Opinion ID: 3184650
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 20% Restoration Requirement

Text: As to the second limitation, it is true that the Permits do not require monitoring of impervious surfaces in the section entitled “Assessment of Controls,” which contains the focused monitoring requirements. See Part IV.F. But, as we explain, because (1) 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i) contemplates a flexible approach to monitoring and (2) MDE incorporated a clear evaluation tool into the Permits to assess restoration of impervious surfaces, MDE has assured compliance with the 20% restoration requirement under 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i). 83 “The Mid-Atlantic Water Program (MAWP) housed at the University of Maryland (UMD) led a project to develop the components or subcategories of select BMPs and a corresponding definition(s) and effectiveness estimates.” University of Maryland/Mid-Atlantic Water Program, BMP Assessment Final Report 5 (2009). 74 Under the restoration provision, MDE’s approach requires the Counties first to submit an assessment of their impervious surface area within a year of the issuance of the Permits. Part IV.E.2.a. This Permit part incorporates by reference the Guidance, which contains the methodology we discuss herein. In the assessment, the Counties must delineate those portions in their jurisdictions “that are either treated to the [MEP], partially treated, or untreated and available for retrofit.”84 MDE, Guidance at III.4, at 4. To ensure that the Counties implement satisfactory BMPs on their untreated surfaces, MDE requires the Counties to translate the activities into credits. Id. at IV, at 8. This credit system is tethered to the performance standard through which MDE determined which BMPs are satisfactory: the WQv. Id. “An acre for acre impervious credit will be given when a structural BMP is specifically designed to provide treatment for the full WQv (one inch), or [a] proportional acreage of credit will be given when less than the WQ v is provided.” Id. Moreover, for BMPs that “provide greater than one inch of volume control,” the activities “receive additional credit.” Id.85 84 We have already discussed and approved of MDE’s decision to require the Counties to use 2002 as the baseline for determining those impervious surfaces controlled to the MEP. See supra Part I.C: The Methodology in the Guidance. 85 As MDE explained in the Basis for Final Determination, “the Guidance clearly shows that ESD practices will be given greater pollutant load reductions than other acceptable water quality treatment practices.” See MDE, Basis for Final Determination to Issue Anne Arundel County NPDES Permit. By way of example, the pollution reduction rate for total suspended sediment (TSS) for the WQv standard is 80%. MDE established the pollution reduction rate for TSS for a rain garden at 90% and established the rate for the same pollutant for a dry detention pond at 10%. MDE, Guidance, at 10 (Table 4). 75 Because the Counties must adhere to the credit system, MDE can evaluate the jurisdictions’ performances uniformly. The Guidance “standardizes procedures for the reporting of traditional, new, and alternative [BMPs] and the impervious area they control.” MDE, Guidance at 1; id. (“By developing a comprehensive matrix of practices and consistent accounting measures, [MDE] brings greater certainty to the local planning and budgeting process.”). This accounting system is also flexible enough to accommodate more non-traditional activities for which restoration credits are still available. See MDE, Guidance at V, at 11 (“This section presents alternative BMPs that will give jurisdictions greater flexibility toward meeting stormwater permit requirements.”). Moreover, the Counties must report annually on their progress in achieving the 20% restoration requirement. Part V.A.1.a.ix.86 Failure to comply with these requirements— submission of the impervious surface area assessment; implementation of restoration practices on impervious surfaces not controlled to the MEP; and submission of reports on the Counties’ activities according to the credit system—is a violation of the CWA and grounds for agency action. Part VII.C. We find instructive the Second Circuit’s reasoning in upholding, in part, the EPA’s monitoring provisions in permits to regulate the discharge of ballast water from ships. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 808 F.3d at 562.87 As to certain effluent limitations in 86 The Counties must submit annual databases for BMP locations and impervious surface area to document progress toward the 20% restoration requirement. Part IV.A.2.b- c; Attachment A: Annual Report Databases. 87 “A ship takes on and discharges ballast water to compensate for changes in its weight caused by activities such as loading and unloading cargo or consuming fuel or 76 these permits,88 the EPA required the monitoring of “functionality” of a vessel’s ballast water treatment system, and of the concentrations of two specific bacteria. Id. at 581.89 The EPA did not, however, require vessel owners “to take any measurement of pollutants or significant categories of living organisms in ballast water being discharged.” Id. Although environmental organizations argued that the EPA should have required monitoring of the concentrations of living organisms, the Second Circuit concluded that the EPA’s provisions complied with 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i). Id. at 582–83. Because the regulation sanctioned the monitoring of some “other measurement specified in the permit,” the functionality and indicator organism monitoring “qualif[ied] as such ‘other measurement.’” Id. at 582. Although the environmental organizations had advocated for the alternative of “direct monitoring,” the Second Circuit reasoned that dischargers did not have the capacity to quantify living organisms of certain size classes. Id. Moreover, the current technology would require an analysis that was “prohibitively expensive and supplies.” Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 808 F.3d 556, 561 (2d Cir. 2015). During this process, a ship can collect organisms, then discharge them somewhere else, thereby “enabling these organisms to establish new, non-native populations. As a result, ships have become one of the primary ways that invasive species are spread from one waterbody to another.” Id. 88 The specific limitations to which the relevant monitoring provisions in NRDC were applicable restricted the discharges of organisms and of pathogen and pathogen indicators. Id. at 567. 89 Functionality monitoring required a ship owner to measure something to assess system functionality, “such as how much chlorine the system is using each month.” Id. at 581. Indicator organism monitoring required the owner to analyze samples of ballast discharge to determine whether the sample contained “significant levels” of the bacteria. Id. 77 impractical.” Id. There was, in essence, no “feasible” alternative the EPA could have established under these permits. Id. at 582–83. Thus, the Second Circuit deferred to the EPA’s decision. Id. at 583. From NRDC, we discern that a permitting authority has flexibility in how it sets monitoring requirements. As 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i) reveals, the EPA wrote the regulation with the understanding that not every permit limitation could be measured in terms of mass or volume. See 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i)(1)(i) (The regulation requires monitoring of mass “or other measurement specified in the permit.”). In this case, those measurements would not aid the Counties or MDE in evaluating progress toward restoring impervious surface area. Rather, MDE requires the translation of restoration practices, implemented on impervious surface areas, into credits to make restoration of those areas understandable. The agency can also monitor restoration in a uniform manner. From NRDC, we also discern that 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i)(1)(i) requires feasible monitoring. Here, the Guidance not only promotes accountability in a uniform manner but also gives MS4 permittees the flexibility to choose from among approved restoration practices to address local conditions. Flexibility is a hallmark in designing MS4 permits. See 55 Fed. Reg. at 48,038 (“In enacting section 405 of the [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.”). The Water Groups have not presented a feasible alternative that contains both the flexibility and the accountability to assure compliance with the permit limitation that Counties restore 20% of their impervious surface areas. 78 MDE has complied with 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i) by incorporating the Guidance by reference for the Counties to use to meet the 20% restoration requirement. We recognize that MDE did not incorporate the Guidance into the Montgomery County Permit. But that fact is not fatal to that Permit’s ability to comply with 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i). When the County submits its annual report, the County must include databases of impervious acreage and specify those areas treated by BMPs, proposed for restoration, under construction for restoration, and completed. Montgomery County Permit Part IV:A.2, Attachment A: (C). The County must also submit descriptions of the type of BMP it used at specific locations. Id. at Part IV:A.2, Attachment A: (D). As we have discussed, those BMPs are the stormwater practices in the Manual. These reporting requirements will allow MDE to evaluate on a yearly basis the Counties’ compliance with the 20% restoration requirement. We recognize that this reporting system is not as detailed as the method in the Guidance, but 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i) does not include requirements as to the specificity of the measurement the permitting authority selects. See, e.g., Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 808 F.3d at 581 (As to monitoring of a vessel’s ballast water treatment system, the EPA required ship owners to measure system functionality, “such as how much chlorine the system is using each month.”). The Permit also states that the County must merely describe “the results and analysis of data.” Part IV.A.1.b. Because the Permit does not prohibit the type of analysis that the County may use to evaluate the 20% restoration requirement, we conclude that the County may use the Guidance. Thus, we conclude that the Montgomery County Permit complies with 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i) too. 79 Part IV: Public Participation “Many tensions exist between the democratic aspiration of government of the people, by the people, and for the people and modern representative government with its mass electorate and elaborate bureaucracy for carrying out government functions. Nowhere are these tensions more acute than in the domain of environmental policy.” National Research Council, Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision, National Academies Press 7 (2008). The dispute between the Water Groups and MDE over whether the Permits satisfy public participation requirements exemplifies this tension. The Water Groups frame their argument by highlighting the ways in which the Permits’ two most critical elements—the TMDL Plans and the 20% restoration requirement—fail to satisfy public participation requirements. A. TMDL Plans We have discussed at length that the Permits require the Counties to submit TMDL plans and that, among other things, the Permits satisfy 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B), which requires that effluent limits be consistent with WLAs. Nevertheless, the Water Groups contend that the TMDL plans create another problem. The Permits require the Counties to design and submit these plans after the agency approves of the Permits. See, e.g., Montgomery County Permit Part III.J.2 (“Within one year of the effective date of this permit or the approval of an applicable TMDL by EPA, whichever is later, the County shall submit to MDE for review and approval a TMDL implementation plan . . . .”). The Water Groups contend that MDE has “unlawfully circumvent[ed]” federal and state procedural requirements because the restoration plans, 80 which include significant new requirements, come into existence more than one year after the Permits are issued, without providing for public notice and comment.90 The Water Groups characterize this scheme as an “end-run around mandatory permitting requirements” and as an approach that “thwart[s] accountability.” Put simply, the essence of the Water Groups’ argument is that the public cannot comment about decisions that have yet to be made. 1. Permit Modification Specifically, the Water Groups view the TMDL plans that must be submitted to MDE as a modification of the Permits. Federal and state regulations stipulate that a permitting authority must provide the public an opportunity to be heard prior to a modification of a permit authorizing discharges. 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.62, 124.10; EN §§ 1-601, 9-324.91 Courts across the country have cited these federal regulations as well as related state regulations in recognizing the necessity of public participation when a permit has been modified. See, e.g., United States v. Smithfield Foods, 191 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 1999); Citizens for a Better Env’t— California v. Union Oil Co. of California, 83 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, the Water Groups’ argument requires us to determine whether the restoration plans constitute a 90 It is, however, undisputed that MDE provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the reissuance of the Permits. 91 A permitting authority need not engage in public notice and comment procedures for “minor modifications” of a permit. 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.62, 122.63. The restoration plans, however, do not fall within the specific, enumerated list of revisions that constitute a minor modification under 40 C.F.R. § 122.63. Accordingly, the only issue here is whether the TMDL plans are a non-minor modification of the Permits. 81 modification of the Permits triggering an obligation upon MDE to implement the public participation provisions in those regulations. The Permits direct the Counties to develop restoration plans using BMPs that are found in the Manual and discussed again in the Guidance. These documents, which MDE incorporated into the Permits by reference, provide a “menu of options” for the Counties to utilize. By incorporating these documents, MDE made the BMPs available to the Counties at the time the agency issued the Permits. When the Counties submitted (or will submit) restoration plans using these BMPs, no modification will have occurred because the Counties will merely have drawn from the same pool of BMPs that the agency had previously analyzed and approved of for restoration purposes. CWP & MDE, Manual § 2.0 (“This chapter also presents a list of acceptable BMP options that can be used to comply with the sizing criteria,” including, the WQv.); see 27 Md. Reg. at 1168 (to be codified at COMAR 26.07.02) (MDE incorporated the Manual as part of the agency’s effort to enhance its regulations which had until then provided “sparse guidance” on “water quality enhancement.”). Although we recognize that the Counties have selected specific BMPs to implement from among a larger group of BMPs, the larger group still satisfies MDE’s specific performance standard, WQv. Thus, no “material and substantial alterations or additions” will occur after Permit issuance “justify[ing] the application of [] conditions that are different or absent in the existing [P]ermit.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.62(a)(1). 2. Opportunity to Comment The Water Groups also argue that the restoration plans violate federal and state laws on public notice and comment because they are unable to meaningfully comment about 82 decisions that have yet to be made. This argument is unavailing because, as we have explained, the BMPs were previously able for the public to comment on. Indeed, many of the same Water Groups challenging the Permits in this case submitted comments on these BMPs. For example, in the Basis for Final Determination, MDE noted that it “received many, varied and often conflicting comments regarding the Guidance,” which referred to the BMPs, and that the Guidance was “widely distributed and commented on.” One salient BMP that was objected to by some Water Groups was the use of detention facilities, such as detention ponds.92 For example, Natural Resources Defense Council submitted a comment in which they criticized the Guidance as “flawed” because it “overestimate[d] the efficacy of detention ponds” and “overstate[d] the channel protection benefits of detention practices.” Chesapeake Bay Foundation, also a party, commented that detention systems “provid[e] very little water quality benefits.”93 On the other hand, the Water Groups strongly supported the use of ESD in their submitted comments.94 Natural Resources Defense Council proffered that the draft 92 The Guidance classifies detention facilities as a “structural” BMP. 93 The Natural Resources Defense Council, Anacostia Riverkeeper, Maryland Sierra Club, and Potomac Riverkeeper also commented on street sweeping and catch basin cleaning, which are deemed “alternative BMPs” by the Guidance. The Water Groups maintained that these practices were “not the best practices for restoring [] County water bodies.” 94 ESD is another type of BMP which includes green roofs, reinforced turf, dry wells, rain gardens, submerged gravel wetlands, permeable pavements, and other “green infrastructure” BMPs. Nancy Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Water, & Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Enforcement and 83 Guidance “ignore[d] the Maryland statute establishing ESD as the preferred Maryland approach.”95 The Chesapeake Bay Foundation stated that the Permits “should impose a higher performance standard” and recommended that this “be done primarily through Environmental Site Design.”96 In its Basis for Final Determination, MDE responded to the Water Groups’ comments by highlighting its credit approach to improving water quality. MDE explicated that the Guidance incentivized the utilization of ESD practices by granting greater pollution credit for ESD and less credit for structural treatment BMPs such as detention facilities. Furthermore, MDE justified the use of detention ponds and other types of structural BMPs pursuant to the Manual to afford the Counties the “flexibility to implement various strategies based on site specific opportunities.” The comments and MDE’s substantive responses thereto, illustrate that there was a vigorous and pellucid public discussion regarding the practices set forth in the Manual and Guidance, and that Compliance Assurance, Protecting Water Quality with Green Infrastructure in EPA Water Permitting and Enforcement Programs (Apr. 20, 2011). 95 These Water Groups also favored the use of the following BMPs: street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, erosion and sediment control, and storm drain vacuuming. However, they noted that these practices should “not be credited toward restoration or retrofit obligations” because “they do not reduce runoff volume.” 96 Likewise, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Anacostia Riverkeeper, Maryland Sierra Club, and Potomac Riverkeeper endorsed the use of ESD in comments they submitted to MDE. These Water Groups disapproved of the draft Permits because they did “not require or prioritize the use of environmental site design [] techniques” and allowed the Counties “to meet its ‘restoration requirement’ through the use of non-ESD practices.” 84 the agency defended its approach to water improvement strategies as flexible but effective.97 Thus, the record in this case clearly supports that the public had the opportunity and, in fact, actually commented on which BMPs would best meet the MEP standard for restoration purposes.98 In arguing that they cannot comment about decisions that have yet to be made, the Water Groups overlook the fact that the public was able to comment on BMPs—the core component of the TMDL restoration plans. Moreover, even though the Counties create the restoration plans after the Permits are approved, the public is still able to participate in the formulation of the plans. The Permits explicitly provide for “[a] minimum 30 day comment period” before finalization of the restoration plans. In addition, the Counties must give notice in a local newspaper and on their website outlining how the public may obtain information and provide comments on the restoration plans. Critically, the Counties must also include a summary in their annual reports of how they “addressed or will address any material public comments received.” MDE reviews these reports. The Counties are “responsible for complying with all conditions of” the Permits, and “[f]ailure to comply with a [P]ermit provision constitutes a violation of the CWA and is grounds for enforcement action.” Thus, 97 In addition to the opportunity to provide written comments on the draft Permits, MDE held public hearings to accept formal testimony on each Permit. 98 We recognize that these public comments on the BMPs did not appear during the development of the Montgomery County Permit. Nevertheless, the Manual, from which the BMPs arise, was publicly available. It is the BMPs that are the actions the Counties will take to make progress toward WLAs. 85 contrary to the Water Groups’ assertion that the Permits “thwart accountability,” the Permits afford the opportunity for robust public involvement in the attempt to abate stormwater pollution and improve water quality. That the Permits provide for public participation at the County level is not enough for the Water Groups. The Water Groups fault the Permits for not providing for public participation at the state level and proffer that the Permits “prevent[] members of the public from commenting on . . . MDE’s decision to approve the restoration plans.” Because the public had the opportunity to comment on the “menu” of BMPs in the Manual and the Permits unambiguously mandate public participation at the County level, the restoration plans have been subject to a “double layer” of public participation. We, therefore, are not persuaded by the Water Groups’ arguments. Finally, the Water Groups maintain that MDE’s claims of “potential administrative burdens are irrelevant and specious.” We must, however, give weight to the notion that MDE permitted the Counties to draw from a broad group of BMPs in the Manual in light of the highly variable nature of stormwater discharges. MDE possesses a comparative advantage in addressing environmental problems affecting our State. It is axiomatic that a reviewing court should respect “the expertise of an agency in its own field.” Banks, 354 at 69, 729 A.2d at 381 (citations omitted). Moreover, the Counties have expertise in water quality assessments of waterbodies found within the boundaries of their political subdivisions. As the Permits require, the Counties “shall complete detailed watershed assessments” for their entire jurisdiction. Thus, there is great value in deferring to the Counties’ choice of BMPs, and because the public had an opportunity to comment on the 86 BMPs during the drafting of the Permits as well as on the select BMPs in the restoration plans the Counties submit to MDE, we conclude that the public has not been deprived of notice and comment.