Opinion ID: 3184650
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Permit Limitations

Text: 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i) requires monitoring “to assure compliance with permit limitations.” We begin by noting the two applicable limitations: (1) controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants70 and (2) the restoration of 20% of impervious surface area not restored to the MEP. See Part III.D; Part III.E.2.71 inform MDE’s assessment of the Counties’ chemical monitoring summary and, specifically, whether the Counties obtained representative samples of pollutants. 70 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B). To be clear, the phrase “reduce the discharge of pollutants” does not appear in the text of 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B). But the effect of the regulation is the same. When a permitting authority ensures that effluent limits will be consistent with WLAs, permittees are subject to discharge requirements that in accordance with “the portion of a receiving water’s loading capacity that is allocated to one of its existing or future point sources of pollution.” 40 C.F.R. § 130.2(h). 71 Under 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii), MS4s shall require “such other provisions” as “the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants.” MDE (acting on behalf of the State) required the Counties to achieve the 20% restoration requirement. 65
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
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.
The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Assoc. v. EPA, 410 F.3d 964 (7th Cir. 2005), is also instructive on this point. In Texas Independent Producers, the EPA issued a general permit for stormwater discharges from construction sites that required operators to file a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) stating that they planned to operate under the general permit, rather than apply for an individual permit. 410 F.3d at 968. Absent a negative ruling by the EPA, stormwater discharges that complied with the terms of the general permit were automatically authorized. Id. The permit also required that operators “create, maintain, and implement a site-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”).” Id. An environmental organization challenged the Permit and asserted that it violated the Clean Water Act because it failed to satisfy public participation requirements regarding the NOI and SWPPP. After conducting a Chevron analysis, the court concluded that EPA’s reasoning as to why it issued the general permit without providing for public review of NOIs and SWPPPs was “eminently reasonable.” Id. at 978. Notably, the court accepted EPA’s argument that because the public had the opportunity to comment on the proposed general permits whose terms governed the NOIs and SWPPPs, there was “no need for additional public comment or a notice period [regarding NOIs and SWPPPs themselves].” Id. In addition, the court credited the EPA’s contention “that requiring ‘an additional public 87 hearing on each individual NOI and SWPPP would eviscerate the administrative efficiency inherent in the general permitting concept,’ in effect making the general permit scheme no different from the process of obtaining individual permits.” Id. The Water Groups point out that the permit in Texas Independent Producers was a general permit whereas the Permits at issue here are “not eligible for general permits.” The Water Groups rightly note that the “existence of different permitting regimes for large and small municipal storm sewer systems reflects Congressional policy judgment” that large MS4s be regulated differently than small systems. Even if the permits are not the same, the Permits at issue in this case are conceptually analogous to a general permit because all Counties create their restoration plans based upon the same document setting forth the same groups of BMPs—the Manual. Accordingly, we find the Seventh Circuit’s determination regarding public participation in Texas Independent Producers persuasive, and conclude that the Permits’ TMDL planning requirement does not violate notice and comment mandates. The Water Groups rely on the Second Circuit’s decision in Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2005), in support of their argument that the contents of the TMDL plans are subject to public participation requirements. In Waterkeeper Alliance, the court examined the regulation of water pollutants contained in the runoff from concentrated animal feeding operations (“CAFOs”). In pertinent part, the court held that the nutrient management plans the CAFOs were required to develop were effluent limits but that the EPA violated public participation requirements because it “fail[ed] to require that the terms of the nutrient management plans be included in the NPD ES 88 permits.” Waterkeeper Alliance, 399 F.3d at 502–04. The court stated that the plans were effluent limits because the CAFOs were required to set waste application rates in the plans. Id. at 502; see 33 U.S.C. § 1362(11) (An effluent limit includes a restriction on a rate.). In contrast to the nutritional plans discussed in Waterkeeper Alliance, the most critical element of the restoration plans—the BMPs—is already included in the Permits because the Permits incorporate the Manual and Guidance, which set forth those practices. Thus, the Water Groups’ reliance on Waterkeeper Alliance is misplaced. See Part III.G, Part IV.E.2.a. A Ninth Circuit decision addressing public participation is also distinguishable. In Environmental Defense Center v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit remanded an EPA regulation that required operators of MS4s to develop and implement individualized pollution control programs that were not subject to agency review or public participation. 344 F.3d at 853– 58. The court found that the rule violated 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii), which is the same statutory provision that is at the center of this case. The court held that MS4 pollution control programs must be reviewed by the permitting agency and were subject to public comment, in part because those permittee-prepared programs—not the general permits issued to MS4 operators—would contain the substantive requirements that operators must implement to reduce discharges to the “maximum extent practicable.” Id. at 855, 857. Here, the Counties must submit restoration plans derived from specified best management practices, including ponds, wetlands, infiltration practices, filtering systems, open channels, and other structural water quality practices, that were previously available for public comment. In contrast to the specific practices that form the basis of the 89 restoration plans in the Permits, all that was available at the time of permit issuance in Environmental Defense Center were “six general criteria” designed to protect water quality that were never reviewed by the public. Id. at 845, 853 (emphasis added).99 Consequently, the court’s holding in Environmental Defense Center rested, at least in part, on facts that are distinguishable from the circumstances in this case.
To be sure, the Permits rely heavily on incorporation by reference. But such incorporation by reference, even of important documents, does not contravene public participation requirements because the Manual and Guidance are readily accessible to the public. Cf. Proposed Action on Regulations, 35:25 Md. Reg. 2193 (Dec. 5, 2008) (“Pursuant to State Government Article § 7-207, Annotated Code of Maryland, the 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual . . . has been declared a document generally available to the public and appropriate for incorporation by reference. For this reason, it 99 The six general criteria were: (1) conducting public education and outreach on stormwater impacts; (2) engaging public participation in the development of stormwater management programs; (3) detecting and eliminating illicit discharges to the MS4; (4) reducing pollution to the MS4 from construction activities disturbing one acre or more; (5) minimizing water quality impacts from development and redevelopment activities that disturb one acre or more; and (6) preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal activities. 90 will not be printed in the Maryland Register or [COMAR].”).100 Additionally, including the best management practices in the Permits would significantly lengthen the document, which would obfuscate other requirements in the Permit. The Manual has also been part of Maryland regulatory law for two decades. It is so entrenched in the permitting process that we see no reason to detail the content of the Manual in the Permits.
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).”).