-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
1
Clean Water Rule Comment Compendium
Topic 4 : Other Waters
The Response to Comments Document, together with the preamble to
the final Clean Water
Rule, presents the responses of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Department
of the Army (collectively the agencies) to the more than one
million public comments received
on the proposed rule (79 FR 22188 (Apr. 21, 2014)). The agencies
have addressed all significant
issues raised in the public comments.
As a result of changes made to the preamble and final rule prior
to signature, and due to the
volume of comments received, some responses in the Response to
Comments Document may not
reflect the language in the preamble and final rule in every
respect. Where the response is in
conflict with the preamble or the final rule, the language in
the final preamble and rule controls
and should be used for purposes of understanding the scope,
requirements, and basis of the final
rule. In addition, due to the large number of comments that
addressed similar issues, as well as
the volume of the comments received, the Response to Comments
Document does not always
cross-reference each response to the commenter(s) who raised the
particular issue involved. The
responses presented in this document are intended to augment the
responses to comments that
appear in the preamble to the final rule or to address comments
not discussed in that preamble.
Although portions of the preamble to the final rule are
paraphrased in this document where
useful to add clarity to responses, the preamble itself remains
the definitive statement of the
rationale for the revisions adopted in the final rule. In many
instances, particular responses
presented in the Response to Comments Document include cross
references to responses on
related issues that are located either in the preamble to the
Clean Water Rule, the Technical
Support Document, or elsewhere in the Response to Comments
Document. All issues on which
the agencies are taking final action in the Clean Water Rule are
addressed in the Clean Water
Rule rulemaking record.
Accordingly, the Response to Comments Document, together with
the preamble to the Clean
Water Rule and the information contained in the Technical
Support Document, the Science
Report, and the rest of the administrative record should be
considered collectively as the
agencies response to all of the significant comments submitted
on the proposed rule. The
Response to Comments Document incorporates directly or by
reference the significant public
comments addressed in the preamble to the Clean Water Rule as
well as other significant public
comments that were submitted on the proposed rule.
This compendium, as part of the Response to Comments Document,
provides a compendium of
the technical comments about Other Waters submitted by
commenters. Comments have been
copied into this document as is with no editing or summarizing.
Footnotes in regular font are
taken directly from the comments.
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
2
TOPIC 4. OTHER WATERS (PROPOSED (A)(7) WATERS)
.......................................................... 15
AGENCY SUMMARY RESPONSE
....................................................................................
15
Essay 1
..................................................................................................................
15 Essay 2
..................................................................................................................
17
Essay 3
..................................................................................................................
18 Essay 4
..................................................................................................................
18 Essay 5
..................................................................................................................
19 Essay 6
..................................................................................................................
19 Essay 7
..................................................................................................................
20
Essay 8
..................................................................................................................
22 Essay 9
..................................................................................................................
24 Essay 10
................................................................................................................
25 Essay 11
................................................................................................................
26
Essay 12
................................................................................................................
27 Essay 13
................................................................................................................
28
Essay 14
................................................................................................................
28 Essay 15
................................................................................................................
29
Essay 16
................................................................................................................
29 Essay 17
................................................................................................................
30
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
...................................................................................................
31
Committee on Space, Science and Technology (Doc.
#16386)............................ 31
New Mexico Department of Agriculture (Doc. #13024)
...................................... 32 State of Oklahoma (Doc.
#14625)
........................................................................
34
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (Doc. #15048)
..................... 35 Ohio Department of Natural Resources, et
al., State of Ohio (Doc. #15421) ...... 35
New Mexico Environment Department (Doc. #16552)
........................................ 36 Office of the City
Attorneys, City of Newport News, Virginia (Doc. #10956) ... 37
New Mexico Department of Agriculture (Doc. #13024)
...................................... 37 Tri-County Economic
Development Corporation, Northern Kentucky Tri-ED
(Doc. #8536)
.........................................................................................................
38
Federal StormWater Association (Doc. #15161)
.................................................. 39 Atlantic
Legal Foundation (Doc. #15253)
............................................................ 40
Water Advocacy Coalition (Doc. #17921.1)
........................................................ 41
Associated General Contractors of America (Doc. #14602)
................................ 42 Vulcan Materials Company (Doc.
#14642) ..........................................................
44 CEMEX (Doc. #19470)
........................................................................................
44 Barrick Gold of North America (Doc. #16914)
.................................................... 45
Montana Wool Growers Association (Doc. #5843.1)
.......................................... 45
United FCS (Doc. #12722)
...................................................................................
46
Oklahoma Grain and Feed Association et al. (Doc. #16067)
............................... 46 Peltzer & Richardson, LC
(Doc. #16360)
............................................................. 47
Wilkin County Farm Bureau (Doc. #19489)
........................................................ 48 Chicken
& Egg Association of Minnesota (Doc. #19584)
................................... 49 Elmore County Highway
Department, Wetumpka, Alabama (Doc. #14072) ...... 49 Alan Hofmann,
General Manager- Secretary, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control
District (Doc. #15484)
..........................................................................................
50
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
3
Colorado Water Congress Federal Affairs Committee (Doc.
#14569)................. 50
South Metro Water Supply Authority, Colorado (Doc.
#16481).......................... 52 Tucson Electric Power Company,
UNS Energy Corporation (Doc. #19561) ...... 53 Southern
Environmental Law Center et al. (Doc. #13610)
.................................. 54
Washington Legal Foundation (Doc.
#5503)........................................................ 55
Earthjustice (Doc. #14564)
...................................................................................
55 Conservancy of Southwest Florida (Doc. #14980)
............................................... 56 Columbia
Riverkeeper (Doc. #15210)
..................................................................
57 Lake County, Illinois Stormwater Management Commission (Doc.
#15381) ..... 57
Save the Illinois River, Inc. (Doc. #16462)
.......................................................... 57 Ruby
Valley Conservation District, Montana (Doc. #16477)
.............................. 57 Center for Water Advocacy et al.
(Doc. #15225) ................................................. 58
Congress of the United States, Senate Committee on Environment and
Public
Works et al. (Doc. #16564)
...................................................................................
59 Arthur V. Brown (Doc. #0050)
.............................................................................
61
4.1. DEFINITION
........................................................................................................................
61
Region 10 Tribal Caucus (Doc. #14927)
..............................................................
61
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (Doc. #10952)
........................................ 62 Texas Department of
Transportation (Doc. #12757)
............................................ 62
Virginia Department of Transportation (Doc. #12756)
........................................ 62 Board of Supervisors,
Imperial County (Doc. #10259)
........................................ 63 The Board of County
Commissioners of Otero County New Mexico (Doc.
#14321)
.................................................................................................................
63 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(Doc. #14581)
...............................................................................................................................
63 New York City Law Department (Doc.
#15065).................................................. 64
San Bernadino County, California (Doc.
#16489)................................................ 65 Kerr
Environmental Services Corp. (Doc. #7937.1)
............................................ 66
Business Council of Alabama (Doc.
#15538)....................................................... 66
Home Builders Association of Tennessee (Doc. #19581)
.................................... 68 Kansas Independent Oil
& Gas Association (Doc. #12249)
................................. 68
Newmont Mining Corporation (Doc. #13596)
..................................................... 68 Sinclair
Oil Corporation (Doc. #15142)
............................................................... 69
Barrick Gold of North America (Doc. #16914)
.................................................... 70
Washington Cattlemens Association (Doc. #3723)
............................................. 70 Colorado Livestock
Association (Doc. #7930)
..................................................... 71 Michigan
Farm Bureau, Lansing, Michigan (Doc. #10196)
................................. 71 Hancock County, Indiana (Doc.
#11980)
.............................................................
71
Western Growers Association (Doc. #14130)
...................................................... 71 Iowa Farm
Bureau Federation (Doc. #15633.1)
................................................... 72 National
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (Doc. #16357.1)
............................... 72
Greene County Farm Bureau (Doc. #17007)
........................................................ 73
Airports Council International - North America (Doc. #16370)
.......................... 73 Department of Public Works, City of
Chesapeake, Virginia (Doc. #5612.1) ...... 74 Gateway Water
Management Authority (Doc. #10032)
....................................... 74 Illinois Fertilizer
& Chemical Association (Doc. #15129)
................................... 74
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
4
American Wind Energy Association (Doc. #15208)
............................................ 74
Lower Colorado River Authority (Doc. #16332)
................................................. 74 Partners in
Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (Doc. #7499.1)
....................... 75 Rock the Earth (Doc. #12261)
..............................................................................
77
Cahaba River Society (Doc. #12827)
...................................................................
77 Hackensack Riverkeeper, Hudson Riverkeeper, Milwaukee
Riverkeeper, NY/NJ
Baykeeper and Raritan Riverkeeper (Doc. #15360)
............................................. 78 Delaware
Riverkeeper Network (Doc. #15383)
................................................... 78 Eastern
Municipal Water District (Doc. #15544)
................................................. 79
National Barley Grow Association (Doc. #15627)
............................................... 80 The Property
Which Water Occupies (Doc. #8610)
............................................. 81 AES-US Services
(Doc. #3242)
............................................................................
82
4.2. BASIS FOR JURISDICTION BY RULE
...................................................................................
82
AGENCY SUMMARY RESPONSE
....................................................................................
82
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
...................................................................................................
83
National Association of State Foresters (Doc.
#14636)........................................ 83 State of Idaho
(Doc. #9834)
..................................................................................
83
New Mexico Department of Agriculture (Doc. #13024)
...................................... 84 North Carolina Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Doc. #14747)
...............................................................................................................................
85
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(Doc. #14984)
...............................................................................................................................
86
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (Doc. #15048)
..................... 86 North Dakota Office of the Governor, et
al. (Doc. #15365) ................................. 87 Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality (Doc. #16393)
........................ 88
Department of Health and Environmental Control, State of South
Carolina (Doc.
#16491)
.................................................................................................................
88 Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (Doc.
#16538) ....... 91 Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Sokaogon, Mole Lake
Band of the Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians, Crandon Wisconsin (Doc. #16591)
......................... 91 Murray County Board of Commissioners
(Doc. #7528) ...................................... 92
City of Chesapeake (Doc. #9615)
.........................................................................
92 Grant County Commission, New Mexico (Doc. #10963)
.................................... 93
Soil and Water Conservation District (Doc. #14943)
........................................... 94 Maui County (Doc.
#19543)
.................................................................................
94 Sonoma County Water Coalition (Doc. #8535)
.................................................... 95 Ann
McCammon Soltis, Director, Division of Intergovernmental Affairs,
Great
Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (Doc. #15454)
............................... 95
Kent Connelly, Chairman, Coalition of Local Governments (Doc.
#15516) ....... 96 American Foundry Society (Doc. #15148)
........................................................... 97
National Association of Manufacturers (Doc. #15410)
........................................ 97 Federal Water Quality
Coalition (Doc.
#15822.1).............................................. 102 Water
Advocacy Coalition (Doc. #17921.1)
...................................................... 104 National
Association of Home Builders (Doc. #19540)
..................................... 105 Home Builders Association
of Tennessee (Doc. #19581) .................................. 115
Continental Resources, Inc. (Doc. #14655)
........................................................ 116
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
5
Sinclair Oil Corporation (Doc. #15142)
.............................................................
118
Barrick Gold of North America (Doc. #16914)
.................................................. 119 Oregon
Cattlemens Association (Doc. #5273.1)
............................................... 121 Montana Wool
Growers Association (Doc. #5843.1)
........................................ 122
Alameda County Cattlewomen (Doc. #8674)
..................................................... 123 Western
Growers Association (Doc. #14130)
.................................................... 124 Kentucky
Farm Bureau (Doc. #14567.1)
............................................................ 125
National Corn Growers Association (Doc. #14968)
........................................... 126 National Pork
Producers Council (Doc. #15023)
............................................... 127
National Alliance of Forest Owners (Doc. #15247)
........................................... 127 Union County
Cattlemen (Doc. #15261)
............................................................ 130
Beet Sugar Development Foundation (Doc. #15368)
......................................... 131 Peltzer &
Richardson, LC (Doc. #16360)
........................................................... 133
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (Doc. #16635)
................................................. 133 Association
of American Railroads (Doc. #15018.1)
......................................... 134
Union Pacific Railroad Company (Doc. #15254)
............................................... 134 West Bay
Sanitary District, Novato Sanitary District, West County
Wastewater
District, Union Sanitary District and West Valley (Doc. #16610)
..................... 135 Clearwater Watershed District, et al.
(Doc. #9560.1) ......................................... 137 Duke
Energy (Doc. #13029)
...............................................................................
138
North Dakota EmPower Commission (Doc. #13604)
........................................ 139 Murray Energy
Corporation (Doc. #13954)
....................................................... 140
Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. (Doc.
#13993)....................... 140 Southern Nevada Water Authority
(Doc. #14580) ............................................. 141
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Doc. #14637)
................... 142
Arizonas Generation & Transmission Cooperatives (Doc.
#14901) ................. 143
Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (Doc.
#14940) ................. 144 American Public Power Association
(Doc. #15008) .......................................... 144
Utility Water Act Group (Doc. #15016)
.............................................................
145
Edison Electric Institute (Doc. #15032)
.............................................................. 153
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Berthoud, Colorado
(Doc.
#15114)
...............................................................................................................
154 East Kentucky Power Cooperative (Doc. #15402)
............................................. 155
Washington County Water Conservancy District (Doc. #15536)
...................... 156 Association of Electronic Companies of
Texas, Inc. (Doc. #16433) .................. 157 Basin Electronic
Power Cooperative (Doc. #16447)
.......................................... 157 Battelle Energy
Alliance, LLC (Doc. #16448)
................................................... 158 Texas Water
Development Board (Doc. #16563)
............................................... 160
North Dakota Water Users Association (Doc. #19454)
...................................... 161 Coachella Valley Water
District, Riverside County, California (Doc. #19455) 162
Southern Environmental Law Center et al. (Doc. #13610)
................................ 162 Natural Resources Defense
Council et al. (Doc. #15437) .................................. 164
Waterkeeper Alliance et al. (Doc. #16413)
........................................................ 167
National Wildlife Federation (Doc. #15020)
...................................................... 169 Center
for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, and Turtle
Island
Restoration Network (Doc. #15233)
...................................................................
171
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
6
The Association of State Wetland Managers (Doc. #14131)
............................. 172
Southeastern Legal Foundation (Doc. #16592)
.................................................. 172 Albemarle
Area QUWF Chapter, et al. (Doc. #4292)
........................................ 174 Protect Americans,
Board of Directors (Doc. #12726)
....................................... 174
Idaho Conservation League (Doc. #15053)
........................................................ 175 Neuse
Riverkeeper Foundation (Doc. #15095)
.................................................. 176 Columbia
Riverkeeper (Doc. #15210)
................................................................
176 Wyoming Outdoor Council (Doc. #16528.1)
..................................................... 176 George
Washing University Regulatory Studies Center (Doc. #13563)
............ 178
Water Environment Federation (Doc. #16584)
.................................................. 179 ONeil LLP
(Doc. #16559)
.................................................................................
180
4.3. PROPOSED METHODS FOR DETERMINING JURISDICTION
.............................................. 181
State of Iowa (Doc. #8377)
.................................................................................
181
Sealaska Corporation (Doc. #15356)
..................................................................
181 Tennessee Department of Transportation (Doc. #16470)
................................... 182 State of South Dakota (Doc.
#16925)
.................................................................
183 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Doc.
#19133) ........... 183
State of Alaska (Doc. #19465)
............................................................................
184 Washington Association of Conservation Districts (Doc. #3272.2)
................... 185
Office of the City Attorneys, City of Newport News, Virginia
(Doc. #10956) . 186 Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce and Industry
(Doc. #14401) ................... 186 Water Advocacy Coalition
(Doc. #17921.1)
...................................................... 186
Home Builders Association of Mississippi (Doc. #19504)
................................ 189 National Association of Home
Builders (Doc. #19540) .....................................
189
The Elm Group, Inc. (Doc. #9688)
.....................................................................
190 El Dorado Holdings, Inc. (Doc. #14285)
............................................................
191
ERO Resources Corporation (Doc. #14914)
...................................................... 192 El
Dorado Holdings, Inc. (Doc. #14285)
............................................................
193
Pennsylvania Aggregates and Concrete Association (Doc.
#16353).................. 193 Peltzer & Richardson, LC (Doc.
#16360) ...........................................................
195 Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority (Doc.
#15221) ..... 196
NRG Energy, Inc. (Doc. #13995)
.......................................................................
197 Southern Company (Doc. #14134)
.....................................................................
198 EcoSynthesis Scientific & Regulatory Services (Doc. #14586)
......................... 198
The Wildlife Society (Doc. #14899)
...................................................................
199 American Electric Power, Inc. (Doc. #15079)
.................................................... 200 JEA (Doc.
#15194)
.............................................................................................
200 April Snell, Executive Director, Oregon Water Resources
Congress (Doc.
#15488)
...............................................................................................................
201 Orleans Audubon Society (Doc. #2113)
............................................................. 202
Ducks Unlimited (Doc. #11014)
.........................................................................
202
Southern Environmental Law Center et al. (Doc. #13610)
................................ 203 Mike Leahy, Conservation
Director, and Paul Lepisto, Regional Conservation
Coordinator, Missouri River Initiative, Izaak Walton League of
America (Doc.
#15503)
...............................................................................................................
203 Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council (Doc. #12855)
............................................. 204
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
7
The Wildlife Society (Doc. #14899)
...................................................................
205
Flathead Lakers (Doc. #15076)
...........................................................................
206 Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (Doc. #15202)
........................................... 206 Hackensack
Riverkeeper, Hudson Riverkeeper, Milwaukee Riverkeeper, NY/NJ
Baykeeper and Raritan Riverkeeper (Doc. #15360)
........................................... 207 Wisconsin Wetlands
Association (Doc. #15629)
............................................... 207 Connecticut
River Watershed Council (Doc. #16456)
....................................... 210 WaterLegacy (Doc.
#18017)
...............................................................................
210 Society for Freshwater Science (Doc. #11783)
.................................................. 211
4.3.1 Proposed Rule Method of Similarly Situated in the Region
..................................... 212
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Doc. #15080)
...................... 212 Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (Doc. #15135) ........ 212
Southern Ute Indian Tribe Growth Fund (Doc. #15386)
.................................... 213
State of Alaska (Doc. #19465)
............................................................................
213
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(Doc. #14581)
.............................................................................................................................
214 Lea Soil and Conservation District Board of Supervisors (Doc.
#15144) .......... 215 Palm Beach County, Florida (Doc. #16647)
....................................................... 217 Colfax
Soil & Water Conservation District, New Mexico (Doc. #16890)
......... 218 Board of Supervisors, Sutter County, California (Doc.
#19657) ........................ 218 County Commissioners
Association of Pennsylvania (Doc. #14579) ................ 219
Western Urban Water Coalition (Doc. #15178.1)
.............................................. 220 Maine Municipal
Association (Doc. #16630)
..................................................... 222
Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. (Doc. #19607)
............................................. 223 National Farmers
Union (Doc. #6249)
............................................................... 223
Southern Company (Doc. #14134)
.....................................................................
224
American Electric Power, Inc. (Doc. #15079)
.................................................... 224
Basin Electronic Power Cooperative (Doc. #16447)
.......................................... 224 Potomac Riverkeeper,
Inc. (Doc.
#15013)..........................................................
225 National Wildlife Federation (Doc. #15020)
...................................................... 226
Center for Rural Affairs (Doc. #15029)
.............................................................. 227
Competitive Enterprise Institute et al (Doc. #15127)
......................................... 228
Protect American, Board of Directors (Doc. #12726)
........................................ 229 Anacostia Riverkeeper
et al. (Doc. #15375)
....................................................... 229
Delaware Riverkeeper Network (Doc. #15383)
................................................. 233 The River
Alliance of Wisconsin (Doc. #16344)
............................................... 233
4.3.1.1 Supporting Approach
.....................................................................................
234
WA Department of Ecology (Doc. #13957)
....................................................... 234
Western Urban Water Coalition (Doc. #15178.1)
.............................................. 235 Outdoor Alliance
and Outdoor Industry Association (Doc. #14415) .................
236 Garden Club of America (Doc. #0874)
...............................................................
236
Surfrider Foundation (Doc.
#6071.1)..................................................................
239 Ducks Unlimited (Doc. #11014)
.........................................................................
240 Southern Environmental Law Center et al. (Doc. #13610)
................................ 242 National Wildlife Federation
(Doc. #15020)
...................................................... 243
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
8
Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, and
Turtle Island
Restoration Network (Doc. #15233)
...................................................................
246 American Rivers (Doc. #15372)
.........................................................................
246 Western Resource Advocates (Doc. #16460)
..................................................... 247
Earthjustice (Doc. #14564)
.................................................................................
251 The Wildlife Society (Doc. #14899)
...................................................................
253 Caloosahatchee River Citizens Association (Doc. #4711.2)
............................. 254 Wyoming Outdoor Council (Doc.
#16528.1) ..................................................... 254
Society for Freshwater Science (Doc. #11783)
.................................................. 255
Society of Wetland Scientists (Doc. #12846)
..................................................... 258 4.3.1.2
Opposing Approach
.......................................................................................
260
State of Iowa (Doc. #8377)
.................................................................................
260
West Virginia Attorney General, et al. (Doc. #7988)
......................................... 261
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Doc. #14279.1)
........................ 262
Western Urban Water Coalition (Doc. #15178.1)
.............................................. 263 Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality (Doc. #16393)
...................... 264 State of Michigan, Attorney General
(Doc. #16469) .......................................... 264 City
of Phoenix, Arizona, Office of Environmental Programs (Doc. #7986)
.... 265 Franconia Township (Doc. #8661)
.....................................................................
266 Office of the City Attorneys, City of Newport News, Virginia
(Doc. #10956) . 266 Cochise County Board of Supervisors (Doc.
#14541) ........................................ 268
Painesville Township, Ohio (Doc. #15183)
........................................................ 268 San
Bernadino County, California (Doc.
#16489).............................................. 269
U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Doc. #14115)
....................................................... 270 John
Deere & Company (Doc. #14136.1)
.......................................................... 272
California Building Industry Association et al. (Doc. #14523)
.......................... 273
Corporate Environmental Enforcement Council, Inc. (Doc. #14608)
................ 274
Golf Course Superintendents Association of America et al. (Doc.
#14902) ...... 274 Water Advocacy Coalition (Doc. #17921.1)
...................................................... 276 North
Houston Association et al. (Doc. #8537)
.................................................. 278
El Dorado Holdings, Inc. (Doc. #14285)
............................................................ 279
ERO Resources Corporation (Doc. #14914)
...................................................... 282
CEMEX (Doc. #19470)
......................................................................................
283 National Association of Home Builders (Doc. #19540)
..................................... 284 Pennsylvania Coal
Alliance (Doc. #13074)
........................................................ 288
Newmont Mining Corporation (Doc. #13596)
................................................... 288 National
Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (Doc. #14412)
............................ 290
Continental Resources, Inc. (Doc. #14655)
........................................................ 291
American Petroleum Institute (Doc. #15115)
..................................................... 293
Stuart H. Kemp, Sr. Director, HSE Law Practice Group, David
Martin,
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Doc.
#15509)............................................... 295 Phillip
M. Gonet, President, Illinois Coal Association (Doc.
#15517)............... 296 Coeur Mining, Inc.(Doc.
#16162).......................................................................
296 Barrick Gold of North America (Doc. #16914)
.................................................. 297 Oregon
Cattlemens Association (Doc. #5273.1)
............................................... 299 Michigan Farm
Bureau, Lansing, Michigan (Doc. #10196)
............................... 300
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
9
Nebraska Cattlemen (Doc. #13018.1)
.................................................................
301
Kansas Agriculture Alliance (Doc. #14424)
....................................................... 304
National Chicken Council; National Turkey Federation; and U.S.
Poultry & Egg
Association (Doc. #14469)
.................................................................................
304
The Mosaic Company (Doc. #14640)
.................................................................
305 Iowa Farmers Union (Doc. #15007)
...................................................................
306 Klamath Water Users Association (Doc. #15063)
.............................................. 306 North Carolina
Farm Bureau Federation (Doc. #15078)
.................................... 307 Union County Cattlemen
(Doc. #15261)
............................................................
309
Beet Sugar Development Foundation (Doc. #15368)
......................................... 309 Jensen Livestock and
Land LLC (Doc. #15540)
................................................ 310 North Dakota
Farmers Union (Doc. #16390.1)
.................................................. 311 Clearwater
Watershed District, et al. (Doc. #9560.1)
......................................... 312
Duke Energy (Doc. #13029)
...............................................................................
313 Southern Company (Doc. #14134)
.....................................................................
315
Southern Illinois Power Cooperative (Doc. #14402)
.......................................... 317 Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy District, Berthoud, Colorado (Doc.
#15114)
...............................................................................................................
317 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Doc. #15174)
....................... 318 Washington County Water Conservancy
District (Doc. #15536) ...................... 318
Texas Water Development Board (Doc. #16563)
............................................... 320 Northern
California Association (Doc. #17444)
................................................. 320
Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Energy Corporation (Doc.
#19561) .... 321 Ducks Unlimited (Doc. #11014)
.........................................................................
322 Pacific Legal Foundation (Doc. #14081)
............................................................
322
Save the Bay (Doc. #13221)
...............................................................................
324
Common Sense Nebraska (Doc. #14607)
........................................................... 324
Consortium of Aquatic Scientific Societies (Doc.
#14802)................................ 325 Society of American
Foresters (Doc. #15075)
................................................... 325
Wetland Science Applications, Inc. (Doc. #4958.2)
........................................... 325 4.3.2 None
Jurisdictional
...................................................................................................
326
Clearwater Watershed District, et al. (Doc. #9560.1)
......................................... 326
Defenders of Wildlife and Patagonia Area Resource Alliance (Doc.
#16394) .. 326 Tennessee Clean Water Network et al. (Doc. #16537)
....................................... 328 Kentucky Waterways
Alliance (Doc. #16581)
................................................... 328
4.3.2.1 Supporting Approach
.....................................................................................
329
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (Doc.
#15135) ........ 329 National Association of State Conservation
Agencies (Doc. #15778) ............... 330
New Mexico Mining Association (Doc. #8644)
................................................. 330 Minnesota
Agricultural Water Resource Center (Doc. #14284)
........................ 330 North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation
(Doc. #15078) .................................... 331
Chicken & Egg Association of Minnesota (Doc. #19584)
................................. 331 4.3.2.2 Opposing Approach
.......................................................................................
331
Southern Environmental Law Center et al. (Doc. #13610)
................................ 331 4.3.3 All Case-By Case with No
Aggregation
....................................................................
332
CalPortland Company (Doc.
#14590).................................................................
332
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
10
4.3.3.1 Supporting Approach
.....................................................................................
332
Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency (Doc. #10117)
..................... 332
Department of Public Works, County of San Diego, California
(Doc. #17920) 332 El Dorado Holdings, Inc. (Doc. #14285)
............................................................ 333
National Association for Surface Finishing (NASF) (Doc. #15398)
.................. 334 American Exploration & Mining
Association (Doc. #13616) ............................ 334 Texas
Wildlife Association (Doc. #12251)
........................................................ 335
4.3.3.2 Opposing Approach
.......................................................................................
335
Oklahoma Municipal League (Doc. #16526)
..................................................... 335
Department of Public Works, City of Chesapeake, Virginia (Doc.
#5612.1) .... 335
Natural Resources Defense Council et al. (Doc. #15437)
.................................. 336 Environment Council of Rhode
Island (Doc. #3532.2) ......................................
337
4.3.4 Group in Categories of Jurisdictional Other Waters by Type
.................................. 337
National Association of Conservation Districts (Doc. #12349)
......................... 337 Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission (Doc. #15048) ................... 338
State of Alaska (Doc. #19465)
............................................................................
338 Roosevelt Soil and Water Conservation District (Doc. #13202)
........................ 339
Waters of the United States Coalition (Doc. #14589)
........................................ 340 Kaweah and Tule Water
Managers (Doc. #16544) ............................................
340 Ann McCammon Soltis, Director, Division of Intergovernmental
Affairs, Great
Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (Doc. #15454)
............................. 341 Action United, et al (Doc.
#18859)
.....................................................................
341
El Dorado Holdings, Inc. (Doc. #14285)
............................................................ 342
Railroad Commission of Texas (Doc. #14547)
.................................................. 342 Continental
Resources, Inc. (Doc. #14655)
........................................................ 343
Colorado Cattlemens Association (Doc. #15068)
............................................. 343
North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation (Doc. #15078)
.................................... 344 US Dry Bean Council (Doc.
#15256)
.................................................................
345 Florida Federation of Garden Clubs (Doc. #5725)
............................................. 345
Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Doc. #14422)
.................................. 346 Southern Environmental Law
Center et al. (Doc. #13610) ................................
346
Agua Fund, et al. (Doc.
#14546.1)......................................................................
347 Clean Water Action (Doc. #15015)
....................................................................
348
National Wildlife Federation (Doc. #15020)
...................................................... 350 Center
for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, and Turtle
Island
Restoration Network (Doc. #15233)
...................................................................
353 American Rivers (Doc. #15372)
.........................................................................
353 Natural Resources Defense Council et al. (Doc. #15437)
.................................. 354
Defenders of Wildlife and Patagonia Area Resource Alliance (Doc.
#16394) .. 363 Waterkeeper Alliance et al. (Doc. #16413)
........................................................ 363
Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. (Doc. #19452)
......................... 365 The Association of State Wetland
Managers (Doc. #14131) ............................. 366
Earthjustice (Doc. #14564)
.................................................................................
367 Environmental Defense Fund (Doc. #14946)
..................................................... 368 Tip of
the Mitt Watershed Council (Doc. #12855)
............................................. 370 Galveston Bay
Foundation (Doc. #13835)
......................................................... 370
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
11
Kansas Natural Resource Council (Doc. #14599)
.............................................. 371
Mystic River Watershed Association (Doc. #14633)
......................................... 371 Idaho Conservation
League (Doc. #15053)
........................................................ 372
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (Doc. #15105)
................................ 372
Tulane Environmental Law Clinic; and Tennessee Clean Water
Network; et al
(Doc. #15123)
.....................................................................................................
373 Anacostia Riverkeeper et al. (Doc. #15375)
....................................................... 373 Clean
Wisconsin (Doc. #15453)
.........................................................................
374 Hank Graddy, Water Chair, Sierra Club Cumberland Chapter (Doc.
#15466) .. 375
Friends of the Rappahannock (Doc. #15864)
..................................................... 375 Wyoming
Outdoor Council (Doc. #16528.1)
..................................................... 376 Tennessee
Clean Water Network et al. (Doc. #16537)
....................................... 377 Kentucky Waterways
Alliance (Doc. #16581)
................................................... 379
Community Watersheds Clean Water Coalition, Inc. (Doc. #16935)
................ 380 4.3.4.1 Prairie Potholes
..............................................................................................
380
Continental Resources, Inc. (Doc. #14655)
........................................................ 380
Alameda County Cattlewomen (Doc. #8674)
..................................................... 384 Jensen
Livestock and Land LLC (Doc. #15540)
................................................ 385 Duck Unlimited
(Doc. #11014)
..........................................................................
385
4.3.4.1.1 Supporting Approach
..................................................................................
399
Montana Audubon (Doc. #14755)
......................................................................
399 Orleans Audubon Society (Doc. #2113)
.............................................................
400
North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society (Doc. #4828)
............................. 401 Americas Great Waters Coalition
(Doc. #4957) ............................................... 402
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation (Doc. #5468)
..................................................... 402
American Rivers (Doc. #15372)
.........................................................................
402
Natural Resources Defense Council et al. (Doc. #15437)
.................................. 403 Endangered Habitats League
(Doc. #3384.2)
..................................................... 406 North
Dakota Wildlife Federation (Doc. #13569)
.............................................. 407
Tulane Environmental Law Clinic; and Tennessee Clean Water
Network; et al
(Doc. #15123)
.....................................................................................................
407
Kentucky Waterways Alliance (Doc. #16581)
................................................... 410 North
Dakota Wildlife Federation (Doc. #16638)
.............................................. 411
Community Watersheds Clean Water Coalition, Inc. (Doc. #16935)
................ 413 Missouri Chapter, Sierra Club (Doc. #18814)
.................................................... 413 Society of
Wetland Scientists (Doc. #12846)
..................................................... 414 K. Mantay
(Doc. #15192.1)
...............................................................................
416
4.3.4.1.2 Opposing Approach
....................................................................................
417
North Dakota Office of the Governor, et al. (Doc. #15365)
............................... 417 Continental Resources, Inc.
(Doc. #14655)
........................................................ 419
4.3.4.2 Vernal Pools
..................................................................................................
419
Tulane Environmental Law Clinic; and Tennessee Clean Water
Network; et al
(Doc. #15123)
.....................................................................................................
419
4.3.4.2.1 Supporting Approach
..................................................................................
421
Audubon Society of Rhode Island (Doc. #5480)
................................................ 421 National
Wildlife Federation (Doc. #15020)
...................................................... 422
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
12
American Rivers (Doc. #15372)
.........................................................................
423
Natural Resources Defense Council et al. (Doc. #15437)
.................................. 425 Defenders of Wildlife and
Patagonia Area Resource Alliance (Doc. #16394) .. 426 Banning Ranch
Conservancy (Doc.
#14603)......................................................
427
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge (Doc. #14738.1)
.......................... 428
4.3.4.2.2 Opposing Approach
....................................................................................
430
4.3.4.3 Carolina Bays
................................................................................................
430
4.3.4.3.1 Supporting Approach
..................................................................................
430
Southern Environmental Law Center et al. (Doc. #13610)
................................ 430 Natural Resources Defense
Council et al. (Doc. #15437) ..................................
437
Georgia Water Coalition (Doc. #13844)
............................................................. 439
Atlanta Audubon Society (Doc.
#14281)............................................................
440 Everglades Law Center and Center for Biological Diversity (Doc.
#15545) ..... 441
4.3.4.3.2 Opposing Approach
....................................................................................
443
SC Chamber of Commerce Comments (Doc. #14535)
...................................... 443
Business Alliance for a Sound Economy (Doc. #14898)
................................... 444 4.3.4.4 Texas Coastal
Prairie Wetlands
.....................................................................
445
4.3.4.4.1 Supporting Approach
..................................................................................
445
Galveston Bay Council (Doc. #0866)
.................................................................
445 Ducks Unlimited (Doc. #11014)
.........................................................................
445
4.3.4.4.2 Opposing Approach
....................................................................................
450
4.3.4.5 Delmarva Bays
..............................................................................................
450
4.3.4.5.1 Supporting Approach
..................................................................................
451
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control (Doc.
#16558)
...............................................................................................................
451
Choose Clean Water Coalition, American Rivers, Anacostia
Watershed Society,
et al. (Doc. #11773.1)
.........................................................................................
451
4.3.4.5.2 Opposing Approach
....................................................................................
452
4.3.5 Aggregate in Ecoregion Basis
..................................................................................
452
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, et al., State of Ohio
(Doc. #15421) .... 452 California State Association of Counties
(Doc. #9692)...................................... 452
U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Doc. #14115)
....................................................... 453 Water
Advocacy Coalition (Doc. #17921.14)
.................................................... 455
ERO Resources Corporation (Doc. #14914)
...................................................... 457
Continental Resources, Inc. (Doc. #14655)
........................................................ 458 County
of San Diego (Doc. #14782)
..................................................................
460 Xcel Energy (Doc. #18023)
................................................................................
461
Environmental Defense Fund (Doc. #14946)
..................................................... 461 Amigos
Bravos (Doc. #14974)
...........................................................................
462 Nebraska Wildlife Federation (Doc. #15034)
..................................................... 463
Friends of the Kalmiopsis (Doc. #16669)
........................................................... 463
4.3.5.1 Supporting Approach
.....................................................................................
473
New Mexico Department of Agriculture (Doc. #13024)
.................................... 473 Arizona Game and Fish
Department (Doc. #15197) ..........................................
473 Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (Doc.
#16538) ..... 474
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
13
Southern Nevada Water Authority (Doc. #14580)
............................................. 475
Southwest Section of the Wildlife Society (Doc. #6257.1)
................................ 475 Ducks Unlimited (Doc. #11014)
.........................................................................
476 National Wildlife Federation (Doc. #15020)
...................................................... 486
Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, and
Turtle Island
Restoration Network (Doc. #15233)
...................................................................
492 Environmental Defense Fund (Doc. #15352)
..................................................... 493 Natural
Resources Defense Council et al. (Doc. #15437)
.................................. 494 Rock the Earth (Doc. #12261)
............................................................................
494
Tulane Environmental Law Clinic; and Tennessee Clean Water
Network; et al
(Doc. #15123)
.....................................................................................................
495 Audubon Florida and Audubon of the Western Everglades (Doc.
#15251) ....... 496
4.3.5.2 Opposing Approach
.......................................................................................
500
Sealaska Corporation (Doc. #15356)
..................................................................
500
State of Alaska (Doc. #19465)
............................................................................
500 Clark County Regional Flood Control District (Doc.
#11726)........................... 502 The Board of County
Commissioners of Otero County New Mexico (Doc.
#14321)
...............................................................................................................
502 City of Glendale (Doc. #15054)
..........................................................................
502 Lea Soil and Conservation District Board of Supervisors (Doc.
#15144) .......... 503 Colfax Soil & Water Conservation
District, New Mexico (Doc. #16890) ......... 503
Western Coalition of Arid States (Doc. #14407)
................................................ 503 Kent Connelly,
Chairman, Coalition of Local Governments (Doc. #15516) .....
504
North Houston Association et al. (Doc. #8537)
.................................................. 504 North
Houston Association, West Houston Association, Woodlands
Development
Company (Doc. #12259)
.....................................................................................
505
New Mexico Mining Association (Doc. #8644)
................................................. 505
Andrew C. Wilson, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP on
behalf of
Edward Wisner Donation (Doc. #15438)
........................................................... 505
Michigan Farm Bureau, Lansing, Michigan (Doc. #10196)
............................... 506
Kennewick Irrigation District, Kennewick, WA (Doc. #13571)
........................ 506 Union County Cattlemen (Doc. #15261)
............................................................
507
Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (Doc. #15633.1)
................................................. 507 County of San
Diego (Doc. #15172)
..................................................................
508 Southern Company (Doc. #14134)
.....................................................................
509 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Doc.
#14637) ................... 510 Alan Hofmann, General Manager-
Secretary, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control
District (Doc. #15484)
........................................................................................
510
Washington County Water Conservancy District (Doc. #15536)
...................... 511
Southern Environmental Law Center et al. (Doc. #13610)
................................ 511 Protect Americans, Board of
Directors (Doc. #12726) .......................................
511
4.4. SUGGESTIONS FOR ACCOMMODATING EVOLVING SCIENCE REGARDING
PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF SIGNIFICANT NEXUS
.............................................................................................
512
AGENCY SUMMARY RESPONSE
..................................................................................
512
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
.................................................................................................
513
New Mexico Department of Agriculture (Doc. #13024)
.................................... 513
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
14
Department of Conservation and Recreation (Doc. #14762)
.............................. 513
New York City Law Department (Doc.
#15065)................................................ 514 City of
Portland, Bureau of Environmental Services (Doc. #16662)
................. 514 Ducks Unlimited (Doc. #11014)
.........................................................................
515
Southern Environmental Law Center et al. (Doc. #13610)
................................ 521 Clean Water Action (Doc.
#15015)
....................................................................
522 National Wildlife Federation (Doc. #15020)
...................................................... 523 American
Rivers (Doc. #15372)
.........................................................................
525 Environment Council of Rhode Island (Doc. #3532.2)
...................................... 525
Wisconsin Wetlands Association (Doc. #15629)
............................................... 525 Regulatory
Environmental Group for Missouri (Doc.
#16337.1)....................... 527
4.5. OTHER WATERS ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
.................................................................
528
T. Blake (Doc. #0848)
.......................................................................................
528
Anonymous (Doc. #1759)
..................................................................................
528 Office of the Administrator, Science Advisory Board, U.S.
Environmental
Protection Agency (Doc. #7531)
.......................................................................
530 Rex McKim Peterson (Doc.
#10552).................................................................
531
Anonymous (Doc. #11350)
................................................................................
531 Anonymous (Doc. #11304)
................................................................................
532
T. Walsh (Doc.
#11437).....................................................................................
533 Anonymous (Doc. #11481)
................................................................................
533 Anonymous (Doc. #11761)
................................................................................
535
Pershing County Water Conservation District (Doc. #12980)
.......................... 535 Interstate Mining Compact Commission
(Doc. #14114) ................................... 536
Salt River Project Agricultural and Power District and the Salt
River Valley
Water Users Association (Doc. #14928)
............................................................
536
Clean Water Action (Doc. #15015)
...................................................................
537 Atlantic Legal Foundation (Doc. #15253)
.......................................................... 541
Weyerhaeuser Company (Doc. #15392)
............................................................. 541
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (Doc. #15415)
........... 543 A. Kvien (Doc.
#15441).....................................................................................
543
CLUB 20 (Doc.
#15519).....................................................................................
545 Rachel Sclafani (Doc. #15762)
..........................................................................
546 B. Price (Doc. #16381)
......................................................................................
547
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Doc.
#16392) ......... 548 Michigan United Conservation Clubs (Doc.
#16395) ........................................ 550 Mobile
Baykeeper (Doc. #16472)
......................................................................
550 Michael Teague, Secretary of Energy & Environment, State of
Oklahoma et al.
(Doc. #16560)
.....................................................................................................
551 Judy Petersen (Doc. #16580)
.............................................................................
552 California Stormwater Quality Association (Doc. #16606)
.............................. 552
W. Stevens (Doc. #17663)
..................................................................................
553 S. Newell (Doc. #18547)
...................................................................................
554 Donald Shawcroft (Doc. #18569)
......................................................................
554 J. Dillard (Doc. #18907)
....................................................................................
555 Kevin and Nicole Keegan (Doc. #19128)
.......................................................... 555
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
15
Jon Klingel (Doc. #19166)
.................................................................................
556
J. R. Dorney (Doc. #19235)
...............................................................................
557
ATTACHMENTS AND REFERENCES
.............................................................................................
558
Topic 4. OTHER WATERS (PROPOSED (A)(7) WATERS)
Agency Summary Response
Essay 1
The proposed rule included a broad provision that allowed for a
case-specific determination of
significant nexus for any water that was not categorically
jurisdictional or excluded. Many
commenters expressed concern that such a broad opportunity for
case-specific waters of the
United States determinations would lead to too much uncertainty
about the jurisdictional status
of waters in broad areas throughout the country.
After considering the comments, the best available science, the
goals, objectives and policies of
the statute, and the caselaw, and applying their technical
expertise and experience, the agencies
have greatly reduced the extent of waters subject to
case-specific significant nexus analysis.
The fundamental premise of the final rule is that for a water to
be a water of the United States
it must have a significant effect on the chemical, physical or
biological integrity of a traditional
navigable water, an interstate water, or a territorial sea,
which are (a)(1) through (a)(3) water
respectively. All other categories of the rule are based upon a
significant nexus with these three
types of waters, whether determined to be jurisdictional in all
cases meeting the defined criteria
(such as sections (a)(4) through (a)(6), or subject to a
case-specific analysis (such as sections
a(a)(7) and (a)(8).
The science available today does not establish that waters
beyond those that fall within one of the
(a)(1) through (a)(6) categories should be jurisdictional by
rule under the CWA. In the
evaluation of other waters the SAB found that scientific
literature has established that other
waters can influence downstream waters, particularly when
considered in aggregate. The SAB
thus found it appropriate to define other waters as waters of
the United States on a case-
specific basis, either alone or in combination with similarly
situated waters in the same region.
Based in part on these findings, the agencies believe the case
specific determinations as defined
in (a)(7) and (a)(8) of the final rule are necessary to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of our Nations waters, is not overly
broad and is consistent with judicial
holdings.
The agencies note that the other waters concept arises directly
from Justice Kennedys opinion
in Rapanos (547 U.S. at 780):
Accordingly, wetlands possess the requisite nexus, and thus come
within the statutory
phrase "navigable waters," if the wetlands, either alone or in
combination with similarly
situated [wet]lands in the region, significantly affect the
chemical, physical, and
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
16
biological integrity of other covered waters more readily
understood as "navigable."
When, in contrast, wetlands' effects on water quality are
speculative or insubstantial, they
fall outside the zone fairly encompassed by the statutory term
"navigable waters."
Since Justice Kennedy did not define many of the key terms, it
is the agencies responsibility to
apply the goals, objectives, and policies of the statute, the
Supreme Court case law, the relevant
and available science, and the agencies technical expertise and
experience to interpret the scope
of the waters of the United States as Justice Kennedy defined
that term.
The agencies do not agree with the commenters who stated that
the proposal would have
expanded the agencies jurisdiction under the CWA. The proposal
did not cover any new types
of waters that have not historically been covered under the CWA
and is consistent with the
Supreme Courts more narrow reading of Clean Water Act
jurisdiction. However, to address the
concern that commenters raised that the other waters category
would allow the agencies to
regulate virtually any water not specifically excluded, the
final rule places limits on the waters
that are subject to a case-specific significant nexus
analysis.
The final rule establishes two exclusive circumstances under
which case-specific evaluations will
be made to determine whether or not a water has a significant
nexus, and is therefore a water
of the United States. First, the final rule identifies at
paragraph (a)(7) five subcategories of
waters (prairie potholes, Carolina and Delmarva bays, pocosins,
western vernal pools in
California,, and Texas coastal prairie wetlands) that the
agencies have determined are similarly
situated by rule in a single point of entry watershed for
purposes of a case-specific significant
nexus determination. Waters in these subcategories are not
jurisdictional as a class under the
final rule. However, because the agencies determined that these
subcategories of waters are
similarly situated, the waters within the specified
subcategories that are not otherwise
jurisdictional under (a)(6) of the rule must be assessed in
combination with all waters of the same
subcategory in the single point of entry watershed. The agencies
rationale for this determination
is set forth in the Preamble and in the Technical Support
Document.
Second, at paragraph (a)(8), the final rule specifies that a
water that does not otherwise meet the
definition of adjacency is evaluated on a case-specific basis
for significant nexus under this
paragraph where it is located within the 100-year floodplain of
an (a)(1) through (a)(3) water or
within 4,000 feet of the high tide line or ordinary high water
mark of an (a)(1) through (a)(5)
water. Under this provision, if the 100-year floodplain of an
(a)(1) through (a)(3) water extends
beyond 4,000 feet of the ordinary high water mark, a water, that
is not otherwise jurisdictional
under the rule, within that floodplain will be evaluated under
the 100-year floodplain boundary
of (a)(8). Although these waters are not considered similarly
situated by rule, waters under this
paragraph can be determined on a case-specific basis to be
similarly situated. This is a change
from the proposal which would have allowed for a significant
nexus determination for any water,
anywhere in the landscape. The agencies rationale for this
determination is set forth in the
Preamble and in the Technical Support Document.
As stated in the final rule, the significant nexus analysis for
waters assessed under (a)(7) and
(a)(8) is a three-step process. First, the region for the
significant nexus analysis must be
identified; under the rule, it is the watershed which drains to
the nearest traditional navigable
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
17
water, interstate water or territorial sea. Second, any
similarly situated waters must be identified;
under the rule, that is waters that function alike and are
sufficiently close to function together in
affecting downstream waters. And third, the waters are evaluated
individually or in combination
with any identified similarly situated waters in the single
point of entry watershed to determine if
they significantly impact the chemical, physical or biological
integrity of the traditional
navigable water, interstate water or the territorial seas.
The final rule also includes revised and more detailed
definitions of significant nexus, in the
region, and similarly situated waters that provide the greater
clarity. Providing for case-
specific significant nexus analysis for waters that are not
adjacent but within the 4,000 foot
distance limit, as well as those within the 100-year floodplain
of a traditional navigable water,
interstate water, or the territorial seas, is consistent with
science and agency experience, will
ensure protection of the important waters whose protection will
advance the goals of the Clean
Water Act, and will greatly enhance regulatory clarity for
agency staff, regulated parties and the
public. The final rule reflects the agencies recognition that
the connectivity of waters to
downstream waters occurs along a gradient and the agencies
understanding that not all waters
have a requisite connection to traditional navigable waters,
interstate waters, or the territorial
seas sufficient to be determined jurisdictional.
Essay 2
A number of commenters expressed concern that application of the
significant nexus standard on
a case-specific basis will be costly and lengthy, resulting in
substantial delays in obtaining an
approved jurisdictional determination.
Currently, the agencies identify jurisdictional waters based on
the CWA itself, alongside three
key Supreme Court precedents as interpreted variously by the
Courts of Appeals, which is
confusing to the regulated public. The intention of the new
definition of Waters of the U.S. was
to increase clarity and predictability.
The agencies have retained only in two narrowly specified and
readily identifiable circumstances
the current practice of case specific significant nexus
determinations. Accordingly, the agencies
believe that the rule will result in a reduction of
case-specific determinations for two reasons.
The agencies anticipate that the number of case-specific
determinations will be reduced because
the final rule identifies as jurisdictional by rule and based on
the best available science, all
tributaries as defined and all adjacent waters as defined.
Second, the final rule limits to two
categories the waters that will receive a case-specific
analysis. Therefore, the Agencies do not
foresee an increase in delays due to workload on jurisdictional
determinations. The Agencies
believe the final rule will simplify the process of making
jurisdictional determinations.
The EPAs Office of Research and Development incorporated data
and studies from across the
Nation in the Science Report that informed this rule and the
agencies can consider additional
studies including those from states in the review of case
specific significant nexus analysis.
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
18
Essay 3
Commenters expressed concern that the other waters category
could lead to assertion of CWA
jurisdiction over ephemeral features that the commenters believe
were not previously considered
covered by the CWA.
The agencies disagree that the final rule will cause the
agencies to assert jurisdiction over
ephemeral features that were not previously considered
jurisdictional. It is important to note that
many ephemeral waters are jurisdictional under current
regulations. The agencies have
historically taken regulatory action in connection with
ephemeral waters under CWA section
303(c), several Corps Nationwide Permits under CWA section 404
address discharges of
dredged or fill material into ephemeral waters, and the agencies
definition of waters of the
United States prior to this rule included all tributaries
without reference to flow regime.
The final rule defines tributary as requiring that flow must be
of sufficient volume, frequency,
and duration to create the physical characteristics of bed and
banks and an ordinary high water
mark. If a water lacks sufficient flow to create such
characteristics, it is not considered
tributary under this rule. While some commenters expressed
concern that a feature that flowed
very infrequently could meet the proposed definition of
tributary, it is the agencies judgment
that such a feature is not a tributary under the rule because it
would not form the physical
indicators required under the definitions of ordinary high water
mark and tributary. See
Tributary Compendium.
The final rule expressly excludes erosional features, including
gullies, rills, and other ephemeral
features that do not meet the definition of tributary. It also
expressly excludes ephemeral ditches
that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a
tributary.
When a water is excluded by rule, it is not a water of the
United States even where it otherwise
meets the definitions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) or
(a)(8).
Essay 4
A number of commenters expressed concern that, under the other
waters provision, the
agencies would assert CWA jurisdiction over isolated waters with
no connection to downstream
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, or territorial
seas.
The agencies disagree that the approach to other waters will
have the effect of extending
coverage to isolated waters with no connection to downstream
traditional navigable waters,
interstate waters, or territorial seas. The fundamental premise
of the final rule is that for a water
to be a water of the United States it must have a significant
effect on the chemical, physical or
biological integrity of a traditional navigable water, an
interstate water, or a territorial sea, which
are (a)(1) through (a)(3) water respectively. All other
categories of the rule are based upon a
significant nexus with these three types of waters, whether
determined to be jurisdictional in all
cases meeting the defined criteria (such as sections (a)(4)
through (a)(6), or subject to a case-
specific analysis (such as sections a(a)(7) and (a)(8). By
definition, a water that has a significant
nexus is not truly isolated and has a physical, chemical or
biological connection to a
downstream traditional navigable water, interstate water, or
territorial sea.
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
19
Essay 5
Several commenters expressed concern that the other waters
provision is so broad that it leaves
a landowner with no notice as to whether his or her property is
likely to contain a jurisdictional
water.
The agencies agree that it is important to provide as much
clarity and certainty as possible so that
landowners are on notice that there are potential jurisdictional
waters on their property. The
agencies do not agree that the final rule leaves a landowner
with no way to assess the status of a
local water. The agencies believe that the final rule provides
clarity that will allow a landowner
to assess whether a particular local water is likely covered.
The agencies believe the final rule
accomplishes this goal by identifying six clearly defined
categories of waters as jurisdictional by
rule. The other waters categories also are clearly defined in a
manner to provide landowners
with notice.
With respect to the other waters category, the broad provision
of the proposal has been
replaced in the final rule by two narrowly specified and readily
recognizable categories of waters
that will be subject to case-specific significant nexus
analysis. Section (a)(7) of the final rule
identifies five specific water types. Section (a)(8) identifies
waters based upon presence in the
100 year flood plain of an (a)(1) through (a)(3) water or within
a specific distance (4000 feet) of
the high tide line or ordinary high water mark of an (a)(1)
through (a)(5) water.
The agencies believe the clarity provided in the rule along with
the agencies existing resources
allow landowners to more readily identify potentially covered
waters on their property than has
been the case under current practice under the existing
regulations. As in current practice
individual requests for assistance can be directed to the local
Regulatory Corps Offices
http://w3.saj.usace.army.mil/permits/HQAvatar/index.htm.
Essay 6
Many commenters expressed concern that the final rule does not
provide a threshold, metric or
quantitative measure of significance to be used in connection
with significant nexus
determinations. Commenters complain that the absence of a
defined threshold of significance
renders the case-specific significant nexus analysis overbroad,
ambiguous, and unpredictable.
The agencies determination of what constitutes a significant
nexus is grounded in Justice
Kennedys opinion, which recognizes that not all waters have this
requisite connection to
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, or the
territorial seas. At the core of the
significant nexus analysis, the protection of upstream waters
must be critical to maintaining the
integrity of the downstream waters. These upstream waters
function as integral parts of the
aquatic environment, and if these waters, alone or together with
similarly situated waters in the
region, are polluted or destroyed there is a significant effect
downstream. The agencies assess the
significance of the nexus in terms of the CWAs objective to
restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nations waters. When
the effects are speculative or
insubstantial, the significant nexus would not be present. In a
case-specific analysis of
significant nexus, the agencies determine whether the water they
are evaluating, in combination
with other similarly situated waters in the region, has a
significant effect on the chemical,
http://w3.saj.usace.army.mil/permits/HQAvatar/index.htm
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
20
physical, or biological integrity of the nearest traditional
navigable water, interstate water, or the
territorial seas.
The final rule does not establish quantifiable metrics for
waters subject to a case-specific
significant nexus analysis. The agencies believe that a
determination of the relationship of these
waters to traditional navigable water, interstate waters, and
the territorial seas, and consequently
their significance to these waters, requires sufficient
flexibility to account for the variability of
conditions across the country and the varied functions that
different waters provide. The case-
specific analysis called for by paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8)
recognizes geographic and hydrologic
variability in determining whether one of these waters, or a
group of these waters, possess a
significant nexus with traditional navigable waters, interstate
waters, or the territorial seas.
While the final rule does not establish quantitative metrics, it
does now identify the specific
functions that waters can provide that can significantly affect
the chemical, physical, or
biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate
waters, and the territorial seas. The
agencies believe that creating a definitive list of functions to
be evaluated provides individual
regulators who conduct the analysis clear and consistent
parameters that they will consider
during their review in making jurisdictional determinations and
provides transparency to the
regulated public over which factors will be considered. The
final rule also clarifies that a water
may have a significant nexus based on a single function alone so
long as that function contributes
significantly to the chemical, physical, or biological integrity
of the nearest traditional navigable
water, interstate water, or the territorial seas.
The final rule reflects that not all waters have a requisite
connection to traditional navigable
waters, interstate waters, or the territorial seas sufficient to
be determined jurisdictional. By not
determining that any one of the waters available for
case-specific analysis is jurisdictional by
rule, the agencies are recognizing the gradient of connectivity
that exists and will assert
jurisdiction only when that connection and the downstream
effects are significant and more than
speculative and insubstantial. See Technical Support Document
and Significant Nexus
Compendium for a further discussion of the agencies
interpretation of the significant nexus
standard and when a nexus is neither speculative nor
insubstantial.
Essay 7
Commenters assert that the final rule will allow the agencies to
assert CWA jurisdiction over an
(a)(7) or (a)(8) water based on any hydrologic connection. The
agencies disagree. As
discussed in the Significant Nexus compendium, the case specific
analysis uses the modified
definition of significant nexus in the rule that includes a list
of nine functions that may be
analyzed for their effect on downstream traditional navigable
waters, interstate waters, or
territorial seas. In addition, that effect must be more than
speculative or insubstantial. The rule
reflects the agencies recognition that not all waters have a
requisite connection to traditional
navigable waters, interstate waters, or the territorial seas
sufficient to be determined
jurisdictional. By not determining that any one of the waters
available for case-specific analysis
is jurisdictional by rule, the agencies are recognizing the
gradient of connectivity that exists and
will assert jurisdiction only when that connection and the
downstream effects are significant and
more than speculative and insubstantial.
-
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Topic 4: Other Waters
21
Since Justice Kennedy did not define the region, the agencies in
the proposal identified the
single point of entry watershed as a reasonable and technically
appropriate scale for identifying
in the region for purposes of the significant nexus standard.
The final rule continues to use the
single point of entry watershed as the scale for identifying in
the region for purposes of the
significant nexus standard. A single point of entry watershed is
the drainage basin within whose
boundaries all precipitation ultimately flows to the nearest
single traditional navigable water,
interstate water, or the territorial sea. Given that the
significant nexus standard is premised on
the significant effect on a traditional navigable water,
interstate water or territorial sea, it follows
from science, as well as well as the goals, objectives and
policies of the statute and the caselaw,
that the region should be defined in terms of the nearest
traditional navigable water, interstate
eater or territorial sea. Using the single point of entry
watershed is the logical spatial framework
to ensure that analysis of significant nexus is appropriately
connected to these touchstone waters
The single point of entry watershed includes all streams,
wetlands, lakes, and open waters within
its boundaries. The agencies determined that because the
movement of water from watershed
drainage basins to coastal waters, river networks, and lakes
shapes the development and function
of these systems in a way that is critical to their long-term
health, the single point of entry
watershed is a reasonable and technically appropriate way to
identify the scope of waters that
toget