2010-08-24_HYDROLOGY - M1977300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 3 504 F.3d 1007, 65 ERC 1289,07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,947, 2007 Daily Joumal D.A.R. 15,420 (Cite as: 504 F.3d 1007) On June 30, 2000, the Arizona Department of Envi- ronmental Quality ("Arizona DEQ") certified the final permit with the two new conditions as meeting state water quality standards under § 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. ? 1341, and on July 24, 2000, the EPA issued an NPDES permit to Carlota, as well as a Record of Decision formally adopting the Forest Service FEIS and the Corps EA for the current permit. Arizona anti-degradation requirements and water quality standards, and (4) the EPA violated NEPA in several ways. The Appeals Board entered its order denying review on September 30, 2004. The EPA issued the final NPDES permit to Carlota, and the Petitioners filed for review in this court. On August 24, 2000, the Petitioners filed their first Petition for Review of the NPDES permit and the NEPA documents with the Appeals Board. The Peti- tioners argued that: (1) because Pinto Creek is an impaired water under the Clean Water Act, the EPA should establish a Total Maximum Daily Load ("TMDL") for copper discharges into Pinto Creek before issuing Carlota's permit, (2) the EPA did not provide public notice of and a public comment period for the two new permit conditions, (3) Carlota needed an additional NPDES permit for discharges from the Gibson Mine site, and (4) the Forest Service FEIS and Corps EA documents did not consider environmental impacts of the two new permit conditions. The EPA did not respond and, instead, withdrew por- tions of the challenged NPDES permit stating that the permit was not severable from the contested condi- tions and that the permit should be stayed pending final agency action. The EPA then prepared a sup- plemental environmental assessment ("EPA's sup- plemental EA") analyzing only the two new condi- tions. In response to the Petitioners' contention of the necessity to establish a TMDL, the EPA completed a TMDL for dissolved copper in Pinto Creek. The EPA then provided a public comment period, but only for the two new permit conditions and the EPA's sup- plemental EA. The Arizona Department of Environ- mental Quality issued a second certification under § 401 of the Clean Water Act in February 2002. In accordance with its new analysis, the EPA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact on February 27, 2002, determining it would not have to prepare a new EIS, and issued the permit. On April 1, 2002, the Petitioners filed a second Peti- tion for Review with the Appeals Board challenging the EPA's decision to issue the Carlota permit. The principal challenges were that: (1) the permit should have covered the diversion channels that discharged into Pinto Creek, (2) the EPA must regulate all project discharges, (3) the permitted discharges violated *1011 IV. ANALYSIS A. Objective of the Clean Water Act. It is important to consider the objectives and purpose of the 1972 revisions of the Clean Water Act, which are presently applicable to the considerations involved here. 33 U.S.C. & 1251 (1987) provides: The objective of this chapter is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological in- tegrity of the nation's waters. In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that, consistent with the provisions of this chapter-(1) it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the na- vigable waters be eliminated by 1985 .... (3) it is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited. Under the 1972 revisions of the Clean Water Act, there is direct federal regulation of the discharge of pollutants from point sources. Pronsolino v. Nastri. 291 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir.2002). "[P]oint sources of pollution are those [where the pollutant flows] from a discrete conveyance, such as a pipe or tunnel. Nonpoint sources of pollution are non-discrete sources" and are the responsibility of the states, with certain federal oversight. Id at 1125-27. An example of a non-discrete source is runoff from a farmland or timber harvesting. Our Pronsolino opinion provides a detailed descrip- tion of the operation of the Clean Water Act. We here summarize the provisions pertinent to this case. Under § 303 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. S 1313, the states are required to set water quality standards for all waters within their boundaries, re- gardless of the sources of the pollution entering the waters. Pursuant to § 303(d)(1), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1), each state is required to identify those © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.