Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012.

ProposedAntidegradation Rule

Presented to:Minnesota Chamber of Commerce

October 1, 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Current rules outdated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

Proposed changesName change

Rule format

Scope of implementation

Physical alterations / existing uses

Clarify Restricted

ORVW protection

Public participation

Parameters ofconcern

14

Review trigger

Proposed changes

Review is triggered by anet increase in loading or

other causes of degradation

15

Exemptions

Proposed changes

• Emergency response actions• Class 7 waters (under specific conditions)

• Temporary and limited impacts

16

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

17

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

18

No regulatory control, but implementation mechanisms exist

(Size ≠ scale of activities)

Scope of implementation

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

20

Parameters ofconcern

Proposed changes

Parameters to be reviewed are identified early, allowing for an effective alternatives analysis

21

Review trigger

Exemptions

Proposed changesName change

Rule format

Scope of implementation

Parameters ofconcern

22

Physical alterations / existing uses

Proposed changes

Reconcile the maintenance of

existing uses with physical modifications

allowed under the Clean Water Act

23

Clarify Restricted

ORVW protection

Proposed changes

Preserve existing water quality necessary to maintain exceptional

characteristics for which the Restricted ORVW was designated

24

Public participation

Proposed changes

Agency provides critical information:

Alternative analysis

Social/economic justification

Agency's preliminary determination

25

Public participation coincides with the comment periods for permits and certifications

Public participation

Minn R 700

1

Minn R 700

1

26

Review trigger

Exemptions

Proposed changesName change

Rule format

Scope of implementation

Physical alterations / existing uses

Clarify Restricted

ORVW protection

Public participation

Parameters ofconcern

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

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

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

31

Rulemaking path

2007 Start

Initial stakeholder meetings

Response to comments/ questions

Water quality forum direction

Proposed changes

Initial draft

More internal/ external input