Watershed Staff Videoconference October 17, 2012.
24
Proposed Antidegradation Rule Watershed Staff Videoconference October 17, 2012
-
Upload
duane-starbird -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
1
Transcript of Watershed Staff Videoconference October 17, 2012.
ProposedAntidegradation Rule
Watershed Staff VideoconferenceOctober 17, 2012
2
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
3
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
4
How does antidegradation work?
Outstanding resources(Tier 3)
High water quality(Tier 2)
Existing uses(Tier 1)
Levels of protection
5
Tier 2 protection
Prevents unnecessary degradation of high water quality
Assimilati ve capacity
Variability
Long-term average
Water quality criterion
Conditions
Degraded
Pristine
6
Long-term average
Variability
Tier 2 protection
Permanent exceedance of water quality standard is prohibited
Assimilati ve capacity
Water quality criterion
Conditions
Degraded
Pristine
7
What is antidegradation review?
A publically-informed decision-making process
to determine whether and to what extent high water quality may be lowered
8
What happens if a proposal would lower high water quality?
Antidegradation Assessment:1. Alternative analysis2. Social/economic justification
Agency review &preliminary
determination
Public participation
Agency finaldetermination
9
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Current rules outdated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
10
Review trigger
Exemptions
Proposed changes
Scope of implementation
Physical alterations / existing uses
Clarify Restricted
ORVW protection
Public participation
Parameters ofconcern
11
Proposed changes
The term "antidegradation" is more accurate and more consistent
with federal regulations, EPA guidelines and
other states’ provisions
Name change
12
Rule format
Proposed changes
• Purpose statement reflects federal regulations
• More definitions
• Antidegradation procedures sequentially follows the review process
13
Review trigger
Proposed changes
Review is triggered by anet increase in loading or
other causes of degradation
14
Exemptions
Proposed changes
• Emergency response actions• Class 7 waters (under specific conditions)
• Temporary and limited impacts
Activities that impact waters of the state
CWA regulatory authority exists
15
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
16
No regulatory control, but implementation mechanisms exist
(Size ≠ scale of activities)
Scope of implementation
17
Scope of implementation
Proposed changes
Widened scope of implementation - requires separate procedures for:
• Individual NPDES wastewater permits and individual 401
certifications; and• Individual NPDES stormwater
permits and general authorizations
18
Parameters ofconcern
Proposed changes
Parameters to be reviewed are identified early, allowing for an effective alternatives analysis
19
Physical alterations / existing uses
Proposed changes
Reconcile the maintenance of
existing uses with physical modifications
allowed under the Clean Water Act
20
Clarify Restricted
ORVW protection
Proposed changes
Preserve existing water quality necessary to maintain exceptional
characteristics for which the Restricted ORVW was designated
21
Public participation
Proposed changes
Agency provides critical information:
Alternative analysis
Social/economic justification
Agency's preliminary determination
22
Public participation coincides with the comment periods for permits and certifications
Public participation
Minn R 700
1
Minn R 700
1
23
Rulemaking next steps
2007 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
