 5:030 § 1(2)(b). High quality water, which is defined as all water that is not designated as ONRW, exceptional water, or impaired water, is also afforded Tier II protection. See 401 Ky. Admin. Regs. 5:030 § 1(3)(a)-(b). Finally, impaired water, which consists of those water bodies for which one or more designated uses are listed as impaired by Kentucky in its biennial report required under 33 U.S.C. § 1315, is afforded Tier I protection. See 401 Ky. Admin. Regs. 5:030 § 1(4)(a)-(b). Plaintiffs contend that the EPA's approval of Kentucky's exclusion of impaired waters from Tier II protection was arbitrary and capricious for three reasons. First, Plaintiffs maintain that Kentucky's use of a water body-by-water body approach instead of a parameter-by-parameter approach for determining which waters merit Tier II protection was inconsistent with the goals of the CWA and the language of 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2). Second, Plaintiffs claim that, even if the regulations permitted Kentucky to use a water body-by-water body approach, Kentucky's categorical exclusion of waters listed as impaired under 33 U.S.C. § 1315 is arbitrary and unsupported by the evidence in the record. Third, and finally, Plaintiffs argue that exclusion of impaired water from Tier II protection results in the exclusion of a substantial number of Kentucky's water bodies from Tier II protection. We find none of these arguments to have merit.
Plaintiffs first contend that the EPA contradicted the CWA by approving Kentucky's water body-by-water body approach to antidegradation policy implementation because both the CWA and 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2) require States to adopt a parameter-by-parameter approach in designating which waters receive Tier II protection. The district court rejected a similar argument, see Kentucky Waterways, 426 F.Supp.2d at 631-33, and we likewise find the argument unpersuasive. The EPA's CWA-implementing regulations require States to ensure that waters whose quality exceed[s] levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water receive Tier II protection, i.e., their existing high water quality must be maintained and protected unless it is demonstrated that a lowering of water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development. 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2). However, as the EPA itself has publicly noted in its advance notice of proposed rule-making, the regulation does not include specific guidelines for identifying [these] high quality waters. Water Quality Standards Regulation, 63 Fed.Reg. 36,742, 36,782 (proposed July 7, 1998) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 131). [7] Instead, States and Tribes have developed various ways to identify their [T]ier [II] waters. Id. These approaches for identifying high quality waters fall into two basic categories: (1) pollutant-by-pollutant approaches, and (2) water body-by-water body approaches. Id. Under the pollutant-by-pollutant approach (which is the same as Plaintiffs' parameter-by-parameter approach), the State makes a classification for each pollutant in a given water body. Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Horinko, 279 F.Supp.2d 732, 747 (S.D.W.Va.2003). The water body is then given Tier II protection against those pollutants for which water quality is better than applicable criteria. Water Quality Standards Regulation, 63 Fed.Reg. at 36,782. [A]vailable assimilative capacity for any given pollutant is always subject to [Tier II] protection, regardless of whether the criteria for other pollutants are satisfied. Id. Thus, under this approach, the same water body could be classified as Tier II for certain pollutants and Tier I for other pollutants. See Ohio Valley, 279 F.Supp.2d at 747. Under the water body-by-water body approach (also know as the designational approach), States weigh a variety of factors to judge a water body segment's overall quality. Water Quality Standards Regulation, 63 Fed.Reg. at 36,782. Tier II classification is then based on the overall quality of the water body segment, not on individual pollutants. Ohio Valley, 279 F.Supp.2d at 747. Under this approach, assimilative capacity for a given pollutant may not be subject to [Tier II] protection if, overall, the segment is not deemed `high quality.' Water Quality Standards Regulation, 63 Fed.Reg. at 36,782. The EPA has not found either of these approaches to be compelled by the language of 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2) or the CWA. See id. On the contrary, the EPA has found that [t]here are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. Id. The pollutant-by-pollutant approach is easier to implement for some States because the need for an overall assessment considering various factors is avoided. Id. This approach might also have the benefit of generally including more waters within Tier II protection because it would cover waters that are clearly not attaining goal uses (i.e., waters which are not supporting `fishable/swimmable' goal uses but that possess assimilative capacity for one or more pollutant [sic]). Id. at 36,782-36,783. The water body-by-water body approach, on the other hand, allows for a weighted assessment of chemical, physical, biological, and other information (e.g., unique ecological or scientific attributes). Id. at 36, 783. By allowing the high quality water decision to be made in advance of the antidegradation review, this approach may facilitate implementation. Id. The approach also allows States and Tribes to focus limited resources on protecting higher-value State or Tribal waters. Id. Accordingly, the EPA has concluded that neither approach is clearly superior and that either, when properly implemented, is acceptable. Id. at 36, 782. Likewise, the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, the only court which has previously considered this issue, has also concluded that the federal statute and regulations do not require States to choose the pollutant-by-pollutant approach over the water body-by-water body approach. See Ohio Valley, 279 F.Supp.2d at 747. On the contrary, in Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Horinko , that court found that the EPA's regulations permit a State to adopt a water body-by-water body approach to classification, assuming that this approach is implemented adequately. Id. Plaintiffs nevertheless contend that the language of 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a) requires a pollutant-by-pollutant approach. They emphasize the fact that the regulation speaks of protecting levels of quality rather than protecting `high quality waters.' Pl. Br. at 23. They argue that, because the regulation protects the quality of waters when that quality exceeds levels necessary to support fish and recreation, a water body with safe levels of one or more pollutant must be protected from unnecessary new loadings of that pollutant, even if the water body is suffering from excess loadings of a different pollutant. Id. at 21 (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2)). Thus, they conclude that the regulation requires Tier II protection be determined according to a pollutant-by-pollutant approach. We find Plaintiffs' argument to demonstrate only that a pollutant-by-pollutant approach is consistent with the regulation, not that it is required by the regulation. Plaintiffs' focus on the plural levels ignores the rest of the phrase in which that word appears. The regulation requires protection of water quality when the quality of the waters exceed levels necessary to support the propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water. 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2). This language is susceptible to two interpretations. The first is that offered by Plaintiffs, i.e., that levels refers to the levels of various pollutants in the water body. However, the word levels here could also refer to the overall quality levels necessary to support the various water uses mentioned in the regulation. For any particular water body there could be one quality level necessary to support the propagation of fish, a different quality level necessary to support the propagation of wildlife, and finally a third quality level necessary to support recreation. Either reading seems consistent with the plain language of the regulation and neither reading seems compelled by the language. Given this ambiguity in the regulation, we defer to the EPA's interpretation, see Auer, 519 U.S. at 461, 117 S.Ct. 905, which holds that either approach is permissible. Thus, we do not find the EPA's approval of Kentucky's use of a water body-by-water body approach to be arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
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.
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the district court's decision should be reversed because it is based on the misunderstanding that the approach [the] EPA approved provided for 90% of Kentucky's waters with Tier II protection. Pl. Br. at 27. Plaintiffs contend that the record only shows that 90% of the stream miles that had been studied as of the time of the decision were not listed as impaired and that the 90% stream mile figure does not address the extent to which lakes would be protected. Id. at 28. Plaintiffs maintain that [a]s Kentucky continues to collect data, the percentage of waters found to be impaired is likely to be much higher. Id. We find this final argument to be misguided. While Plaintiffs' criticisms of the district court's calculation of the percentage of Kentucky waters afforded Tier II protection may be well-foundedthe record only indicates that 90% of the stream miles that had been studied at the time of the EPA's decision are afforded Tier II protection, see J.A. at 187 (EPA Approval Document)Plaintiffs fail to explain how the district court's factual mischaracterization of the record is relevant to our de novo evaluation of whether the EPA's approval of Kentucky's antidegradation regulations was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Kentucky's criteria for identifying waters afforded Tier II protection are not to be evaluated based on the percentage of waters for which they provide Tier II protection, but rather upon their consistency with 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2). Neither the CWA nor its implementing regulations specify that a certain percentage of a State's waters must be afforded Tier II protection. As long as all waters whose quality exceed[s] levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water are granted Tier II protection, the regulation is satisfied. 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2). Plaintiffs' contention that less than 90% of Kentucky's waters are afforded Tier II protection does not, by itself, demonstrate that the EPA's approval of Kentucky's antidegradation implementation procedures was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendants with respect to the EPA's approval of Kentucky's method of selecting which waters merit Tier II protection.