Opinion ID: 3184650
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reduction of Pollutant Discharge

Text: The Permits include two important components that inform our analysis of whether MDE’s monitoring program ensures reductions in the discharge of pollutants: (a) the monitoring and modeling scheme and (b) adaptive management. As we explain, our initial discussion of monitoring and modeling is not sufficient to measure MDE’s compliance with 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i). Rather, it is a necessary component of what we consider a twopart scheme MDE designed to ensure the Counties would implement controls to reduce stormwater discharges.
MDE requires the Counties to implement a stormwater management program (“SWMP”), which consists of BMPs. Part IV.D.1.a. The Counties must integrate SWMPs with other permit requirements. Part IV.D. Aside from their role in the 20% restoration requirement, BMPs are most critical in the restoration plans that the Counties must implement to achieve progress in meeting WLAs. Part IV.E.2, 4; see supra note 17 (The WLAs are derived from the EPA approved TMDLs for each Permit.). To achieve progress in meeting WLAs, the Counties must first set a baseline for stormwater pollutant loads. MDE, Guidance, at 3.72 To set this baseline, the Counties must apply TMDL pollutant loading rates to urban land use data. Id. An MDE-approved model, 72 As we have previously discussed with respect to the Montgomery County Permit, the Permit language is broad enough such that Montgomery County can rely on the Guidance in establishing pollutant loads. Montgomery County Permit Part III.J (“In order to accomplish these goals, this permit requires in Part III.J.2 below, that the County develop TMDL implementation plans that include estimates of pollutant loading reductions . . . .”). 66 such as MAST, will automatically calculate the cost and load estimates for Counties to inform their decision-making. See About MAST, Maryland Assessment Scenario Tool, available at http://www.mastonline.org/About.aspx. The Counties can compare different scenarios to determine what BMPs they can implement to reduce pollution. Id.; see also MDE, Guidance, at 1 (“Local governments can weigh the cost associated with implementing different practices and choose the most efficient option for meeting pollutant load reductions.”). The Counties select and begin implementing BMPs in accordance with their restoration plans. Part IV.E.2. Then they can monitor the effectiveness of the activities, Part IV.F.1.a.iv, and use the monitoring information to determine if the activities have helped make progress in achieving WLAs, Part IV.E.2, 4. But the efficiencies for BMPs that the Counties select are based in part on estimates. See, e.g., MDE, Guidance, at 10 (Table 4).73 As our discussion of modeling illustrates, a 73 MDE developed efficiencies in part based on the Maryland stormwater management eras in which approved BMPs were introduced. MDE, Guidance, at 6. BMPs have become increasingly sophisticated over time. See MDE, Guidance, at 10 (Table 4). MDE also derived efficiencies from the Chesapeake Bay Program (“CBP”), see id., which explained inherent limitations in such efficiencies: It must also be recognized that the BMP efficiencies are being developed using an adaptive management approach that recognizes that our knowledge is incomplete. Adaptive management proposes a science-based and conservative approach to efficiencies. It allows a BMP efficiency review and updating at recurring intervals on the basis of new research, monitoring, and experience. Chesapeake Bay Program, Phase 5.3 Community Watershed Model, § 6, at 6-9, available at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/about/programs/modeling/53/. 67 model predicts the reductions a BMP can achieve.74 But it does not tell the Counties exactly what the BMP will do in terms of pollution reduction. Indeed, many variables impact this process.75 See Chesapeake Bay Program, Phase 5.3 Community Watershed Model, § 6.1.2, at 6-4 (“Uncertainty in estimates of BMP effectiveness is due to factors including (1) variability in precipitation, hydrology, soils, and geology; (2) variable performance of land management practices; [and] (3) lag time between implementing a practice and full performance and observed water quality benefits . . . .”); see also id. at § 6.2.2, at 6-8 (“Virtually all research data are generated under controlled management conditions” that, among other things, are designed to minimize hazards; thus, “the research estimates are more representative of a best-case scenario.”). But this should not raise a red flag about the legal correctness of the Permits. Indeed, the inherent shortcoming in estimating BMP effectiveness explains MDE’s decision to require the Counties to adapt their practices based on improved knowledge over time. See 74 The modeling, which in many cases yields the WLAs the Counties are trying to meet, is itself a process of estimation and prediction. EPA, Bay TMDL § 5.3, at 5-19 (“The models produce estimates, not perfect forecasts. Hence, they reduce, but do not eliminate, uncertainty in environmental decision making.”); see also EPA, Bay TMDL ES at ES-5 (“The TMDL is informed by a series of models . . . .”). 75 Research on BMP effectiveness suggests that it would be challenging to monitor practices through comparing data at multiple sites because of variables likely beyond the Counties’ control. See id. at § 6.2.1, at 6-4 (Because “pollutant transport occurs through a variety of environmental pathways,” transport time “varies substantially . . . . Surface runoff to a stream can take minutes to days, whereas leaching to groundwater followed by discharge to a stream can take months to decades.”); cf. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 34 N.E.3d at 783 (“[A]lthough municipalities operate sewer systems, stormwater contamination results from the often unforeseen or unpredictable choices of individual residents and businesses (for examples, to let litter pile up or to use certain lawn fertilizers) . . . .”). 68 infra Discussion: Adaptive Management. Rather, because the Counties must implement BMPs to make progress in achieving WLAs, estimation and prediction are necessary evils in this context. Thus, high quality assessments of BMPs are particularly important in the Permits so that MDE and the Counties can understand which practices are most effective to meet the many WLAs incorporated into the Permits. See infra note 17. As we have discussed, MDE requires the Counties to assess BMPs through a focused monitoring approach. Part IV.F.1.a.iv. In the Basis for Final Determination, MDE explained that pollution reduction research supported the use of focused monitoring to better understand and, thus, improve BMPs. MDE, Basis for Final Determination to Issue Anne Arundel County’s NPDES MS4 Permit (2013).76 The research includes an analysis of how states, including Maryland, were “tracking nutrient and sediment control practices” to restore the Chesapeake Bay. See Committee on the Evaluation of Chesapeake Bay Program Implementation for Nutrient Reduction to Improve Water Quality, Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in the Chesapeake Bay vii (National Academies Press 2011) [hereinafter Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in the Bay]. The National Research Council (“NRC”)77 established a “multidisciplinary committee of 76 In 2009, the EPA contacted the National Research Council (“NRC”) about evaluating the Chesapeake Bay Program (“CBP”). Committee on the Evaluation of Chesapeake Bay Program Implementation for Nutrient Reduction to Improve Water Quality, Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in the Chesapeake Bay viii (National Academies Press 2011) [hereinafter Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in the Bay]. The CBP is a partnership to restore the Chesapeake Bay that began in the 1980s between the EPA and several jurisdictions including Maryland. Id. at viii. 77 The NRC, established by the National Academy of Sciences, is “the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of 69 experts to provide advice to the EPA, the six states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed,” and “other interested parties.” Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in the Bay at viii. Importantly, “[t]he EPA specifically directed the NRC to evaluate the tracking of best management practice implementation . . . .” Id. The NRC’s appointed committee stated that “[t]argeted monitoring programs . . . would provide valuable data to refine BMP efficiency estimates . . . .” Id. at 5.78 Consistent with the NRC committee report, MDE’s approach to monitoring requires the Counties to assess the effectiveness of BMPs. Part IV.F.1 (“Monitoring activities shall occur where the cumulative effects of watershed restoration activities can be assessed.”). Indeed, MDE designed the second component of the monitoring program with the same purpose in mind: monitoring “for determining the effectiveness of stormwater management practices for stream channel protection.” Part IV.F.2. MDE then uses the monitoring data to calibrate its models. Part IV.F.1.a.iv (“Data collected shall be used to estimate annual and seasonal pollutant loads and reductions, and for the calibration of watershed assessment models.”). That is, MDE’s approach yields Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific engineering communities.” Id. at iii. 78 The Water Groups contend that the NRC’s opinion “cannot override legally promulgated regulations.” We do not disagree. Rather, as we have explained, MDE relies on this publication in support of its program of focused monitoring, which improves the quality of pollutant data during BMP implementation. See 40 C.F.R. § 122.48(b) (Monitoring must be “sufficient to yield data which are representative of the monitored activity.”). 70 more accurate data on the efficacy of BMPs, which increases certainty for all interested parties in understanding what effects restoration activities will have on the State’s waters. MDE, Guidance, at 1 (“The data gathered may be used to update and improve Maryland’s stormwater management matrix of options for achieving water quality.”). Our review of the first component in the Permits—the monitoring and modeling scheme—illustrates that it is necessary to ensure the Counties are implementing BMPs to the maximum extent practicable.
In their annual report, the Counties must submit the pollutant load reductions determined through monitoring. Part V.A.2.g; see also Attachment A: Annual Report Databases (G). The required measurement is pounds per year, which is consistent with the federal requirement that a discharger monitors “mass (or other measurement specified in the permit) for each pollutant” or “volume of effluent discharged from each outfall.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i)(1)(i)-(ii). As discussed above, these reductions pertain to the pollutants which the Counties must monitor. Part IV.1.a.iv; see Attachment A: Annual Report Databases (G) (The pollutants arise from the Bay TMDL and local TMDLs.). MDE will review the annual reports, Part V.B, and will require program modifications “according to needed program improvements identified as a result of [MDE’s] periodic evaluations,” Part IV.D.79 “Failure to comply with a [P]ermit See also Part V.A.3 (“Because this permit uses an iterative approach to 79 implementation, the County must evaluate the effectiveness of its programs in each annual 71 provision,” such as the stormwater management or reporting requirements, “constitutes a violation of the CWA and is grounds for enforcement action; permit termination, revocation, or modification; or denial of a permit renewal application.” Part VII.C. As we have discussed,80 MDE has flexibility in setting controls in MS4s: “Congress did not mandate [in 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii)] a minimum standards approach or specify that the EPA develop minimal performance requirements.” Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 966 F.2d at 1308; see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 23,870, 23,879 (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 122.44) (“Subparagraph (vii) does not prescribe detailed procedures for 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.”). We discern that the law requires a regulating authority such as MDE to review the entity’s actions (or non-action, as the case may be) to ensure accountability in implementing stormwater controls: “stormwater management programs that are designed by regulated parties must, in every instance, be subject to meaningful review by an appropriate regulating entity to ensure that each such report. BMP and program modifications shall be made within 12 months if the County’s annual report does not demonstrate compliance with this permit . . . .”). 80 See supra Part I.A: Maximum Extent Practicable. 72 program reduces the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.” EDC, 344 F.3d at 856.81 MDE’s adaptive management approach includes a requirement to impose program changes based on annual report data obtained from monitoring. Where, for example, the Counties’ current strategy is not reducing discharges, the Permits allow MDE to force the Counties to implement BMPs that will, or at least are an improvement. Because the Counties will implement controls to reduce discharges under MDE’s oversight, the monitoring provisions comply with 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i).82 See Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Cnty. of L.A., 673 F.3d 880, 897 (9th Cir. 2011) (“As opposed to absolving noncompliance or exclusively adopting the MEP standard, the iterative process ensures 81 The Ninth Circuit in EDC concluded that the EPA had implemented a rule that failed to comply with 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p). See 344 F.3d at 855 (“Nothing in the Phase II regulations requires that NPDES permitting authorities review these Minimum Measures to ensure that the measures that any given operator of a small MS4 has decided to undertake will in fact reduce discharges to the maximum extent practicable.”) (emphasis in original). 82 The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) designed a similar approach in its MS4 general permits, which the Court of Appeals of New York upheld in 2015: DEC’s review of annual reports allows the Department to keep tabs on small MS4s and to require any necessary refinement of best management practices. DEC refers to these contemplated successive rounds of reviewing and, as necessary, fine-tuning and refocusing best management practices as the “iterative process” that is the hallmark of the flexible “maximum extent practicable” standard, which Congress deliberately chose as best suited for regulating small municipalities’ stormwater discharges. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 34 N.E.3d at 790. 73 that if water quality exceedances ‘persist,’ despite prior abatement efforts, a process will commence whereby a responsible Permittee amends its [stormwater quality management program].”), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. L.A. Cnty. Flood Control Dist. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 710, 713 (2013); cf. Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 90 P.3d 659, 679 (Wash. 2004) (en banc) (“Monitoring and adaptive management provide a mechanism through which [the Washington State Department of Ecology] can mitigate [an] inherent uncertainty” in the question of whether there was a reasonable assurance that an airport runway project would not violate applicable water quality standards.); University of Maryland/Mid-Atlantic Water Program, BMP Assessment Final Report 25–26 (2009) (“Utilizing an adaptive management approach recognizes uncertainty and limitations in science, but does not impede implementation of management actions.”).83