presented to: minnesota chamber of commerce october 1, 2012
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
ProposedAntidegradation Rule
Presented to:Minnesota Chamber of Commerce
October 1, 2012
![Page 2: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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
![Page 3: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
How does antidegradation work?
Outstanding resources(Tier 3)
High water quality(Tier 2)
Existing uses(Tier 1)
Levels of protection
![Page 5: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Tier 2 protection
Prevents unnecessary degradation of high water quality
Assimilati ve capacity
Variability
Long-term average
Water quality criterion
Conditions
Degraded
Pristine
![Page 6: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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
![Page 7: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
What is antidegradation review?
A publically-informed decision-making process
to determine whether and to what extent high water quality may be lowered
![Page 8: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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
![Page 10: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Review trigger
Exemptions
Proposed changes
Scope of implementation
Physical alterations / existing uses
Clarify Restricted
ORVW protection
Public participation
Parameters ofconcern
![Page 11: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Proposed changes
The term "antidegradation" is more accurate and more consistent
with federal regulations, EPA guidelines and
other states’ provisions
Name change
![Page 12: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Rule format
Proposed changes
• Purpose statement reflects federal regulations
• More definitions
• Antidegradation procedures sequentially follows the review process
![Page 13: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Proposed changesName change
Rule format
Scope of implementation
Physical alterations / existing uses
Clarify Restricted
ORVW protection
Public participation
Parameters ofconcern
![Page 14: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Review trigger
Proposed changes
Review is triggered by anet increase in loading or
other causes of degradation
![Page 15: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Exemptions
Proposed changes
• Emergency response actions• Class 7 waters (under specific conditions)
• Temporary and limited impacts
![Page 16: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Review trigger
Exemptions
Proposed changesName change
Rule format
Physical alterations / existing uses
Clarify Restricted
ORVW protection
Public participation
![Page 17: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Activities that impact waters of the state
CWA regulatory authority exists
17
No regulatory control, but implementation mechanisms may exist
(Size ≠ scale of activities)
Scope of implementation
Current scope of antidegradation implementation
![Page 18: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Activities that impact waters of the state
CWA regulatory authority exists
Proposed rule increases scope of
implementation
18
No regulatory control, but implementation mechanisms exist
(Size ≠ scale of activities)
Scope of implementation
![Page 19: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Scope of implementation
Proposed changes
Separate procedures for:
• Individual NPDES wastewater permits and individual 401
certifications; and• Individual NPDES stormwater
permits and general authorizations
![Page 20: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Parameters ofconcern
Proposed changes
Parameters to be reviewed are identified early, allowing for an effective alternatives analysis
![Page 21: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Review trigger
Exemptions
Proposed changesName change
Rule format
Scope of implementation
Parameters ofconcern
![Page 22: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Physical alterations / existing uses
Proposed changes
Reconcile the maintenance of
existing uses with physical modifications
allowed under the Clean Water Act
![Page 23: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Clarify Restricted
ORVW protection
Proposed changes
Preserve existing water quality necessary to maintain exceptional
characteristics for which the Restricted ORVW was designated
![Page 24: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Public participation
Proposed changes
Agency provides critical information:
Alternative analysis
Social/economic justification
Agency's preliminary determination
![Page 25: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Public participation coincides with the comment periods for permits and certifications
Public participation
Minn R 700
1
Minn R 700
1
![Page 26: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Review trigger
Exemptions
Proposed changesName change
Rule format
Scope of implementation
Physical alterations / existing uses
Clarify Restricted
ORVW protection
Public participation
Parameters ofconcern
![Page 27: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
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
![Page 28: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
![Page 29: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
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
![Page 30: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
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
![Page 31: Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051819/551b44fe550346d31b8b498a/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Rulemaking path
2007 Start
Initial stakeholder meetings
Response to comments/ questions
Water quality forum direction
Proposed changes
Initial draft
More internal/ external input