Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Topic 4 … · Clean Water Rule Response to Comments – Topic 4: ... Clean Water Rule Response to Comments – Topic 4: Other Waters 2

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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


10


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


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


(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


(Doc. #15123) ..................................................................................................... 419


Audubon Society of Rhode Island (Doc. #5480) ................................................ 421 National Wildlife Federation (Doc. #15020) ...................................................... 422


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


4.3.4.3 Carolina Bays ................................................................................................ 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


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


Galveston Bay Council (Doc. #0866) ................................................................. 445 Ducks Unlimited (Doc. #11014) ......................................................................... 445


4.3.4.5 Delmarva Bays .............................................................................................. 450


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


4.3.5 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


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


(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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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

Documents

Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Topic 4 … · Clean Water Rule Response to Comments – Topic 4: ... Clean Water Rule Response to Comments – Topic 4: Other Waters 2