Opinion ID: 3184650
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Compliance Schedules

Text: The Water Groups further argue that MDE must formally incorporate the restoration plans through modification procedures because the plans contain compliance schedules. They allege that compliance schedules are effluent limitations under the CWA, see 33 U.S.C. § 1362(11), (17), and they must be “included in a ‘permit,’” 40 C.F.R. § 122.2. Ergo, MDE must formally incorporate the Counties’ restoration plans—containing the compliance schedules—after the Counties submit their plans to MDE. The problem, however, is that the Water Groups do not explain why the schedules in the restoration plans constitute compliance schedules. The Permits state that the Counties must include in their restoration plans “the final date for meeting applicable WLAs and a detailed schedule for implementing all structural and nonstructural water quality projects, enhanced stormwater management programs, and alternative stormwater control initiatives necessary for meeting applicable WLAs.” Part IV.E.2.b.i. Quite obviously, the restoration plans contain schedules. Id. But a schedule of 100 Indeed, the Manual can be found through a quick Internet search and is available on MDE’s website: http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/water/stormwater managementprogram/marylandstormwaterdesignmanual/Pages/Programs/WaterProgra ms/SedimentandStormwater/stormwater_design/index.aspx. 91 compliance, which is an effluent limitation, is “any restriction established by a State.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(11) (emphasis added); see In re Alexandria Lake Area Sanitary Dist. NPDES/SDS Permit No. MN0040738, 763 N.W.2d 303, 318 (Minn. 2009) (holding that even though the TMDL was not yet complete, a schedule of compliance existed where the state pollution control agency required a facility “to meet an effluent limit set upon completion of the TMDL process”). Here, however, the schedule in the restoration plan is set by the Counties. States are not required to set compliance schedules, 40 C.F.R. § 122.47, and MDE has not exercised its discretion to do so. We recognize that a schedule of compliance is “an enforceable sequence of actions or operations leading to compliance with an effluent limitation, other limitation, prohibition, or standard.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(17). But the “detailed schedule” the Counties must set is subject to change. The Counties may substitute activities where the initially scheduled projects are not making progress in achieving WLAs. Part IV.E.2.b.iv. Consequently, the County-set schedules in the restoration plans are not “enforceable” sequences of actions or operations. What forces the Counties to comply with the WLAs is the annual reporting requirement, which explains that “BMP and program modifications shall be made within 12 months if the [Counties’] annual report[s] do[] not . . . show progress toward meeting WLAs developed under EPA approved TMDLs.” Part V.A.3. As we have discussed, 101 this adaptive management approach is the true enforcement mechanism that “lead[s] to compliance with an effluent limitation [or] other limitation.” 101 See Supra Part III.E.1.b: Adaptive Management. 92 33 U.S.C. § 1362(17). Thus, we conclude that the nature of the schedules in the restoration plans does not require MDE to incorporate those plans into the Permits by modification.102 B. 20% Restoration Requirement The second key component of the Permits that the Water Groups focus on is the 20% restoration requirement.103 This part of the Permits requires the Counties to complete restoration efforts for 20% of the Counties’ impervious surface area that is not restored to the maximum extent practicable. Part III.G.2; Part IV.E.2.a. Although not required to do so, see 33 U.S.C. 1342(p), MDE decided to impose this numeric effluent limitation.104 The Water Groups allege that this provision “is not specific, measurable, or enforceable.” Thus, they argue, MDE has created a requirement that the Water Groups cannot comment on or seek judicial review of. 102 Because we disagree with the Water Groups’ arguments, the TMDL plans are not “enforceable” such that MDE has violated public participation laws. Rather, the TMDL plans are “enforceable” insofar as the Counties are required to submit them to MDE and MDE will monitor the Counties’ implementation of the TMDL plans through the reporting requirements in the Permits. 103 The Water Groups mischaracterize the 20% restoration requirement as a “plan” and thus discuss it in the same context that they discuss how the TMDL plans violate public participation requirements. This description is inaccurate because, quite simply, there is no plan for the 20% restoration requirement. Rather, the Counties need only restore 20% of their impervious surface area within five years. Part III.G.2. Consequently, the Water Groups’ argument that MDE’s approval of TMDL plans constitutes a modification with respect to the 20% requirement is inapposite. 104 As we have previously discussed, MDE’s decision to impose this restoration requirement on the Counties was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious. See supra Part I.B: Substantial Evidence and Arbitrary and Capricious. 93 Because of our earlier analysis, in part, the Water Groups’ arguments are unavailing. Restoration is not “undefined” as the Water Groups argue because MDE anchored restoration in the universe of practices in the Manual. See Part III.E.1 (“At a minimum, the County shall . . . [i]mplement the stormwater management . . . practices found in the [Manual] . . . .”).105 Although the Water Groups do not know in advance which specific practices the Counties will select to restore their impervious surfaces, MDE has permitted the Counties to select from among practices that satisfied a specific performance standard, WQv. CWP & MDE, Manual § 1.2 (General Performance Standards for Stormwater Management in Maryland). Moreover, it is inaccurate for the Water Groups to allege that MDE can approve activities “that are known to be ineffectual without ever being required to articulate its rationale for doing so, or being held accountable.” MDE articulated a response to the Water Groups’ criticism of detention practices: “Maryland’s Manual for stormwater BMP design and MDE’s approach to retrofitting under the municipal permit program are completely aligned with the National Research Council report [stating that detention ponds fail to meet the full range of urban stream and watershed restoration objectives].” MDE, Basis for Final Determination to Issue NPDES Permit. MDE has responded to comments adverse to the draft permit in accordance with Maryland law and its response is adequate. See EN § 1-604(b) (“The Department shall prepare a final determination if” the Department received comments adverse to the tentative determination.). Thus, MDE’s approach has 105 See supra Part I.A: Maximum Extent Practicable. 94 not shielded its decision to approve the Counties’ restoration efforts from comment or judicial review. The Water Groups criticize MDE’s use of the Guidance because, in their view, the Guidance provides assumptions about stormwater practices rather than an enforceable standard. According to the Water Groups, MDE could not know whether the Counties’ efforts would be adequate when it issued the Permits because “whether the chosen practices actually meet these [pollution reduction] expectations depends entirely on the details of a permittee’s restoration plans.” This argument, however, must fail because it overlooks the nature of the 20% restoration requirement: a surrogate. ENSR, Pilot TMDL Applications Using the Impervious Cover Method § 1.0, at 1-1 (“The IC [Impervious Cover] method uses percent impervious cover in a watershed as a surrogate TMDL target.”).106 Because the 20% restoration requirement is a surrogate for reducing pollution, MDE has logically created an accountability system based on an assessment of compliance with the surrogate, not on assessment of pollution reduction in fact.107 See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii) (This law 106 There is no allegation that MDE has failed to follow the impervious cover method in designing the 20% restoration requirement. In fact, attorneys representing the Water Groups recognized MDE’s adherence to this model when MDE was drafting the Permits. University of Maryland Environmental Law Clinic, Comments on the Tentative Determination to Issue the NPDES MS4 Permit to Montgomery County at 9 & n.26 (2008) (“The watershed restoration approach advanced by the Draft Permits comports with the impervious cover method (“ICM”). ICM involves reducing impervious cover to a target percentage as a ‘surrogate TMDL target.’”). 107 The Water Groups also overlook that, before the EPA issued the Bay TMDL, Maryland “reasonably assured” the EPA that it would achieve the necessary pollution reductions to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland’s strategy included the 20% 95 requires “controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants” to the MEP, not “reductions to the MEP.”); EDC, 344 F.3d at 855 (The permitting authority must “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). To ensure that the 20% requirement is met, MDE requires the Counties to translate the BMPs they implement on impervious surfaces into credits. As we previously explained, the credit system is related to the performance standard in the Manual: the WQv. “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 WQv is provided.” Moreover, for BMPs that “provide greater than one inch of volume control,” the activities “receive additional credit.”108 As a result, the Counties must choose the appropriate mix of BMPs to obtain enough credits to satisfy the 20% requirement. If the Counties ignore the credit system restoration requirement. See supra Part I.B: Substantial Evidence and Arbitrary and Capricious. Our prior discussion of monitoring and modeling also renders the Water Groups’ criticism of the efficiency estimates in the Guidance inapposite. See, e.g., Chesapeake Bay Program, Phase 5.3 Community Watershed Model, § 6, at 6-9 (“It must also be recognized that the BMP efficiencies are being developed using an adaptive management approach that recognizes that our knowledge is incomplete.”). As we have discussed, MDE’s use of monitoring and the adaptive management approach ensures that the Counties will implement BMPs to reduce discharges in compliance with the MEP standard. See supra Part III.E.1: Reduction of Pollutant Discharge. 108 Undoubtedly, if the Counties choose BMPs with efficiency estimates above the WQv standard, such as infiltration practices and ESD, they will comply with the 20% restoration requirement. 96 and the consequences of selecting BMPs with efficiency estimates below the WQ v standard, then the Counties risk failing to fulfill the 20% restoration requirement and confronting an enforcement action by MDE. Part VI.C. The Counties must complete restoration efforts for 20% of their impervious surface area within five years under the express terms of the permit according to the credit system we have explained. The 20% restoration requirement is thus also measurable and enforceable.109 See also EPA, 2014 Memo at 10 (Box 1: Examples of WQBELs in MS4 Permits) (“The MS4 Permit includes a specific, quantifiable performance requirement that must be achieved within a set timeframe. For example: Restore within the 5-year permit term 20 percent of the previously developed impervious land (2014 Prince George’s County, MD MS4 permit).”).