WDNR Environmental Assessment of Vessel General Permit

The Wisconsin DNR (WDNR) has recently completed its environmental assessment for the proposed issuance of a general permit to regulate the discharge of ballast water from ships into the waters of the State. This assessment, completed to comply with the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA) clears the way for WDNR to issue its final discharge permit.

On February 23, 2009, the WDNR public noticed a general permit for commercial vessels which includes effluent discharge standards for ballast water. This permit also included an aggressive compliance schedule for implementation. The permit specifies biological effluent discharge standards and biocide effluent limits that, based upon best professional judgment, represent the best practicable technology currently available pursuant to § NR 220.21, Wis. Adm. Code. WDNR believes a permit for regulating ballast water beyond what EPA has developed is necessary to prevent the release of additional aquatic invasive species (AIS) and protect water quality standards in Wisconsin. The 2010-11 biennial budget bill signed by Governor Doyle in July 2009 provided for statutory authority to establish a discharge performance standard for ballast water.

Wisconsin’s General Permit will require discharges of ballast water to meet numeric technology based effluent limits based upon the number of living organisms in the discharge by 2014 for all existing ocean-going ships. Vessels constructed on or after January 1, 2012 would have to meet these requirements prior to operation. The permit is intended to minimize the further release of aquatic invasive species. The general permit requires all ocean-going vessels to meet discharge standards set at 100 times more stringent than the IMO standards. This discharge standard is similar to that adopted by New York in its § 401 Water Quality Certification. Plans and specifications of the treatment systems would require approval by the Department, to confirm the treatment has been approved by the USCG or an equivalent approval process, is effective and would comply with the discharge standards.

There is an exemption in this permit when ballast water is pumped from a vessel off-ship for treatment on another vessel or to a ballast water treatment system on-shore. Additionally, the permit allows for an alternative discharge limit, if the technology is not available to meet the discharge standards by December 31, 2011.

The federal general permit (VGP), effective December 19, 2008, that applies to all discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel1 includes a technology based standard for all ocean-going vessels. This standard has been required by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) for all vessels that enter the St. Lawrence Seaway since March 2008 and has proven ineffective as the introduction of aquatic invasive species has continued. On August 28, 2009, the USCG published in the federal register a new proposed ballast water discharge standard rule which requires a phased approach to ballast water discharge standards, with IMO being required in phase-one, and up to 1000 times IMO standards in phase-two. WDNR general permit contains technology based effluent limitations that represent the best practicable control technology currently available.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address Environmental Review and Environmental Impact Assessment.

Caltha Environmental Review Website

3 Year Look Back Rule For Environmental Review

The "Three Year Look Back Rule" under Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review requirements addresses how to determine whether a proposed expansion of an existing project requires a mandatory EAW due to the combined size of the existing project and the proposed expansion. The existing project’s magnitude must be added to that of the proposed expansion under the following conditions:

• Construction of the existing project commenced less than three years ago; and
• The existing project was not reviewed through an EAW or EIS.
  

The purpose of the 3-year look-back rule is to identify phased actions that are subject to review. This provision does not require EAW review of any existing stages of the project. It only requires the RGU to include previous stages in the calculation to determine if the EAW mandatory threshold is exceeded, not to review completed construction.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address Environmental Review and Environmental Impact Assessment.

Caltha Environmental Review Website

EQB Mandatory Environmental Review Categories Proposed

The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is proposing amendments to environmental review rules adding several categories of projects that would require a Mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or a Mandatory Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). These amendments are in five areas:

• New mandatory EAW, EIS, and Exemption categories that would apply to certain projects located in the shoreland areas of lake and rivers;
• Amendments to how the rules handle treatment of “cumulative potential effects” in EAWs, EIS, and Alternative Urban Areawide Reviews (AUARs) in response to a 2006 Minnesota Supreme Court decision;
• Amendments to the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process with respect to how specific individual projects are treated or how they affect the review;
• A new mandatory EIS category for releases of genetically-engineered wild rice, in response to a legislative directive in the 2007 session; and
• Miscellaneous other amendments to clarify the meaning of certain rule provisions.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address Environmental Review and Environmental Impact Assessment.

Caltha Environmental Review Website

US HUD Mandatory Vapor Intrusion Screening - ASTM E 2600

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Multifamily Housing has adopted Tier 1 vapor intrusion (VI) screens (the first of four tiers) under ASTM E 2600 as a mandatory component of Phase I environmental site assessments conducted under the agency's MAP (Multifamily Accelerated Processing) Guide. MAP is the procedure used by hundreds of MAP-approved lenders and HUD field offices throughout the country to process loan applications for Federal Housing Administration multifamily mortgage insurance.

Under the revised policy, a HUD Phase I ESA must include an initial vapor intrusion screen to determine if there is a potential for vapors to occur in the subsurface below existing and/or proposed on-site structures from those hazardous substances, petroleum and petroleum products that consist of VOCs, SVOCs and inorganic volatile compounds.

HUD is one of two Federal lending agencies that that prescribe additional mandatory requirements to a Phase I ESA. The Small Business Administration also has additional enviornmental review requirements for participation in its lending programs.

SBA Environmental Review / RSRA / Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Requirements

Caltha LLP assists prospective Buyers and their Lenders in meeting Due Diligence, Environmental Site Assessment and Environmental Review requirements. To request a quote on-line, go to Caltha Environmental Assessment Quote Web Page.

Caltha Environmental Review Website

FTA Requirement For Energy Assessments During Environmental Review

Applications for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) assistance for the construction, reconstruction, or modification of buildings require completion of an energy assessment. The energy assessment must be documented as part of the Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. For projects which do not require an environmental assessment or EIS, the energy assessment must be submitted with the application for FTA assistance for actual construction.

An energy assessment consists of an analysis of the total energy requirements of a building, including:

(1) Overall design of the facility or modification, and alternative designs;
(2) Materials and techniques used in construction or rehabilitation;
(3) Special or innovative conservation features that may be used;
(4) Fuel requirements for heating, cooling, and operations essential to the function of the structure, projected over the life of the facility and including projected costs of this fuel; and
(5) Kind of energy to be used, including:
(i) Consideration of opportunities for using fuels other than petroleum and natural gas, and
(ii) Consideration of using alternative, renewable energy sources.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address Environmental Review and Environmental Impact Assessment.

Caltha Environmental Review Website

What Is A Phased Action For Environmental Impact Analysis?

Phased actions are often defined as two or more projects by the same proposer that will have environmental effects on the same geographic area and are substantially certain to be undertaken sequentially over a limited period of time. This definition usually involves three components:

• Same proposer,
• Same area affected, and
• Timing.

The third component, the relative timing of the phases, involves the most uncertainty and therefore is often the most difficult component to apply.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address Environmental Review and Environmental Impact Assessment.

Caltha Environmental Review Website

Environmental Review For Connected Projects - Connected Actions

Certain types of projects are regulated as "connected actions" for purposes of defining a project for environmental review. Three types of relationships between projects often qualify as connected actions:

• One induces the other;
• One is a prerequisite for the other and is not justified by itself (the first occurring previously or simultaneously); or
• Neither is justified by itself; that is, the two projects are interdependent parts of a larger whole.
  

Whenever two or more projects are related in any of these ways, they may have to be considered as one project, regardless of ownership or timing.

It is not common for projects to be “connected actions.” Common examples of connected actions include multi-site animal feedlots or when a major development project triggers construction of public infrastructure, such as a road or sewer that would not otherwise be needed.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address Environmental Review and Environmental Impact Assessment.

Caltha Environmental Review Website