A tool to protect Minnesota's waters Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Sept. 10, 2012.
-
Upload
haley-gere -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
2
Transcript of A tool to protect Minnesota's waters Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Sept. 10, 2012.
ProposedAntidegradation RuleA tool to protect Minnesota's waters
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Sept. 10, 2012
2
Why are we here?
Informational overview
Invite discussion
3
Why antidegradation?
Clean Water Act“…restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.”
• Designated uses• Criteria to support
designated uses• Antidegradation provisions
States establish standards
4
What is antidegradation?
A regulatory tool to preserve the state’s water quality
• implemented through control documents
• backstop, prevents degradation
• applies to waters of the state
5
How does antidegradation work?
Outstanding resources(Tier 3)
High water quality(Tier 2)
Existing uses(Tier 1)
Levels of protection
6
Tier 2 protection
Prevents unnecessary degradation of high water quality
Assimilati ve capacity
Variability
Long-term average
Water quality criterion
Conditions
Degraded
Pristine
7
Long-term average
Variability
Tier 2 protection
Permanent exceedance of water quality criterion is prohibited
Assimilati ve capacity
Water quality criterion
Conditions
Degraded
Pristine
8
What is antidegradation review?
A publically-informed decision-making process
to determine whether and to what extent high water quality may be lowered
9
What happens if a proposal would lower high water quality?
Proposer provides:1. Alternative analysis2. Social/economic justification
Agency review &preliminary
determination
Public participation
Agency finaldetermination
10
Why revise the rule?
Current rules outdated
Reduce potential for litigation and
permit delays
Improve consistency with
Fed rules/guidance
Improve how we protect
water
11
Improve consistency with
Fed rules/guidance
Why revise the rule?
• Scope of implementation
• De minimis discharges
• Demonstration of necessity through a thorough alternative analysis
• Establish existing water quality in antidegradation determinations
• Public participation
12
Why revise the rule?
Current rules outdated
Reduce potential for litigation and
permit delays
Improve consistency with
Fed rules/guidance
Improve how we protect
water
13
Rulemaking path
2007 Start
Initial stakeholder meetings
Response to comments/ questions
Water quality forum direction
Proposed changes
Initial draft
More internal/ external input
14
Review trigger
Exemptions
Proposed changes
Scope of implementation
Physical alterations / existing uses
Clarify Restricted
ORVW protection
Public participation
Parameters ofconcern
15
Proposed changes
The term "antidegradation" is more accurate and more consistent
with federal regulations, EPA guidelines and
other states’ provisions
Name change
16
Rule format
Proposed changes
• Purpose statement reflects federal regulations
• More definitions
• Antidegradation procedures sequentially follows the review process
17
Proposed changesName change
Rule format
Scope of implementation
Physical alterations / existing uses
Clarify Restricted
ORVW protection
Public participation
Parameters ofconcern
18
Review trigger
Proposed changes
Review is triggered by anet increase in loading or
other causes of degradation
19
Exemptions
Proposed changes
• Emergency response actions• Class 7 waters (under specific conditions)
• Temporary and limited impacts
20
Review trigger
Exemptions
Proposed changesName change
Rule format
Physical alterations / existing uses
Clarify Restricted
ORVW protection
Public participation
Activities that impact waters of the state
CWA regulatory authority exists
21
No regulatory control, but implementation mechanisms may exist
(Size ≠ scale of activities)
Scope of implementation
Current scope of antidegradation implementation
Activities that impact waters of the state
CWA regulatory authority exists
Proposed rule increases scope of
implementation
22
No regulatory control, but implementation mechanisms exist
(Size ≠ scale of activities)
Scope of implementation
23
Scope of implementation
Proposed changes
Separate procedures for:
• Individual NPDES wastewater permits and individual 401
certifications; and• Individual NPDES stormwater
permits and general authorizations
24
Parameters ofconcern
Proposed changes
Parameters to be reviewed are identified early, allowing for an effective alternatives analysis
25
Review trigger
Exemptions
Proposed changesName change
Rule format
Scope of implementation
Parameters ofconcern
26
Physical alterations / existing uses
Proposed changes
Reconcile the maintenance of
existing uses with physical modifications
allowed under the Clean Water Act
27
Clarify Restricted
ORVW protection
Proposed changes
Preserve existing water quality necessary to maintain exceptional
characteristics for which the Restricted ORVW was designated
28
Public participation
Proposed changes
Agency provides critical information:
Alternative analysis
Social/economic justification
Agency's preliminary determination
29
Public participation coincides with the comment periods for permits and certifications
Public participation
Minn R 700
1
Minn R 700
1
30
Review trigger
Exemptions
Proposed changesName change
Rule format
Scope of implementation
Physical alterations / existing uses
Clarify Restricted
ORVW protection
Public participation
Parameters ofconcern
31
Rulemaking next steps
2008 Start
Initial stakeholder meetings
Response to comments/ questions
Water quality forum direction
Proposed changes
Initial draft
More internal/ external input
Revise rule
SONAR development
“Administrative” process
Adopt
EPA approve