![Page 1: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee
Submitted to the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy
and Technology (NACEPT)
May 2, 2017
![Page 2: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
TableofContents
ExecutiveSummary 11. Problemstatement 12. Underlyingassumptions 13. Subcommitteeactivities 24. SubcommitteeFindingsandRecommendations 25. ImplementationandProcessRecommendations 4
REPORT 51. StatementoftheProblem 52. Background 5
a. Whatisassumption? 5b. Tribalconsiderationsregardingassumption 6c. OverviewofAssumptionbyMichiganandNewJersey 7d. NoFurtherAssumptionbyStatesorTribessincethe1990s 8e. TheImportanceofAssumptiontoStatesandTribes 8f. EstablishmentoftheSubcommittee 9g. OperationoftheSubcommittee 10h. AbouttheWritingofthisReport 11
3. OriginandPurposeofSection404(g) 12a. Organizationoftheworkgroup 12b. BackgroundonNavigableWaterstoberetainedbytheUSACEasdefinedinSection404(g)(1) 12c. BackgroundofAdjacentWetlandstoberetainedbytheUSACE 14
4. DescriptionofAlternativesforIdentifyingWaters(otherthanWetlands)AssumablebyaStateorTribe,andWatersthatMustbeRetainedbytheUSACE 15
a. WatersAlternativeA:Case-by-casedeterminationofUSACE-retainedandstate-ortribal-assumablewatersatthetimeofprogramassumption(thestatusquo). 16
b. WatersAlternativeB:PrimaryDependenceonRHASection10ListsofNavigableWaterstoDefineUSACE-RetainedWaters 16
c. WatersAlternativeC:RiversandHarborsAct(RHA)Section10WatersplusCWA33CFR328.3(a)(1)WatersasRetainedWaters. 17
5. SubcommitteeDiscussionandRecommendationsforIdentifyingRetainedWaters 19a. Majorityrecommendation:WatersAlternativeB–PrimaryDependenceonRHASection10ListsofNavigableWaterstoDefineUSACERetainedWaters 19b. USACErecommendation:WatersAlternativeC–CWA(a)(1)WatersplusSection10watersasRetainedWaters. 24
6. ConsiderationofAlternativesforAdjacentWetlandsAssumablebyaStateorTribe,andAdjacentWetlandsthatMustbeRetainedbytheUSACE 25
a. WetlandsAlternativeA:USACERetainsAllWetlands,WhetherTouchingorNotTouching,RegardlessofExtent. 26
b. WetlandsAlternativeB:USACERetainsEntiretyofWetlandsTouchingRetainedWaters,RegardlessofExtent 27
c. WetlandsAlternativeC:EstablishmentofaNationalAdministrativeBoundary 287. SubcommitteeRecommendationsontheAboveAlternativesforAdjacency 32
a. Majorityrecommendation:WetlandsAlternativeC3–USACERetainsAllWetlandsWhetherTouchingorNotTouchingNavigableWatersLandwardtoanAdministrativeBoundaryEstablishedDuringtheDevelopmentoftheMemorandumofAgreement
![Page 3: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
withtheUSACE,witha300-footNationalAdministrativeBoundaryasaDefault. 32b. USACErecommendation:WetlandsAlternativeA–USACERetainsAllWetlands,Whether
TouchingorNotTouchingRetainedNavigableWaters,RegardlessofExtent. 388. ImplementationandProcessRecommendations 38
a. MaintainNewJerseyandMichigan404AssumedPrograms 39b. DevelopGuidancefortheField 39c. ProvideFlexibility 39d. IncorporateNationalPrinciplesandConsiderationsintoFieldGuidance 39e. ProvideGeneralProceduresfortheAssumptionProcess 40f. UtilizeBestAvailableTechnology 41
AppendixA:TribalFindings,Issues,andConsiderationsduringAssumption 43
AppendixB:MichiganandNewJersey’sAssumedPrograms 45
AppendixC:LetterfromtheAssociationofCleanWaterAdministrators,theEnvironmentalCounciloftheStates,andtheAssociationofStateWetlandManagers 51
AppendixD:ListofSubcommitteemembers 54
AppendixE:SubcommitteeCharter 56
AppendixF:TheLegislativeHistoryofSection404(g)(1)oftheCleanWaterAct 57
![Page 4: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
1
Executive Summary
1. Problemstatement
Section404oftheCleanWaterAct(CWA)authorizestheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE)toissuepermitsfordischargeofdredgedorfillmaterialinnavigablewaters.“Navigablewaters”isdefinedundertheCWAtomean“thewatersoftheUnitedStatesandterritorialseas.”Section404(g)oftheCWAauthorizesstates,1withapprovalfromtheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA),toassumeauthoritytoadministerthe404programinsome,butnotall,navigablewatersandadjacentwetlands.Section404(g)(1)describesthewatersoverwhichtheUSACEmustretainadministrativeauthorityevenafterprogramassumptionbyastateortribe.Onlytwostates,MichiganandNewJersey,havebeenapprovedtoassumetheSection404Program.Otherstateshaveexploredassumption,butthoseeffortshavenotbornefruitinpartduetouncertaintyoverthescopeofassumablewatersandwetlands.TheEPAformedtheAssumableWatersSubcommitteeundertheauspicesoftheNationalAdvisoryCouncilforEnvironmentalPolicyandTechnology(NACEPT)toprovideadviceanddeveloprecommendationsforNACEPTonhowtheEPAcanbestclarifyforwhichwatersastateortribemayassumeCWAsection404permitresponsibilities,andforwhichwaterstheUSACEretainsCWAsection404permitresponsibilityunderanapprovedstateortribalprogram.TheSubcommitteeincluded22membersrepresentingstatesandtribes,federalagencies,andotherstakeholders.ThisreportrepresentstheresultsoftheSubcommittee’sworkfromOctober2015toApril2017andisbeingpresentedtoNACEPTforitsconsideration.
2. Underlyingassumptions
RecommendationstotheNACEPTweredevelopedagainstthebackgroundofthefollowingassumptions.
a. InaccordancewiththerequirementsofSection404,astateortribemayonlybe
authorizedtoassumetheSection404ProgramifithasauthorityoverallassumablewatersoftheUnitedStates,anddemonstratesthatitwillapplylegalstandardsconsistentwiththeCleanWaterAct(CWA)requirementsinoperatingapermittingprogram.
b. AssumptionbyastateortribedoesnotalterCWAjurisdictionoverwatersoftheUnitedStates.Moreover,nothinginthereportorrecommendationsofthesubcommitteeisintendedtoalterinanywaythedefinitionorscopeoffederaljurisdiction.Rather,thisreportspeaksonlytotheadministrativedivisionofauthorityunderSection404betweentheUSACEandanapprovedstateortribe.
1Tribeswerenotspecificallycalledoutinthe1977CWAamendmentsbutareabletoassumeasprovidedinSection518(e)oftheCWA.
![Page 5: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
2
c. InaccordancewithEPA’schargetothesubcommittee,recommendationsareintendedtoprovideclarity,tobepracticalandreadilyimplementableinthefield,andtobeconsistentwiththeCWA,particularlySection404(g)(1).
d. Waters,suchasrivers,lakes,andstreams,andadjacentwetlandsareclearlylinkedlegally,inpolicy,andinhydrology,andintotalareoftenreferredtoas“waters.”However,forthepurposesofdevelopingrecommendationsandforusageinthisreport,theSubcommitteechosetheuseoftwoterms:“waters”and“adjacentwetlands.”
e. SincetheEPAwillbereceivingformaladvicefromtheNACEPT,theEPAparticipatedactivelyinthediscussion,formulation,andreviewofthealternativesandprovidedtechnicaladvice,butdidnottakeapositionregardingthespecificrecommendationsmadebytheSubcommittee.TheUSFWSalsoparticipatedinthediscussionsbutdidnottakeapositiononthefinalrecommendations.Memberswhotookapositionregardingtherecommendationsarereferredtoas“recommendingmembers.”Theseincludeallmembers,includingtheUSACE,butnottheUSEPAandtheUSFWS.
3. Subcommitteeactivities
SubcommitteemembersmeteighttimesandalsoworkedindependentlyfromOctober2015throughApril2017.Investigationsanddiscussionsweredividedintothreeprimarytopics.
a. Theorigins,legislativehistory,andprocessesofSection404stateortribalassumption.
Subcommitteemembers,includingattorneysandothers,reviewedthelanguageofSection404(g),thelegislativehistory,andotherpolicydocuments.ThefullfindingsofthisgroupareincludedinAppendixF.ThehistoriesoftheprogramsinMichiganandNewJerseyareincludedinAppendixB.
b. TheextentofwatersoftheUnitedStatesthatmaybeassumedbyanapprovedstateortribe,andtheextentofwaterswhereSection404authoritymustberetainedbytheUSACE,evenfollowingstateortribalassumption.Findingsandrecommendationsarediscussedindetailinthisreport.
c. TheextentofwetlandsthatmustalsoberetainedbytheUSACEfollowingstateortribalassumption.Findingsandrecommendationsarediscussedindetailinthisreport.
4. SubcommitteeFindingsandRecommendations
a. Waters(otherthanWetlands)AssumablebyaStateorTribe,andWatersthatMustbeRetainedbytheUSACEMajorityrecommendation.AlltherecommendingSubcommitteemembers(themajority)exceptthememberrepresentingtheUSACErecommendtoNACEPTthattheEPAdevelopguidanceorregulationstoclarifythatwhenastateortribeassumesthe404program,theUSACEmustretainauthorityoverwatersincludedonlistsofwatersregulatedunderSection10oftheRiversandHarborsAct(RHA).Theselistsare
![Page 6: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
3
compiledandmaintainedbytheUSACEdistrictofficesforeverystateexceptHawaii,andthemajorityoftheSubcommitteerecommendsthelistsbeusedwithtwominormodifications:anywatersthatareontheSection10listsbasedsolelyonhistoricuse(e.g.basedsolelyonhistoricfurtrading)arenottoberetained(basedontheCongressionalrecordandstatute),andwatersthatareassumablebyatribe(asdefinedinthereport)mayalsoberetainedbytheUSACEwhenastateassumestheprogram.ThemajorityrecognizesthatwatersmaybeaddedtoSection10listsafterastateortribeassumestheprogram,andrecommendsinthatcase,suchwatersmayalsobeaddedtolistsofUSACE-retainedwatersatthattime.Themajoritybelievesthatthisoptionisclearandpractical,canbeimplementedefficientlyatthetimeastateortribeseeksassumptionaswellasintheoperationofanassumedprogram,andisconsistentwithCongress’intentthattheUSACEretainauthorityoverRHASection10watersandadjacentwetlands.Thisalternativealsoisbasedonrelativelystableandpredictableinformation.AllotherwatersoftheUnitedStates(withtheexceptionofadjacentwetlandsasdiscussedbelow)areassumablebyastateortribe.Minorityrecommendation.TheSubcommitteememberrepresentingtheUSACErecommendsUSACEretainauthorityoverwatersontheSection10lists,andalsowatersthathavebeenidentifiedasTraditionalNavigableWaters(TNWs)undertheCWAinaccordancewithUSACECWAregulationsat33CFR328.3(a)(1)andguidanceissuedbytheUSACEandtheEPAtoimplementtheSupremeCourt’sopinioninRapanos,AppendixD.2UnderthisrecommendationwatersthatareofficiallydeterminedbyaUSACEdistrictasSection10orstand-aloneCWA(a)(1)TNWwatersatthetimeastateortribeassumestheprogramwouldberetainedbytheUSACE.Inaddition,theDistrictwouldevaluateallofitscompletedcase-specificTNWdeterminationstodeterminewhetheradditionofthatwatertotheretainedwaterslistiswarrantedunderastand-alonedetermination.WatersthatarelateridentifiedandofficiallydeterminedasaSection10orstand-aloneCWA(a)(1)TNWafterassumptionoccurswillalsobeaddedtothelistofretainedwaters.TheUSACEbelievesthereshouldnotbeadistinctionbetweendifferentusesoftheterm“navigablewaters”underdifferentsectionsofthestatute,andbelievesthisisconsistentwiththepurposesoftheCWAandSection404(g).WhilethestatutorylanguageoftheCWASection404(g)parentheticalwatersslightlydiffersfromtheregulatorylanguageof328.3(a)(1),theUSACEbelievestheinterpretationoftheterm“navigablewaters”isthesameunder404(g)and328.3(a)(1)(otherthanthosewatersconsiderednavigablebasedsolelyontheirhistoricuse).
2AppendixDofthe2007“U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineersJurisdictionalDeterminationInstructionalGuidebook”availableat:http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/cwa_guide/app_d_traditional_navigable_waters.pdf.TheGuidebook,ofwhichAppendixDispart,wasdated1June2007andsignedbyUSACEandtheUSEPAon5June2007.
![Page 7: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
4
b. AdjacentWetlandsAssumablebyaStateorTribe,andAdjacentWetlandsthatMustbeRetainedbytheUSACE
Majorityrecommendation.AlltherecommendingSubcommitteemembers(themajority)exceptfortheUSACEmemberrecommendthattheEPAadoptandimplementapolicyunderwhichtheUSACEwouldretainadministrativeauthorityoverallwetlandsadjacenttoretainednavigablewaterslandwardtoanadministrativeboundaryagreeduponbythestateortribeandtheUSACE.TheUSACECWAregulatorydefinitionof“adjacent”wouldbeusedtoidentifyadjacentwetlands,andtheUSACEwouldretainadministrativeauthorityonlyoveradjacentwetlandswithintheagreed-uponadministrativeboundary.Thisadministrativelinecouldbenegotiatedatthestateortriballeveltotakeintoaccountexistingstateregulationsornaturalfeaturesthatwouldincreasepracticabilityorpublicunderstanding;ifnochangewerenegotiated,a300-footnationaladministrativedefaultlinewouldbeused.
ThemajorityofthesubcommitteeunderstandsthatthepurposeofretentionbytheUSACEofwetlandsadjacenttoSection10watersisprimarilytoensurethattheUSACEhasauthorityoveractivitiesthatmayalterthephysicalstructureofthenavigationalchannelorotherwiseinterferewithnavigation.Thus,itbelievesthattheextentofUSACEauthorityoveradjacentwetlandsunderanassumedprogramisreasonablylimitedtowetlandsthatarelikelytoaffectnavigation.
Minorityrecommendation.TherepresentativeoftheUSACErecommendsthattheUSACEretaintheentiretyofwetlandsthatare“adjacent”toretainednavigablewaters,usingthedefinitionofadjacentwetlandscurrentlybeingusedbytheUSACEforregulatoryactionsunderSection404(i.e.thewetlandsdefinedasadjacentunder33CFR328.3,implementedthroughthe2008Rapanosguidance).TheUSACEbelievesthatthisrecommendationisconsistentwithCWASection404,providesclarityregardingthepermittingauthority,andiseasilyunderstoodandimplementableinthefield.
5. ImplementationandProcessRecommendations
Thisreportalsoprovidesgeneralrecommendationsregardingthepotentialcontentofnewguidanceorregulationsonstateortribalassumablewaters,andeffectiveproceduresforimplementation.
![Page 8: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
5
REPORT
1. StatementoftheProblem
Section404(a)oftheCleanWaterAct(CWA)authorizestheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE)toissueCWApermitsforthedischargeofdredgedorfillmaterialintonavigablewaters.Section404(g)authorizesstates,3withapprovalfromtheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA),toassumeauthoritytoadministerthe404programinsomebutnotallnavigablewaters.Thewatersandwetlandsthatastatemaynotassume,andthattheUSACEmustretainevenafterastatehasassumedtheprogram,arespecifiedinaparentheticalphraseinsection404(g)(1)as:
“...thosewaterswhicharepresentlyused,oraresusceptibletouseintheirnaturalconditionorbyreasonableimprovementasameanstotransportinterstateorforeigncommerceshorewardtotheirordinaryhighwatermark,includingallwaterswhicharesubjecttotheebbandflowofthetideshorewardtotheirmeanhighwatermark,ormeanhigherhighwatermarkonthewestcoast,includingwetlandsadjacentthereto...”4
ItwastheintentofCongressforstatestoimplementthepermitprogramunderSection404oftheFederalCleanWaterAct.5However,sincetheenactmentof404(g)in1977,onlytwostatesandnotribeshaveassumedthe404Program.Whileotherstates(mostrecentlyincludingMaryland,Oregon,Virginia,Montana,Florida,Arizona,andAlaska)andsometribeshaveexploredassumingtheprogram,theireffortshavenotresultedinactualassumption.StateshaveindicatedthatthisisdueinparttoconfusionaboutthemeaningofSection404(g)(1).ThisreportfocusesonclarifyingthemeaningofSection404(g)(1)andthusthescopeofwatersandadjacentwetlandsthatmaybeassumedbyastateortribe.
2. Background
a. Whatisassumption?
“Assumption”oftheCWASection404programdescribestheprocesswherebyastateortribeobtainsapprovalfromtheEPAtoadministerthe404programwithintheirbordersandconsequentlybeginsadministeringtheprogram.ToobtainEPAapproval,thestateortribalprogrammustbeconsistentwithandnolessstringentthanthatrequiredbylawofthefederalagencies.Forexample,astateortribemust:
• havesufficientauthoritytoregulateallwatersoftheU.S.thatmaybeassumed;• regulateatleastthesameactivitiesaslistedintheActandregulations;
3Tribeswerenotspecificallycalledoutinthe1977CWAamendmentsbutareabletoassumeasprovidedinstatuteinSection518(e)oftheCWA,33U.S.C.1378(e),whichauthorizestheAdministratortotreatanIndianTribeaseligibletoapplyfornumerousCWAprograms,includingthe404permitprogramundersection404(g).TheEPAhasalsoissuedregulationsonthismatterat40CFRPart233g:404--TribalProgramRegulations.4§1344(g)(1)533U.S.C.§1251(b)
![Page 9: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
6
• provideforsufficientpublicparticipation;• ensurecompliancewiththeSection404(b)(1)guidelines,whichprovide
environmentalcriteriaforpermitdecisions;• haveadequateenforcementauthority;and• complywithotherapplicableregulations(33U.S.C.part1344(h);40C.F.R.part233).
Inanassumed404program,theEPAretainstheauthoritytoreviewdefinedcategoriesofpermitapplicationsandmayrequestreviewofanyapplication.TheEPAcoordinatesitsreviewofaparticularapplicationwiththeUSACEandrequestscommentsfrom theU.S.FishandWildlifeService,and,asappropriate,theNationalMarineFisheriesService,withtheEPAprovidingcommentstothestateortribe.IntheeventthattheEPAobjectstoissuanceofa404permit,thestateortribecannotissuethe404permitunlesstheEPA’sobjectionisresolved.Iftheobjectionisnotresolved,theUSACEtakesresponsibilityforthepermit,includingthedecisiontoissueordenythepermit.Theseprovisionsoffederallawprovidesafeguardsthatensureconsiderationofbothstateortribalandfederalrequirementsaswellasnationalconsistency.
Beforeassumingtheprogram,thestateortribemustenterintoandsignseparateMemorandaofAgreement(MOAs)withboththeEPAandUSACE.TheMOAwiththeUSACEmustdescribewhichnavigablewatersandadjacentwetlandswillberetainedbytheUSACE.Todate,therehasbeenlittleguidancetoUSACEdistricts,EPAregions,orstatesandtribesonhowtomakethatdetermination.6
b. Tribalconsiderationsregardingassumption7
Section518oftheCWA,enactedaspartofthe1987amendmentstothestatute,authorizestheEPAtotreateligibleIndiantribesinamannersimilartostates(“treatmentasastate“orTAS)foravarietyofpurposes,includingadministeringeachoftheprincipalCWAregulatoryprogramsandreceivinggrantsunderseveralCWAauthorities(81FRat30183).ThisincludesCWASection404.Tribalgovernmentspursuingassumptionofthe404programwillfollowthesameprocessasstates,thoughitisexpectedthattherewillbesomenuanceddifferences;forexample,inaddressingTribalIndianReservationboundaries.
Inastate-assumedprogram,stateswillgenerallynotassumeauthorityforadministeringthe404programwithinIndiancountry;instead,suchauthoritywillgenerallyberetainedbytheUSACEunlessthetribeitselfisapprovedbytheEPAtoassumethe404program.BecauseTribalIndianReservationboundariesarenotstaticandprecisedefinitionsandconsiderationsvaryfromstatetostate,itisessentialthat
6 In1980,theEPAproducedadocumententitled:“TheState’sChoice:404PermitProgram”thatprovidessomeinsightintotheagency’sthinkingatthattime(USEPA,OfficeofWaterRegulationsandStandardsCriteriaandStandardsDivision,EPA440/5-81-002,October1980).TheEPA’simplementingregulationsalsoprovideverygeneralguidance.TheseregulationsstatethattheMOAbetweentheUSACEandstateortribewillcontain“AdescriptionofwatersoftheUnitedStateswithintheStateoverwhichtheSecretaryretainsjurisdiction,asidentifiedbytheSecretary.”40CFRPart233:404StateProgramRegulations. 7SeeAppendixA,TribalFindings,Issues,andConsiderationsduringAssumption.
![Page 10: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
7
waterstoberetainedbytheUSACEontriballandsbespecificallyaddressedinanyMOAdevelopedbetweentheUSACEandastateassumingtheprogram.
PerExecutiveOrder13175ofNovember6,2000–ConsultationandCoordinationWithIndianTribalGovernments,8thefederalgovernmenthasanobligationtoconsultwithfederally-recognizedtribesthatmaybeaffectedduringastateassumptioneffort.
c. OverviewofAssumptionbyMichiganandNewJersey
SinceSection404(g)wasenactedin1977,twostateshaveassumedtheprogram:MichiganandNewJersey.
MichiganandEPAsignedaMOAregardingassumptionin1983.In1984,thestateandtheUSACEsignedaMOAdescribingwatersoverwhichtheUSACEretainedadministration.Priortoassumption,Michiganhadenactedanumberofstatutesrelatedtowaterprotection,includingthe1955GreatLakesSubmergedLandsAct,the1972InlandLakesandStreamsAct,andthe1979WetlandProtectionAct.TheWetlandProtectionActwaspassedtofacilitateassumptionofthe404Program.In1984,EPAformallyapprovedMichigan’sprogram.9
ThewatersandwetlandsassumedbyMichiganaredescribedintheMOAbetweenMichiganandtheUSACE.InthisMOA,theUSACEretainsresponsibilityforwatersthatareonaRiversandHarborsAct(RHA)Section10listmaintainedbytheUSACEdistrictoffice.Inaddition,theUSACEretainspermittingauthorityovertheGreatLakes,whichalthoughnotonthelistclearlyqualifyasSection10waters.Thislistisspecificandresultsinwell-definedboundariesandupstreamlimitsforwatersretainedbytheUSACE.MostoftheseUSACE-retainedwatersarewithinanarrowbandofstreamsthatflowintotheGreatLakes.ThislisthasbeenrefinedovertimewiththeadditionofsomesmalltributariesandwetlandsthatareinfluencedbythewaterleveloftheGreatLakes.Michiganhasassumedtheremainingwaters,whicharethevastmajorityofthewatersinternaltothestate.
TheextentofadjacentwetlandsoverwhichtheUSACEretainsauthorityisdeterminedbytheUSACEonacase-by-casebasis–generallyincludingwetlandsincloseproximitytoSection10waters,andhavingadirectsurfacewaterconnectiontoandwithintheinfluenceoftheordinaryhighwatermarkofthosewaters.
TherearesomewatersoverwhichMichiganandtheUSACEhavejointauthority.Inthesecasesthetwoagenciesworktogetheronthepermittingandcomplianceactivities,andsiteinspections.Usuallythestatetakestheleadonmitigationbecausethestatehasarobustmitigationprogramandcanownproperty,holdconservationeasements,andholdfinancialinstruments,whichtheUSACEcannot.
8FederalRegisterVol.65,No.218,pages67249-67252.949FR38948,Oct.2,1984.Redesignatedat53FR20776,June6,1988.Redesignatedat58FR8183,Feb.11,1993.Effectivedate,October16,1984.
![Page 11: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
8
NewJerseyassumedtheprogramin1994.10Priortoassumption,NewJerseypasseditsWetlandsActin1970,CoastalZoneManagementActin1972,andtheFreshwaterWetlandsProtectionActin1987.AspartoftheFreshwaterWetlandsProtectionAct,NewJerseyundertookamappingprogramtoidentifyfreshwaterwetlandsandwaters.Whilethemapsarenotregulatoryinnature,NewJersey’s404programiskeyedtothesefreshwaterwetlandsmaps.
IntheMOAbetweenNewJerseyandtheUSACE,theUSACEretainedregulatoryauthorityoverthosewetlandsthatare:“...partiallyorentirelylocatedwithin1000feetoftheordinaryhighwatermarkormeanhightideoftheDelawareRiver,GreenwoodLake,andallwaterbodieswhicharesubjecttotheebbandflowofthetide.”11State-administeredwatersinturnaregenerallydeterminedbysuperimposingheadoftidedataonthestate'sfreshwaterwetlandsquarterquadranglesthatareatascaleofoneinchequals1000feet.Alinewasestablishedparalleltoand1000feetfromtheordinaryhighwatermarkormeanhightideofthewatersdescribedabove.TheUSACEretainspermittingauthorityoverallwetlandsthatarewaterwardof,orintersectedby,theadministrativelinedescribedabove.BecauseNewJerseyregulatesallwetlands/waters,itrarelyhastodeterminewhetherawetlandisassumableornon-assumable.However,ifthereisanyquestionorareasonthatitmakesadifferencetoanapplicant,thestateeitheraddsapermitconditioninformingtheapplicantorcontactstheUSACEinadvancetorequesttheUSACEdeterminewhethertheywillorwillnotassertauthoritytoregulate.SeeAppendixBforfurtherelaborationofthesetwostates’assumedprograms.
d. NoFurtherAssumptionbyStatesorTribessincethe1990s
ThelegislativehistoryandstatuteindicatethatCongressintendedandexpectedthatanumberofstateswouldchoosetoassumeauthorityoverthedischargeofdredgedorfillmaterialsundertheprovisionsofSection404(g).However,nostatesortribeshaveassumedthe404ProgramsinceMichiganandNewJersey.Therearemanypossiblereasonsforthis,fromtheincreasingcomplexityandcostofadministeringtheprogram,todecades-longchallengesaboutwhichwatersshouldevenberegulatedunderSection404,tothefactthatunlikeseveralotherEPAprograms,Congressdidnotdedicatespecificadditionalfundingforstatesortribestocoverthecostsofadministeringa404program.Additionally,EPAandtheUSACEhavenotprovidedspecificguidancethatcanbeusedtoidentifythewaters(andwetlands)thatmustberetainedbytheUSACEunder404(g).Withoutspecificguidance,individualstatesortribesandUSACEdistrictshavebeenlefttointerpretthemeaningof404(g)(1)todeterminetheextentofwaterstoberetainedineachMOAnegotiation.Inturn,thesenegotiationshaveoftenbrokendownorstoppedduetolackofclarity,uncertainty,ordisagreementoverthescopeofretainedwatersandwetlands.
e. TheImportanceofAssumptiontoStatesandTribes
1059FR9933,Mar.2,1994.11Ibid.
![Page 12: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
9
StatesandtribesplayasignificantroleinmanyCleanWaterActprograms(forexample,pointandnonpointsourcemanagement,wastemanagement,wastewaterpermittingunderSection402,anddevelopmentofwaterqualitystandards).InmostCWAprograms,statesandtribespartnerprimarilywiththeEPA.Section404isuniqueinthesharingofregulatoryresponsibilitieswiththeUSACEinadditiontoEPA.Forthosestatesortribeswithmature,integratedwatermanagementprogramsthatincludetheregulationofdredgedorfillactivities,404Programassumptionallowsastateortribetocarryoutafullyintegratedandcomprehensivewaterprogramaddressingthefullrangeofstate,tribal,andCWArequirements.Despitethecomplexityoftheprogramandpotentialadministrativecosts,statesandtribesremaininterestedinpursuingassumption.
WhilenotallstatesandtribesarequalifiedorpositionedtoassumeSection404responsibility,orarewillingtobeartheadditionalcostofdoingso,assumptionmayhavesignificantbenefitsforsomestatesandtribes,aswellasthepublic.StateortribalassumptioninaccordancewithSection404(g)couldreducetheoverlapandduplicationofstate,tribal,andfederalpermittingprograms,andbethebestuseofstate,tribal,andfederalprogramresources.Thisis,ofcourse,dependentuponassurancethatthestateortribalprogramisasstringentasisrequiredbythefederalstatutesandregulations,anassurancerequiredbytheCWAandprovidedbyinitialEPAapprovalandbyongoingfederaloversight.Assumptionallowsastateortribetomeetstateortribalregulatorytimeconstraints;toincorporateneededlocalrequirementsandpermitconditions;and,tointegratereviewofapplicationsfordischargeofdredgedorfillmaterialwithotherapplicableregulatoryrequirements.Thepublicmaybesupportiveofassumptionandwillingtoacceptthecoststoastateortribalgovernmentandthepotentiallyhigherpermitfeesgivenpotentiallysignificantstreamliningofthepermittingprocessformanyprojects.
f. EstablishmentoftheSubcommittee
In2014,theAssociationofCleanWaterAdministrators,theEnvironmentalCounciloftheStates,andtheAssociationofStateWetland ManagersaskedEPAtoclarifywhichwatersareassumableunderthestatute(seeAppendixCforacopyoftherequestfromthestateassociations).Inresponse,EPAconvenedastakeholdergrouptoprovideadviceonthismatter.Toformthestakeholdergroup,EPAdrewonitsauthorityundertheFederalAdvisoryCommitteeAct(FACA),PublicLaw92-46312.In1988,EPAestablishedtheNationalAdvisoryCouncilforEnvironmentalPolicyandTechnology(NACEPT),abodysubjecttoFACA,toprovideadvicetotheEPAAdministratoronabroadrangeofenvironmentalpolicy,management,andtechnologyissues.InMarch2015,theAgencypublishedaFederalRegisterNoticeannouncingthatNACEPTwouldbeestablishingtheSubcommitteetoaddresstheissueraisedbythestatesandnationalorganizations,andthatitwasseekingnominationsformembership.InJuneofthatyear,EPAannouncedtheappointmentof22membersrepresentingfederal,state,
125U.S.C.Appendix2
![Page 13: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
10
andtribalgovernments,non-governmentalorganizationsandtheregulatedpublic(seeAppendixDforalistofmembersandtheiraffiliations).
EPAdirectedtheSubcommitteetofocusonanarrowandspecifictaskrelatedtothewatersforwhichastateortribemayassumepermittingresponsibility(seetheSubcommitteeCharterinAppendixE).TheSubcommitteewasaskedtoprovideadviceanddeveloprecommendationsforNACEPTonhowEPAcanbestclarifyforwhichwatersastateortribemayassumeCWAsection404permitresponsibilities,andforwhichwaterstheUSACEretainsCWAsection404permitresponsibilityunderanapprovedstateortribalprogram.
AssetforthintheCharter’sChargetotheSubcommittee:“thiseffortwilladdresstheStates’requesttoprovideclarityonthisissueenablingthemtoassessanddeterminethegeographicscopeandcostsandbenefitsassociatedwithimplementinganapprovedprogram.”TheSubcommitteehashadalimiteddurationandnarrowfocus.OtheraspectsofstateortribalassumptionwerenotwithinthescopeofSubcommitteedeliberations.Inparticular,theChargeemphasizedthat“thesubcommitteewillnotbedeliberatingonthemeritsofassumption,noronanyaspectofthelargerquestionofwhichwatersare‘watersoftheU.S.’”
EPAaskedthatthefinalSubcommitteereporttoNACEPTreflectconsiderationofthefollowingassumptions:
• ACWAsection404permitisrequired–meaningthereisanactivityregulatedundersection404thatwillresultinadischargeofdredgedorfillmaterialintoawateroftheU.S.;
• AnyrecommendationmustbeconsistentwiththeCWAandinparticularsection404(g);and
• Clarityregardingwhoisthepermittingauthority(thestateortribeortheUSACE)shouldbeeasilyunderstoodandimplementableinthefield.
g. OperationoftheSubcommittee
Withthisdirectioninmind,theSubcommitteehelditsinitialmeetingOctober6-7,2015,followedbyfouradditionalmulti-daymeetingsandthreewebinars.Theearlymeetingswerespentclarifyingandunderstandingthenatureofthequestionbeingasked.Subsequently,theSubcommitteeformedfourworkgroupstofocusonassignedissues–specifically,TribalConsiderations,OriginandPurposeofSection404(g),Waters,andAdjacentWetlands.
TheTribalConsiderationsworkgroupclarifiedissuesthatbothstatesandtribesneedtoaddressfromtheearlieststagesofconsiderationofassumption.TheworkoftheOriginandPurposeofSection404(g)workgroupservedasanunderpinningnotonlyfortheentireSubcommittee’sworkbutparticularlyfortheworkoftheWatersandAdjacentWetlandsworkgroups.Waters,suchasrivers,lakes,andstreams,andadjacentwetlandsareclearlylinkedlegally,inpolicy,andinhydrology,andintotalareoften
![Page 14: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
11
referredtoas“waters.”However,forthepurposesofdevelopingrecommendationsandforusageinthisreport,theSubcommitteechosetheuseoftwoterms:“waters”and“adjacentwetlands.”TheSubcommitteefeltthattherecommendationforwhichwaterscouldbeassumedvs.retainedwouldrelatedirectlytowhichadjacentwetlandswouldbeassumedvs.retained:onlywetlandsadjacenttowatersretainedbytheUSACE,forexample,wouldberetainedbytheUSACE,regardlessofthenatureoftherecommendationforretainedwetlands.
Theworkgroupsweretaskedwithstudyingtheassignedtopics,reportingtheirfindings,anddevelopingalternativesforconsiderationbytheentireSubcommittee.Typically,theworkgroupsmetduringSubcommitteemeetingsatkeypoints,andbetweenmeetingscontinuedtheirworkthroughconferencecallsandexchangesofemails.
ItwasimmediatelyapparenttoallparticipantsthattheSubcommitteeshouldnotdeviatefromthedefinedchargeandshouldavoidaddressingquestionsaboutthescopeofCWAjurisdictionover“thewatersoftheUnitedStates.”Thus,consistentwithEPA’sChargetotheSubcommittee,thequestionfortheSubcommitteewasnotwhichwatersare“watersoftheUnitedStates,”butratherwhichofthe“watersoftheUnitedStates”willberetainedbytheUSACE,andwhich“watersoftheUnitedStates”maybeassumedbyastateortribe.AllwatersoftheUnitedStateswillcontinuetoberegulatedinaccordancewithSection404requirementsregardlessofwhetherastateortribeassumestheprogram.TheSubcommitteestressesthatthisdistinctionbetweenadministrativeresponsibilityandjurisdictionalauthorityisessentialtokeepinmindinreadingthefindingsandrecommendationsinthisreport.TheSubcommittee’sfocushasbeenonclarifyingadministrativeresponsibility.
h. AbouttheWritingofthisReport
ThisreportisbasedonextensivewrittenworkcompletedbytheSubcommittee’sworkgroupsandreviewedanddiscussedbythefullSubcommittee.Adraftingworkgroupassembledandeditedthefinalreportbasedonthoseworkgroups’products.
Theworkgroupscarriedoutextensivediscussion,thenoneortwoparticipantsproducedadraftworkingpaperorbriefthatwasinturnreviewedandeditedbyallworkgroupmembers,andthenfurtherreviewedandeditedbyallSubcommitteemembers.InthecaseoftheOriginandPurposeofSection404(g)section,theSubcommitteereliedheavilyonnon-agencySubcommitteememberswhowereattorneyswithextensiveexperienceintheCWA.
Thereadermaynotethatthefollowingalternativesandrecommendationssectionsforretainedwatersandadjacentwetlandsvarysomewhatinformatandstyle.Whilethesectionsfollowthesamegeneralapproach(discussion,presentationofalternatives,andmajorityandminorityrecommendations),therearedifferencesinthepresentations.TheSubcommitteehaschosentoallowthesedifferencestoremain.Thesedifferencesareinpartduetothedifferentworkgroups’writingstyleandformatting,andinpart
![Page 15: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
12
becausethetwoissueshavedifferentlegislativehistoriesandtreatments.ThefullSubcommitteeagreesthatthereportaccuratelydescribestheSubcommittee’sdeliberationsandmajorityandUSACEminorityrecommendations.
WhiletheUSEPAprovidedcommentsalongwithallotherSubcommitteemembers,draftingofthisreportwasbynon-EPAmembersofthesubcommittee.SincetheUSEPAwillbereceivingformaladvicefromtheNACEPT,theEPAparticipatedactivelyinthediscussion,formulation,andreviewofthealternativesandprovidedtechnicaladvice,butdidnottakeapositionregardingthespecificrecommendationsmadebytheSubcommittee.TheUSFWSalsoparticipatedinthediscussionsbutdidnottakeapositiononthefinalrecommendations.Memberswhotookapositionregardingtherecommendationsarereferredtoas“recommendingmembers.”Theseincludeallmembers,includingtheUSACE,butnottheUSEPAandtheUSFWS.
3. OriginandPurposeofSection404(g)
a. Organizationoftheworkgroup
InaccordancewithEPA’schargetotheSubcommitteethat“anyrecommendationmustbeconsistentwiththeCWAandinparticular404(g)(1),”theSubcommitteeestablishedaworkgrouptolookintothemeaningandhistoryofSection404(g)(1).Theworkgroupsoughttoprovideclarificationandunderstandingofthelanguageofthestatutebyreferringtotherecordofadministrativedevelopments,Congressionalhearings,committeereports,anddebatesthatledtothe1977amendmentstotheCWA–whichamendmentsresultedin,amongotherthings,theadoptionofsection404(g)(1).Memorandaoftheworkgroup’sfindingsandconclusionsareattachedinAppendixFtothisReport.Followingisabriefsummaryoftheworkgroup’sfindingsandconclusions.Intheinterestofbrevity,citationstooriginalsourcesareomittedfromthissummary,buttheycanbefoundintheMemorandaattachedinAppendixF.
b. BackgroundonNavigableWaterstoberetainedbytheUSACEasdefinedinSection404(g)(1)
AtthetimeCongressenactedtheCWAin1972,theUSACEhadbeenregulating“navigablewatersoftheUnitedStates”undertheRiversandHarborsAct(RHA)sincethe19thcentury.TheCWAwentbeyondtheRHAtoregulate“navigablewaters,”whichitdefinedtomean“thewatersoftheUnitedStates.”Thestrikinglysimilarlanguageinthetwostatutesledtoconfusion,andtheUSACE’sinitialpost-CWAregulationstreatedthetwojurisdictionaltermsinterchangeably.Butthestatuteshaddifferentpurposes:theRHAfocusedprimarilyonnavigablecapacity;theCWAonwaterquality.In1975theDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofColumbiaorderedtheUSACEtoadoptnewregulationsinaccordancewiththebroaderwaterqualitypurposesoftheCWA.InJuly1975,theUSACEissuednewregulationsannouncingaphase-inscheduleforexpandingthe404programasfollows:
![Page 16: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
13
i. PhaseI:[effectiveimmediately]dischargesofdredgedmaterialoroffillmaterialintocoastalwatersandcoastalwetlandscontiguousoradjacenttheretoorintoinlandnavigablewatersoftheUnitedStatesandfreshwaterwetlandscontiguousoradjacenttheretoaresubjectto…regulation.
ii. PhaseII:[effectiveJuly1,1976]dischargesofdredgedmaterialoroffillmaterialintoprimarytributaries,freshwaterwetlandscontiguousoradjacenttoprimarytributaries,andlakesaresubjectto…regulation.
iii. PhaseIII:[effectiveafterJuly1,1977]dischargesofdredgedmaterialoroffillmaterialintoanynavigablewater[includingintrastatelakes,riversandstreamslandwardtotheirordinaryhighwatermarkanduptotheheadwatersthatareusedininterstatecommerce]aresubjectto…regulation.
ManyinCongresswereconcernedabouttheexpansionoftheUSACE’sCWAdredgeorfillregulatoryprogramasaddressedintheir1975regulationsquotedabove,andin1976theHouseofRepresentativespassedHR9560whichredefinedtheCWAterm“navigablewaters”specificallyforthe404program(butnottherestoftheCWA)to:
Theterm“navigablewaters”asusedinthissectionshallmeanallwaterswhicharepresentlyused,oraresusceptibletouseintheirnaturalconditionorbyreasonableimprovementasameanstotransportinterstateorforeigncommerceshorewardtotheirordinaryhighwatermark,includingallwaterswhicharesubjecttotheebbandflowofthetideshorewardtotheirmeanhighwatermark(meanhigherhighwatermarkonthewestcoast).
ThisHousebillwasnotapprovedbytheSenateandthereforeitneverbecamelaw.TheCommitteereportaccompanyingtheHousebillexplainedthatthenewdefinitionwouldbe“thesameasthedefinitionofnavigablewatersoftheUnitedStatesasithasevolvedovertheyearsthroughcourtdecisions...withoneexception.[It]omitsthehistoricaltestofnavigability.”TheCommitteebelieved“thatifawaterisnotsusceptibleofuseforthetransportofinterstateorforeigncommerceinitspresentconditionorwithreasonableimprovement,”thenitshouldbeexcludedfromthedefinition.“Activitiesaddressedbysection404,totheextenttheyoccurinwatersotherthannavigablewatersoftheUnitedStates...aremoreappropriatelyandmoreeffectivelysubjecttoregulationbytheStates.”
AlthoughHR9560didnotincludewetlandsinthedefinitionofnavigablewaters,itprotectedwetlandsbyrequiring404permitsfordredgedorfillactivitiesin“coastalwetlandsand...thosewetlandslyingadjacentandcontiguoustonavigablestreams.”
TheSenatedeclinedtoredefine“navigablewaters”forpurposesofthe404program.ButtheSenatedidpassabillinAugust1977thatallowedthestatestoassume404permittingauthority,subjecttoEPAapproval,inphaseIIandIIIwaters(asdefinedintheUSACE’s1975regulationsquotedabove).Untiltheapprovalofastateprogramfor
![Page 17: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
14
PhaseIIandIIIwaters,theUSACEwouldadministersection404inallnavigablewaters.Afterassumption,theUSACEwouldretain404permittingauthorityinPhaseIwaters.
Thefinalbill,HR3199,referredtoasthe1977CWAAmendments,wasacompromise.Itdidnotchangethedefinitionof“navigablewaters”forthe404program.Butitallowedthestatestoassumepermittingauthorityin“phaseIIandIIIwatersaftertheapprovalofaprogramby[EPA].”
Toeffectuatethisintent,thefinalbillinsertedthelanguagefromHR9560thathadlimitedtheterm“navigablewaters”intoaparentheticalphraseinsection404(g)(1)thatdefinedthewaterstheUSACEmustretain.TheparentheticaltrackedthelanguagetheHouseCommitteehadoriginallyusedtolimitUSACEjurisdiction,exceptthattheConferenceCommitteeadded“wetlandsadjacentthereto”totheparentheticalphrasethatdefinedwaterstoberetainedbytheUSACE,knownas“retainedwaters.”
Thelegislativehistoryof404(g)inboththeHouseandtheSenateevidencesaCongressionalexpectationthatmostStateswouldassumethe404program,andthereforeeffectivelylimitUSACEpermittingauthoritytoPhaseIwaters(exceptwatersdeemednavigablebasedsolelyonhistoricaluse,whichareassumablebyastate).TheUSACEdefinedPhaseIwatersas“navigablewatersoftheUnitedStates”and“wetlandscontiguousoradjacentthereto.”ThepreambletotheUSACE’s1977regulationsdescribedthemas“watersalreadybeingregulatedbytheUSACE,”i.e.,thosewaterssubjecttoregulationbytheUSACEundersection10oftheRHA,plusadjacentwetlands.
NumerousjudicialopinionsovermorethanacenturyhavefactoredintothemeaningandscopeofUSACEjurisdictionundertheRHA.AstheUSACEstatesinits1977section10regulations,“[p]recisedefinitionsof‘navigablewaters’or‘navigability’areultimatelydependentonjudicialinterpretation,andcannotbemadeconclusivelybyadministrativeagencies.”Therefore,ifandwhenquestionsariseinidentifyingtheRHAwaterstoberetainedaccordingtothe404(g)(1)formulaatthetimeastateortribeassumespermittingauthority,agencyexpertisewillbenecessarytointerprettheRHAstandardandapplyitonthegroundtodeterminewhetheraparticularfeatureisassumableormustberetainedbytheUSACE,allofwhichwillbesubjecttojudicialreview.
c. BackgroundonAdjacentWetlandstoberetainedbytheUSACE
Whenastateortribeassumespermittingauthority,theUSACEmustretainthosewatersdescribedaboveand“wetlandsadjacentthereto.”Thephrase“wetlandsadjacentthereto”wasfirstaddedtoSection404(g)(1)bytheConferenceCommitteeduringthefinalrun-uptoenactmentofthe1977amendments,althoughtherehadbeenareferencetowetlandsearlier,inHR9560,whichhadbeenpassedbytheHouseinthesummerof1976.Thatbilldidnotincludewetlandsinthedefinitionof"navigablewaters"butitrequiredpermitsfordischargesto“wetlandslying
![Page 18: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
15
adjacentandcontiguoustonavigablestreams.”However,neithertheHousenortheConferenceCommitteedefinedwhattheymeantbytheterms“adjacent,”“contiguous”or“wetlands.”Whileactualdefinitionsofadjacentandwetlandswerenotincluded,theterms“contiguousoradjacentwetlands”wereusedintheUSACE’sJuly1975regulations.InJuly1977theUSACEforthefirsttimepromulgateddefinitionsof“adjacent”and“wetlands”forpurposesofits“watersoftheUnitedStates”regulatorydefinitionsundertheCWA.Thepreambletothe1977ruleexplainedthat:
“[s]ince‘contiguous’isonlyasubpartoftheterm‘adjacent,’wehaveeliminatedtheterm‘contiguous.’Atthesametime,wehavedefinedtheterm‘adjacent’tomean‘bordering,contiguous,orneighboring.’ThetermwouldincludewetlandsthatdirectlyconnecttootherwatersoftheUnitedStates,orthatareinreasonableproximitytothesewatersbutphysicallyseparatedfromthembyman-madedikesorbarriers,naturalriverberms,beachdunes,andsimilarobstructions.”13
Therearenoreferencesinthelegislativehistoryofsection404(g)totheUSACE’s1977definitionof“adjacent,”thoughtheregulatorydefinitionquotedabovewasinplacewhenCongressdebatedthe1977amendments.Mentionofthemeaningoftheterm“adjacent”cameuponlyonceduringthefinalfloordebateonthe1977amendments.InresponsetoquestionsraisedbyanotherMember,CongressmanDonH.Clausen,therankingminoritymemberoftheSubcommitteeonWaterResourcesoftheHouseCommitteeonPublicWorksandTransportationandoneofthedraftersofthe1977CWAamendments,repliedthattheword“adjacent”asusedin404(g)(1)means“immediatelycontiguoustothewaterway.”Otherthanthiscolloquy,thereisnosignificantdiscussionofwhatCongressintendedbyusingtheword“adjacent”forpurposesofallocatingpermittingauthorityunder404(g)(1).
Insum,nodefinitivemeaningoftheterm“adjacent”in404(g)(1)emergesfromareviewofthelegislativehistory.Therefore,themeaningofadjacencywithin404(g)(1)issusceptibletovariousinterpretations.
4. DescriptionofAlternativesforIdentifyingWaters(otherthanWetlands)AssumablebyaStateorTribe,andWatersthatMustbeRetainedbytheUSACE
TheSubcommitteetaskedtheWatersworkgroupwithidentifyingaplausible,limitedsetofoptionsthatthefederalagenciescouldusetoclarifywhichwaters(otherthanwetlands)areassumablebystatesortribesandwhichneedberetainedbytheUSACE.TheseoptionswerebasedontheexperienceinMichiganandNewJersey,areadingandunderstandingoftheCWAandthelegislativehistoryof404(g)(1),theinputandexperienceofotherstates
1342Fed.Reg.37,122,37,129(July19,1977).
![Page 19: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
16
andtribeswithapotentialinterestinassumption,andtheexperienceoftheUSACEinadministeringtheprograminitsentiretyinallbuttwostatessince1977.TheseoptionsarelistedbelowasalternativesA,B,andC.
Asastartingpoint,thewatersworkgroupnotedthatthefollowingthreeregulationsorstatutesallusetheterm“navigable”:
• RHAinterpretedat33C.F.R.329.4,1977,• CWAjurisdictionaldefinitionof“(a)(1)”watersat33C.F.R.328.3(a)(1),and• CWASection404(g)(1)parentheticaldefinitionofwaterstoberetainedbythe
USACEunderastate-ortribe-assumedprogram.
However,theterm“navigable”hasdifferentmeaningsineachofthesepassages,andthestatutesand/orregulationsthatuse“navigable”havedifferentpurposes.Forexample,thepurposeof328.3(a)(1)istodefinethescopeofjurisdictionundertheCWA,whilethepurposeof404(g)istoprovideforanadministrativedivisionofpermittingresponsibilitiesbetweenstatesortribesandtheUSACE.
a. WatersAlternativeA:Case-by-casedeterminationofUSACE-retainedandstate-ortribal-assumablewatersatthetimeofprogramassumption(thestatusquo).
Atthetimeastateortribedecidestopursueassumption,theUSACEdistrictandthestateortribewillworktogethertoidentify,utilizingexistinginformation,whichwaterswillberetainedbytheUSACEandwhichwillbeassumedbythestateortribe.Underthisalternative,neitherEPAnortheUSACEwouldprovidefurtherguidanceorclarificationoncriteriatobeusedtohelpdefinethescopeofretainedvs.assumedwaters,butstatesortribeswouldretaintheirabilitytoseekassumptionwithinexistingprocessesandprocedures.WhiletheSubcommitteedeemeditimportanttoputforwardthisoptionasoneofthree,itshouldbenotedthatstatesandtribeshaverequestedthatEPAclarifytheextentofassumablewatersbecauseuncertaintyregardingthepotentialscopeofstateandtribalpermittingauthorityunderanassumedprogramhasproventobeabarriertofullconsiderationof404Programassumptionbythestatesandtribes.Thisoptionprovidesnofurtherclarityduetohistoricdifferencesandcommunicationsindifferentstates,tribes,anddistricts.
b. WatersAlternativeB:PrimaryDependenceonRHASection10ListsofNavigableWaterstoDefineUSACE-RetainedWaters
ThisalternativeusesexistingUSACElistsofRHASection10waterstodefineUSACE-retainedwaters.USACEdistrictofficesmaintainstate-by-statelistsofwatersthatareregulatedbytheUSACEunderSection10oftheRHAforeverystateexceptHawaii.Theseincludewatersthataresubjecttotheebbandflowofthetideand/orarepresentlyused,orhavebeenusedinthepast,ormaybesusceptibleforusetotransportinterstateorforeigncommerce.Thisdistrict-maintainedlistwillbeusedasthebasisforthelistofUSACE-retainedwaters(ListofRetainedWaters)foranystateortribepursuingassumption.
![Page 20: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
17
WatersincludedontheSection10listsbasedsolelyonhistoricalnavigationalusemaybeassumedbyastateortribe,14andthuswouldbedeletedfromalistofUSACE-retainedwaters.AllwatersoftheUnitedStatesnotincludedonthelistofUSACE-retainedwaterswouldbeassumablebyastateortribe.
Asdiscussedearlierinthisreportinsection1.b.ii,ifastate(asopposedtoatribe)isseekingassumption,watersassociatedwithlandsheldintrustforfederallyrecognizedIndiantribes–thatis,thataresubjecttoassumptionbyatribe–couldalsoberetainedbytheUSACEunlessanduntilthetimeofatribalassumption.
UnderAlternativeB,whenastateortribeinitiatestheassumptionprocess,theUSACEdistrictwillusetheSection10listtodevelopaListofRetainedWatersby(1)deletingwatersincludedontheSection10listbasedonhistoricaluseonly(applyingtherelevantfactorssetforthintheRHASection10regulations);(2)inthecaseofastateassumption,addingtribalwaters,and(3)identifyingandaddingwatersthatappropriatelybelongontheSection10listandthereforeontheListofRetainedWaters.
IftheUSACEidentifieswatersthatareeligibleforbutnotincludedonthelistofwatersregulatedunderRHASection10,eitheratthetimeofassumptionorfollowingsomefuturealterationinthephysicalconditionofawaterbody,theUSACEcanaddsuchwatersfollowingconsiderationoftheRHAcaselawandrelevantfactorssetforthintheRHASection10regulations,including33CFR329.8(improvedornaturalconditionsofthewaterbody),329.9(a)(pastuse),329.9(b)(futureorpotentialuse),and329.10(existenceofobstructions).UnderAlternativeB,thesewaterswouldberetainedbytheUSACEonlyiftheyareaddedtotheSection10list,unlessthedeterminationisbasedsolelyonhistoricaluse.Onceadded,thesewaterswouldbeincludedintheListofRetainedWaters.
TheSubcommitteediscussedvariationswithinthisoptionatlength,butallvariationsreliedontheuseoftheexistingSection10listsasthestartingpoint.Whenastateortribeseeksassumption,thestateortribe,theUSACE,andtheEPAwouldcollaborateinreviewoftheexistingSection10list,clarifythescopeofassumablewaters,andresolveanywatersthatdonotclearlymeettheguidancedescribedintheaboveparagraph.ItisofnotethatwhilethestateandfederalagencieswouldcollaborateinthedevelopmentoftheListofRetainedWaters,theUSACEwouldstillhavesoleresponsibilityformaintainingandaddingtotheunderlyingSection10list.InclusionofEPAinthesediscussionswouldfurtherassureconsiderationofstateortribalassumptionfactorsandconcernsindevisingtheListofRetainedWaters,includingconsiderationofrelatedissues(e.g.,tribalwaters).TheEPAandtheUSACEwouldneedtoestablishacleardisputeresolutionproceduretobefollowedifthestateortribeandtheUSACEdistrictwerenotabletocompletetheListofRetainedWatersaspartoftheirMOAdevelopmentwithinareasonabletimeframe.
c. WatersAlternativeC:RiversandHarborsAct(RHA)Section10WatersplusCWA33CFR328.3(a)(1)WatersasRetainedWaters.
14SeeAppendixFofthisreportregardingassumptionofsuchwaters.
![Page 21: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
18
AlternativeCwasproposedbytheUSACErepresentativeontheSubcommitteeandthefollowingexplanationoftheAlternativehasbeenwrittenbytheUSACE.
Underthisoption,retainedwaterswouldbedeterminedusingboththeRHASection10lists,andadditionalwatersdeterminedbytheUSACEtobeTraditionalNavigableWaters(TNWs,or(a)(1)waters)undertheCWA.Inthisoption,thefollowingprocesswouldbeused15.
i. IncludetheRHASection10“navigablewatersoftheU.S.”identifiedonSection10listsdevelopedbytheUSACEdistrictswithintheirareasofresponsibility.Theseincludewatersthataresubjecttotheebbandflowofthetideand/orarepresentlyused,orhavebeenusedinthepast,ormaybesusceptibleforusetotransportinterstateorforeigncommerce.Forpurposesofstateortribalassumption,thelistwouldexcludeanywatersorreachesofsuchwatersbasedsolelyonuseinthepast.
ii. IncludetheTraditionalNavigableWaters(TNWs).16,17Forpurposesofstateortribalassumption,thelistof“navigablewaters”thatwouldberetainedbytheUSACEwouldincludeanywatersforwhichTNWstand-alonedeterminationsorEPATNWdeterminationshavebeenpreviouslymade.Inaddition,case-specificTNWdeterminationsarealsomadebyUSACEDistrictsbutareonlyvalidforthespecificapprovedjurisdictionaldeterminationforwhichtheyareprepared.AtthetimeastateortribebeginsassumptiondiscussionswithaUSACEDistrict,theDistrictwouldevaluatealloftheircompletedcase-specificTNWdeterminationstodeterminewhetheradditionofthatwatertotheretainednavigablewaterslistiswarranted
15TheUSACErecognizesthattheremaybeSection10and/orTNWwatersthatarenotontheexistingDistrictlistsunderparagraphs(i)and(ii).IfastateortribalgovernmentaskstheUSACEforalistofSection10watersandTNWsthattheUSACEdoesnotbelievearesubjecttostateCWASection404assumption,theappropriateDistrictoffice(s)willprovidetothestateortribetheexistinglistofSection10waters(minusthosebasedsolelyonhistoricaluse)andTNWstheUSACEhasavailableatthattime.However,ifandwhenassumptionoftheSection404programisbeingpursuedbyastateortribe,atthattimetheUSACEmaybeabletoprovideamorecompleteandupdatedlistofretainedwaters,whichmightdifferfromthelistgiveninitially,andwouldincludethewatersresultingfromcompletionoftheprocessoutlinedinparagraphs(i)and(ii).TheUSACErecognizesthatinmanystatessomewatersthathavethelegalstatusofSection10watersand/orTNWshavenotyetbeendeterminedbytheUSACEtohavesuchstatus.TotheextentthatavailableUSACEresourcesallow,theUSACEwouldtrytoupdatethelistofretainedwatersforanyparticularstatebeforetheassumptionprocessisfinalizedbytheEPA.ForpurposesofclarityfortheadministrativeprocessofstateortribalassumptionandinrecognitionoflimitedUSACEresourcestoidentifyallSection10and/orTNWwaterswithsuchlegalstatuswhichhavenotyetbeenidentifiedwithinastate,itispracticaltolimitthelistofretainedwatersbytheUSACEatthetimeoffinalstateassumptiontothose alreadyidentifiedasaSection10and/orTNWwaters.NothinginthispartdiminishesthestatutoryauthoritiesoverwatersthatmaybeSection10and/orTNWsbuthavenotyetbeenformallydeterminedassuch.16See33CFR328.3(a)(1)andAppendixDofthe2007“U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineersJurisdictionalDeterminationInstructionalGuidebook”foradefinitionandguidanceonidentifyingTNWsavailableat:http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/cwa_guide/app_d_traditional_navigable_waters.pdf17TNWsinthisparagraphareonlybasedontheEPAdeterminationsordeterminationsmadeundertheUSACE’sapprovedjurisdictionaldeterminationsanddonotincludedeterminationsmadeunderapreliminaryjurisdictionaldeterminationwhichonlyindicatewhichwaters“maybe”subjecttoUSACEjurisdictionundertheUSACE’sstatutoryauthorities.
![Page 22: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
19
underastand-alonedetermination.AnyCWA(a)(1)TNW18determinationcanalsoserveasprecedentforevaluationasanavigablewateroftheU.S.tobeaddedtotheDistrictSection10list.
iii. Forpurposesoftheassumptionprocess,onlythosewatersinparagraphs(i)and(ii)wouldberetainedbytheUSACEexceptfortherareexceptionsdescribedinparagraphivbelowwhichmayoccurafterastateortribehasassumedtheprogramunder404(g).
iv. Post-Assumption:TheremayberareoccasionswhentheUSACEmustmakeaneworrevisedSection10orTNWdeterminationafterithasprovidedits“retainednavigablewaters”listtoastateortribe(e.g.,whenaDistrictindependentlymakeschangestodeterminationsperregulationsat33CFR329.14orunderTNWdeterminationguidance,orwhenaFederalcourthasmadeadeterminationof“navigablewatersoftheU.S.”orTNW,orwhenCongressmakesa“non-navigable”determinationunder33USCChapter1,SubchapterII).Inthesecases,aswiththeaboveoption,appropriateadjustmentswouldbemadetotheretainednavigablewaterslisttoaccountfortheserevisions.Notethatthestateortribewillprimarilytakeonpermittingandtherebyjurisdictionaldeterminationsundertheirstateortribalprogramspost-assumptionunlessandotherwisetriggeredbytheseexceptions.
5. SubcommitteeDiscussionandRecommendationsforIdentifyingRetainedWaters
a. Majorityrecommendation:WatersAlternativeB–PrimaryDependenceonRHASection
10ListsofNavigableWaterstoDefineUSACERetainedWaters
Afterconsiderationofvariousoptions,allrecommendingsubcommitteememberswiththeexceptionoftheUSACEmemberrecommendthatEPAadoptandimplementpolicy(guidanceand/orregulations)consistentwithAlternativeBtodifferentiatebetweenassumablewatersandthosethatmustberetainedbytheUSACE.ThemajorityoftheSubcommitteeunderstandsthisoptiontohavetwoprimaryadvantages:clarity,andconsistencywithCWASection404(g)(1)asunderstoodbythemajorityofSubcommitteemembers.ThefollowingdiscussionprovidesreasonsforthisrecommendationasdevelopedbythemajorityoftheSubcommittee,referencingtwoofthecriteriaincludedinthechargetotheSubcommitteeandidentifyingaseparatethirdcriteriarelatedtoCongressionalintentbasedonthelegislativehistoryof404(g).TheserecommendationsaremadewiththeunderstandingthattheSubcommitteeisnotmakinganyrecommendationthatwouldaffectthejurisdictionaldefinitionofwatersoftheUnited
18TheUSACEproposesretainingwatersthattheUSACEdeemstobe“traditionalnavigablewaters”orTNWsundertheCWAregulationdefining‘thewatersoftheUnitedStates’at33CFRSection328.3(a)(1).Toavoidconfusionwith“navigablewatersoftheUnitedStates”regulatedundertheRiversandHarborsAct,thisreportreferstotheseas“CWA(a)(1)TNWs.”
![Page 23: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
20
States.NotethatnoneoftheSubcommitteemembersendorsedAlternativeA–essentiallya“noaction”alternative–andthustheSubcommitteeprovidesnofurtherdiscussionofthisalternative.Criterion1.Doestherecommendationprovideclarityandisiteasilyunderstoodandimplementableinthefield?AlternativeB–theuseofSection10liststodefineUSACEretainedwaters–ispracticalatthefieldlevel,beingbasedoncurrentlyavailableinformation.Itisalsoreasonablypredictableforboththeagenciesandthepublic.TherecommendedalternativeprovidesaclearlydefinedsetofwaterstoberetainedbytheUSACEbasedonanexistingadministrativetool:theRHASection10lists.Thisreducesconfusion,uncertainty,andprolongednegotiationsbetweenastateortribeandtheassociatedUSACEdistrictordistricts.Thus,itmeetsthecriterionsetforthintheChargetotheSubcommittee.ListsofRHASection10navigablewatersoftheUnitedStatesaremaintainedbytheUSACEforallstatesexceptHawaii.Additionally,AlternativeBrecognizesthatsomeRHASection10lists,whilegenerallystable,maynotincludeallSection10regulatedwaters,andthatthestatusofaspecificwatermaychangeovertime(e.g.,removalofadamthatrendersastreamreachnavigableundertheRHA).Ifchangesarenecessary,agenciescanrelyonexistingregulationstoguidetheprocessformodifyingthelist.ThisalternativeacknowledgesthatastheUSACEandRHAcaselawamendsastateSection10listasneeded,parallelrevisionsmaybemadetothelistofUSACE-retainedwaters.Itisnotexpectedthattheoverallreachoftheselistswillbemodifiedgreatlyinthefuture.Thus,statesandtribescanpredictwithreasonableaccuracywhichwaterswouldberetainedbytheUSACEinconsideringwhethertopursueanapplicationforSection404assumption.Moreover,relyingonpre-existinglists(whichmaybeaugmentedbasedonexistingregulationsandRHAcaselaw)willfosterefficientassumptionproceduresandminimizedisagreements.Ofequalimportance,identificationofUSACE-retainedwatersonalistofretainedwatersinamannerthatisgenerallyconsistentwithRHASection10listswillallowthepublictoreadilydeterminewhichagencyisresponsibleforSection404regulationataspecificlocationunderastateortribalassumedprogram.TheSection10listsarewellestablished,andcanberelativelyeasilylabeledonregionalmapsorGISsystems,andthereforetheListsofRetainedWaterswouldsimilarlybeeasilylabeled.Asnotedinthediscussionofthealternatives,theonecomplexityinutilizingtheRHASection10listforstateortribalassumptionisthoseRHASection10listedwatersthatmaybebasedsolelyonhistoricaluseandwouldnotberetainedbytheUSACE.
![Page 24: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
21
Bycontrast,AlternativeCcouldresultinuncertaintyatthestatewideandfieldlevelregardingthescopeofstate-ortribal-assumableversusUSACE-retainedwaters,bothbeforeandafterstateortribalprogramassumption.UnderAlternativeC,theUSACEwouldretainbothRHASection10watersandCWA“traditionalnavigablewaters”undertheUSACE’sjurisdictionalregulationsat33CFR328.3(a)(1).AscomparedtoAlternativeB,whichreliesonthecleardefinitionofRHAwaters,AlternativeCdependsonmultipleregulations,guidance,andprocedures,andtiestheidentificationofretainedwaterstodeterminingtheextentofCWA(a)(1)TNWs–watersthatarelessclearlydefinedthanSection10waters.WhereasthemajorityofRHASection10watersareidentifiedonlistsmaintainedbyeachUSACEdistrict,thelocationandextentofCWA(a)(1)TNWsthatwouldberetainedbytheUSACEinthecaseofassumptionareidentifiedthroughanumberofdifferentapproaches.TheUSACEandEPAhavemadesome“stand-alone”CWA(a)(1)TNWdeterminations,andtheUSACEdistrictshavedocumentedsomeofthese.Thesestand-alonedeterminationswouldbeincludedinthelistofretainedwatersunderAlternativeC.TheUSACEalsoissuesapprovedjurisdictionaldeterminationswhentheyarerequestedbylandownersorotherinterestedparties.Manyofthesecase-by-casejurisdictionaldeterminationsissuedaftertheSupremeCourtdecisioninRapanosv.UnitedStates,547U.S.715(2006)identifythenearestCWA(a)(1)TNW,butthese“case-by-case”determinationsarenotconsideredpermanent.BecausemostTNWshavenotyetbeenidentifiedassuchandthuslistsofstand-aloneTNWscouldincrease,alternativeBprovidesmoreclarity,certaintyandpredictabilitytostates,tribesandtheregulatedcommunityregardingthescopeofthestateortribalprogram.Afterstateortribalprogramassumption,theUSACEproposestoceaseroutinejurisdictionaldeterminationsinassumedwatersbutAlternativeCnotesthatadditionalwatersmightstillbeidentifiedasCWA(a)(1)TNWwatersinassociationwithvariouslegalproceedings,includingfederalenforcementactions.TheseCWA(a)(1)TNWsidentifiedafterassumptionwouldbeaddedtotheListofRetainedWatersatthetimetheyareidentified.Criterion2.IstherecommendationconsistentwiththeCWA,andwithSection404(g)?AlternativeBisconsistentwithCWASection404(g)basedontheplainlanguageofSection404(g)andthelegislativehistory.CongressclearlyintendedthatstatesandtribesshouldplayasignificantroleintheadministrationofSection404–astheydoinotherCWAprograms–anticipatingthatmanystateswouldassumetheSection404program.
![Page 25: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
22
Congressalsorecognizedthelong-standingroleandexpertiseoftheUSACEinmaintainingnavigationundertheRHA,andthereforespecifiedthattheUSACEwouldretaintheparallel404permittingauthorityinthoseRHAwatersandadjacentwetlandsevenafterastateortribeassumed404permittingauthorityoverremainingwatersandwetlands.CongressreliedonRHASection10toidentifyUSACE-retainedwaters,withoneexception:watersthatweredeemed“navigable”forRHApurposesbasedsolelyonhistoricalpractices(e.g.,waterscapableofcarryingcanoesforfur-tradinginthe18thcentury)arealsoassumablebystatesortribes.
Ontheotherhand,allSubcommitteemembersexcepttheUSACEmemberbelievethatAlternativeC–underwhichtheUSACEwouldretainbothRHASection10watersandCWA(a)(1)TNWsidentifieduptothedateofassumption–isnotconsistentwithCWASection404(g),baseduponitsplainlanguageandthelegislativehistory.Congresswasspecificaboutwhatitintendedin404(g):
“TheCommitteeamendmentdoesnotredefinenavigablewaters.InsteadthecommitteeamendmentintendstoassurecontinuedprotectionforalloftheNation’swaters,butallowsStatestoassumeprimaryresponsibilityforprotectingthoselakes,rivers,streams,swamps,marshesandotherportionsofthenavigablewatersoutsidetheUSACEprogramintheso-calledPhaseIwaters.”19
TheUSACE’s1977regulationsreinforcedthatunderstanding.ThepreamblecharacterizedPhaseIascovering“watersalreadybeingregulatedbytheUSACE[i.e.RHAwaters]plusalladjacentwetlandstothesewaters.”TheUSACEdefinitionof“navigablewatersoftheUnitedStates”undertheRHAissimilartothedefinitionofwaterstoberetainedbytheUSACEunderSection404(g)(1)–exceptforthedeletionofhistoricallyusedwatersandadditionofadjacentwetlands.
Section10regulations,33CFRsection329.4:“NavigablewatersoftheUnitedStatesarethosewatersthataresubjecttotheebbandflowofthetideand/orarepresentlyused,orhavebeenusedinthepast,ormaybesusceptibletousetotransportinterstateorforeigncommerce.”Section404(g)(1)descriptionofwaterstoberetainedbytheUSACE:“...watersthatarepresentlyused,oraresusceptibletouseintheirnaturalconditionorbyreasonableimprovementasameanstotransportinterstateandforeigncommerce...includingwetlandsadjacentthereto.”
19CleanWaterActof1977ReportoftheCommitteeonEnvironmentandPublicWorks,UnitedStatesSenate,July1977,pg.75
![Page 26: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
23
ThissimilarityleadsthemajorityofSubcommitteememberstoagainconcludethatthe“navigablewaters”toberetainedbytheUSACEwereintendedtobethesamewatersregulatedbytheRHA.Further,theUSACEregulationindicatesthat,“ThisdefinitiondoesnotapplytoauthoritiesundertheCleanWaterAct,whichdefinitionsaredescribedat33CFRparts323and328.”20Moreover,themajorityoftheSubcommitteealsounderstandstheUSACEtohaveacknowledgedduringSubcommitteediscussionsthattheUSACEcananddoesdistinguishbetweenSection10watersandCWA(a)(1)watersforregulatorypurposes,displayingmapsshowingthetwodifferentcategoriesintwostateswhereUSACEdistrictshaveidentifiedSection10andCWATNWwaters.TheNationwidePermitsissuedbytheUSACEonJanuary6,2017alsorepeatedlydistinguishbetweenRHAwatersandCWAwaters,suggestingthatsuchadistinctionisandcanbemadewithrelativeease.Therefore,themajorityoftheSubcommitteeholdsthatdistinguishingbetweenSection10andCWA(a)(1)watersforthepurposeofdistinguishingbetweenassumableandUSACE-retainedwatersremainspracticalandappropriatelyinaccordancewith404(g).Criterion3.DoestheRecommendationcomportwithCongressionalintentthatqualifiedstatesassumeresponsibilityfortheSection404regulatoryprogram?TheSubcommitteemajorityviewsthatAlternativeBmakesiteasierforstatesandtribestounderstandthecostsassociatedwithassumptionandthusmorereadilyweighthecostsandbenefitsofassumingtheprogram,therebyencouragingstateortribalassumption,ifdesired,consistentwithCongressionalintentandwithotherCWAprograms.StatesandtribesmaybewillingtoundertakeSection404programassumptionforthereasonsdiscussedearlierinthisreport,buttheydoincurthecostofdevelopmentandadministrationofastateortribal404program.AssumptionofallCWAwatersexceptthoseontheRHASection10listminussolelyhistoricaluse–ashasoccurredinMichiganandNewJersey–wouldprovideaneconomyofscaletothestateandthepublic,whichcouldmakethedevelopmentandongoingfixedcostsmoreacceptableforqualifiedstatesortribeswhowishtopursuethisapproachundertheCWA.AlternativeCwouldbeaneffectivebarriertoassumptionformanyifnotmoststatesandtribes.TheimpactofAlternativeCwouldvarygeographically,butparticularlyinstateswithsignificantwetlandsandotherwaterresources,theUSACEcouldretainagreaterpercentageofwaters(andadjacentwetlands)underthisoption.Asanexample,duringSubcommitteediscussionstheUSACErepresentativespresentedagraphicmappreparedbytheKansasCityDistrictthatcomparedCWA(a)(1)waterstoRHASection10watersinthedistrict.RHASection10watersinthedistricttotaled887streammiles;the
2033CFR§329.1.
![Page 27: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
24
additionofCWA(a)(1)waterstripledthisto2476streammiles.Theextentofadjacentwetlandswouldbeexpectedtoincreaseproportionally.Manywatersidentifiedas“TNWs”underCWAjurisdictionalguidance21,suchasinlandlakes,haveanimpactoninterstatecommerceresultingfromtourism,butmayhavelittletonoimpactonthetransportofinterstateorforeigncommerce(asdoRHAwaters).ExamplesofdeterminationsmadeunderthisjurisdictionalfederalguidanceincludeBahLake(anisolated70-acrewater,maximumdepth10feet)andBoyerLake(300-acre28-feetmaximumdepth)–bothofwhicharedefinedasCWA(a)(1)TNWs.SuchwaterbodiesarecommonontheAmericanlandscape.WhilethescalemightbedifferentindifferentstatesitisclearthattherearemoreCWA(a)(1)TNWwaters,andmorescatteredacrossthelandscape,thanareRHAwaters.TheneteffectisthatthescopeandlocationofCWA(a)(1)TNWwatersaresuchthathavingtheUSACEretainthesewaterscouldundermineCongress’sintentthatthestatesassumeauthorityovermostofthewaterswithintheirborders.Finally,itshouldbenotedthatstatesandtribeshaveoperatedformanyyearsunderthebeliefthatiftheydevelopacomprehensivewetland/dredgeandfillpermittingprogramconsistentwithfederalstatuteandregulations,theywillbeeligibletoassumethatprogramforallbutSection10waters(andadjacentwetlands).Inordertoprotectstatewaters,manystateshavedevelopedwetlandassessmentandmonitoringprograms,wetlandswaterqualitystandards,andregulatoryprocessesthatwouldeventuallyhelptoprovideeligibilityforfullSection404assumptionshouldtheychoosetopursuethatoption.AlternativeCcoulddecreasethevalueofthatinvestment.
b. USACErecommendation:WatersAlternativeC–Section10watersplusCWA(a)(1)WatersasRetainedWaters.
WhiletheUSACEisneutralwithrespecttostateortribalassumptionofSection404oftheCWAprogram,theUSACEdoesbelievetherearevalidconsiderationsthatmustbefactoredintothedeterminationofwhichwatersmustberetained(andultimatelywhichwaterscanbeassumedbyastateortribe).TheUSACEbelievesthereshouldnotbeadistinctionbetweendifferentusesoftheterm“navigablewaters”underdifferentsectionsofthestatute,andbelievesthisisconsistentwiththepurposesoftheCWAandSection404(g).WhilethestatutorylanguagesettingforththeCWASection404(g)parentheticalwatersslightlydiffersfromtheregulatorylanguageof328.3(a)(1),theUSACEbelievestheinterpretationoftheterm“navigablewaters”isthesameunder404(g)and328.3(a)(1)(otherthanthosewatersconsiderednavigablebasedsolelyontheirhistoricuse).TheUSACEbelievesTNWsreflecttheconceptof“navigability”appropriatetoensuretheobjectiveoftheCWAtorestoreandmaintainthechemical,
21AppendixDofthe2007“U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineersJurisdictionalDeterminationInstructionalGuidebook”availableat:http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/cwa_guide/app_d_traditional_navigable_waters.pdf
![Page 28: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
25
physical,andbiologicalintegrityoftheNation’swaters(see“AppendixD:LegalDefinitionof‘TraditionalNavigableWaters’”22).TheUSACEhasmaintainedthispositionsinceatleastthe2008post-Rapanosguidancewasissuedanditisnota“new”positioncreatedbytheagencyforpurposesofthissubcommittee.AnarrowerreadingofthosewatersretainedbytheUSACEunderthestateassumptionprogramwouldnottakeintoconsiderationtheevolutionoftheUSACERegulatoryProgramsince1977.TheUSACEmustcontinuetomodifyitsprogramtoreflectchangesinlaw,policy,science,andotherconsiderations,includingchangesinwhatwatersconstitutewatersoftheU.S.undertheCWA.
Differentdefinitionsfortheterm“navigablewaters”underdifferentprovisionsofthesamestatutecouldalsoresultinconfusionthatwouldnotprovideclarityfortheregulatedpublic.ThestatesandtribeswouldknowtheSection10waters(asidentifiedbytheDistrictlists)aswellasthestand-aloneTNWdeterminationsmadebytheDistricts.AllapprovedjurisdictionaldeterminationsmadebytheUSACEarepostedonDistrictwebsitesandarepubliclyavailable.Thus,thecase-specificTNWdeterminationsthatmaybeincludedontheretainedwaterslistwhenthestateinitiatesthatprocessarealsoavailable.Inconclusion,theselistsandwatersareknownandpubliclyavailableandthereforeprovideclaritytotheUSACE,thestate,andtheregulatedpublic.
6. DescriptionofAlternativesforidentifyingAdjacentWetlandsAssumablebyaStateorTribe,andAdjacentWetlandsthatMustbeRetainedbytheUSACE
TheAdjacencyworkgroupwasestablishedbytheSubcommitteetodevelopalternativesfortheidentificationofwetlandsadjacenttothenavigablewatersbeingretainedbytheUSACEunderanassumedCWASection404permitprogram.Theworkgrouplearnedthatunlikethebackgroundinformationregardingretainedwaters,thereisnoconclusiveCongressionalintentonthemeaningof“wetlandsadjacentthereto”–i.e.,wetlandsthatmustberetainedbytheUSACE.
Theworkgroup’sinitialdiscussiononadjacentwetlandswasinfluencedbythefloordebatebetweenCongressmanBaumanandCongressmanClausenonthe1977amendmentstotheCWA.Duringtheirdebate,CongressmanBaumanaskedaboutthemeaningandextentofadjacentwetlandsinSection404(g).Inresponse,CongressmanClausenstatedthathewould“interprettheword‘adjacent’tomeanimmediatelycontiguoustothewaterway.”Thisistheonlyreferencetothemeaningof“adjacent”inthecontextof404(g)intheentirelegislativerecord.Theworkgroupalsoconsideredtheuseoftheword“adjacent”intheUSACE’s197523and1977regulationsdefining“watersoftheUnitedStates.”Althoughtheword“adjacent”was
22Ibid.2340Fed.Reg.31,320,31,324,31,326(July25,1975).
![Page 29: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
26
beingusedintheUSACEregulationsdefining“watersoftheUnitedStates”justpriortothe1977CWAamendments,therearenoreferencestotheUSACEregulationsinthelegislationorCommitteereports.Inaddition,theregulatorydefinitionofadjacencywasestablishedaftertheoriginalstatutorylanguage,butbeforefinalpassage,ofthe1977amendments.Becauseofthetimingofthevariousactions,theSubcommitteecouldnotassumethatCongresswasawareoftheUSACEregulatorydefinitionwhenthissectionofthestatutewaswritten. Formostsubcommitteemembers,itisclear,however,thattheword“adjacent”in404(g)wasreferringtoadjacencytoRHAwaters,whichwerebeingretainedprimarilytofosterfederalnavigationinterests.Therefore,whilethemeaningofadjacentin404(g)isnotcertain,themajorityoftheSubcommitteebelievesthepurposeofadjacentin404(g)isdifferentthanthejurisdictionaldefinitionintheUSACE“watersoftheUnitedStates”regulations.“Adjacent”isusedinSection404(g)toallocatepermittingresponsibilitiesbetweentheUSACEandastateortribethatisassumingthe404program,whereas“adjacent”isusedintheUSACE“watersoftheUnitedStates“regulationstodefinethescopeofjurisdictionundertheCWA.Agenciesgenerallyhavediscretioninmakingjudgmentsonhowtoadministertheirprograms,andthusshouldhavesomediscretioninhowtheydefinewhatisadjacentforpurposesofallocatingadministrativeauthoritybetweenstatesortribesandtheUSACE.
a. WetlandsAlternativeA:USACERetainsAllWetlandsWhetherTouchingorNotTouching
RetainedNavigableWaters,RegardlessofFurthestReach
WetlandsAlternativeAinterpretstheword“adjacent”in404gtomeanthesameastheword“adjacent”inregulations24currentlybeingusedbytheUSACEtoidentifyjurisdictional“adjacent”wetlands.UnderWetlandsAlternativeA,theUSACEwouldretainpermittingauthorityoverallwetlandsadjacenttoretainednavigablewaterswhetherornottheyaretouchingretainednavigablewatersandregardlessoftheirextent(seeFigure1:WetlandsAlternativeAjustbelow).
2433CFRS328.3(c).(“Thetermadjacentmeansbordering,contiguous,orneighboring.WetlandsseparatedfromotherwatersoftheUnitedStatesbyman-madedikesorbarriers,naturalriverbermsbeachdunesandthelikeare‘adjacentwetlands’.”
![Page 30: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
27
AlternativeAwouldrequirethattheUSACEretainexpansivewetlandsystemsthataretouchingaretainedwater,regardlessoftheirextent.Thus,thespecificextentofretainedwetlandscouldnotbedeterminedatthetimeofprogramassumptionandthemajorityofprojectswouldrequireacase-by-casefieldinspectiontodeterminewhethertheUSACEwouldretainpermittingauthority.
b. WetlandsAlternativeB:USACERetainsEntiretyofWetlandsTouchingRetainedWaters,
RegardlessofFurthestReach
WetlandsAlternativeBalsoreliesonthecurrentdefinitionof“adjacent”intheregulationsthatdefine“watersoftheUnitedStates,”butunderthisalternative,theUSACEwouldnotretainall“adjacent”wetlands.Rather,itwouldonlyretainpermittingauthorityoverwetlandstouchingthewatersbeingretainedbytheUSACE.
AsdiscussedintheOriginandPurposeofSection404(g)sectionofthisreport,above,CongressintendedthatinacaseofstateortribalassumptiontheUSACEwouldretainpermittingauthorityover“PhaseIwaters”(exceptwatersdeemednavigablebasedsolelyonhistoricaluse,whichwouldbeassumablebyastateortribe).PhaseIwatersweredefinedintheUSACE’s1975regulationsascoastalandinland“navigablewatersoftheUnitedStates”andwetlands“contiguousoradjacentthereto” –i.e.,waterssubjecttoregulationbytheUSACEunderSection10oftheRHA,plusadjacentwetlands.TheRHAisdesignedtoprotectthenavigablecapacityofthe“navigablewatersoftheUS”andthusrequirespermitsforworkin“navigablewatersoftheUS”andworkoutside“navigablewatersoftheUS...ifthesestructuresorworkaffectthecourse,location,orconditionofthewaterbodyinsuchamannerastoimpactonitsnavigablecapacity.”WetlandsAlternativeBassumesthatwetlandstouchingretainedwatershavethegreatestabilitytoimpactnavigabilityunderSection10oftheRHAandthatwetlandsnotaffectingnavigabilitycanbeassumedbyastateortribeforadministrativepurposesundertheCWA.Asaresult,wetlandsthatare“nottouching”retainedwaterscouldbeassumedbyastateortribe(seeFigure2:WetlandsAlternativeBjustbelow).
LikeWetlandsAlternativeA,WetlandsAlternativeBwouldrequirethattheUSACEretainexpansivewetlandsystemsthataretouchingaretainedwater,regardlessoftheirextent.AlsosimilartoWetlandsAlternativeA,thespecificextentofretainedwetlands
![Page 31: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
28
couldnotbedeterminedatthetimeofprogramassumptionandthemajorityofprojectswouldrequireacase-by-casefieldinspectiontodeterminewhethertheUSACEwouldretainpermittingauthority.
c. WetlandsAlternativeC:EstablishmentofaNationalAdministrativeBoundary
WetlandsAlternativeCrequirestheestablishmentofanationaladministrativeboundarybasedonafixeddistancefromUSACE-retainednavigablewaters(e.g.,100,300,or1,000feet).TheboundarywoulddepictthelimitsoffederalprogramadministrationandthebeginningofstateortribalprogramadministrationunderanassumedCWASection404permitprogram.TheestablishmentofanationaladministrativeboundarytoassignregulatoryresponsibilityoveradjacentwetlandsshouldbuildonUSACEauthoritiesundertheRHA.TheRHAwasenactedprimarilytoprotectnavigationandthenavigablecapacityofthenation’swaters.Section10oftheRHArequiresthatthefollowingregulatedactivitiesbeapprovedorpermittedbytheUSACE:placementandremovalofstructures;workinvolvingdredging;disposalofdredgedmaterial;filling,excavation,oranyotherdisturbanceofsoilsorsediments;ormodificationofanavigablewaterway.Alloftheseactivitieshavethepotentialtoaffectnavigability,furtherunderscoringthattheRHA’sprimarypurposeistoprotectnavigablecapacity.DepictingadjacentwetlandsretainedbytheUSACEasanadministrativedistancefromretainedwatersbasedonexistingstate-establishedsetbacks,buffers,oradefinedelevationasinthecaseofNewJersey,orothercriteria,preservestheUSACE’scontroloverwatersandwetlandsnecessarytoprotectthesewatersfromactivitiesthatmayadverselyimpactnavigability.Ingeneral,theactivitiestakingplacelandwardofthe“ordinaryhighwatermark”(inland)or“meanhighwatermark”(coastal)thatpotentiallyimpactnavigationandwarrantcontinuedregulationbytheUSACEunderanassumedprogramarethosethatarelikelytogeneratesedimentanddebristhatreachchannelsandharborsandaffectthenavigablecapacityofwatersusedtotransportinterstateorforeigncommerce.Consequently,activitiestakingplaceinwetlandsadjacenttonavigablewatersmaywarrantregulationbytheUSACEeitherundertheCWA,theRHA,orboth.Regulatedactivitiesthatmayimpactnavigablecapacity,however,wouldlikelyoccurinareasthatareincloseproximitytothewaterwaysretainedbytheUSACE.Riparianbuffersandsetbacksareestablishedbymanystatesto,amongotherpurposes,helpstorefloodwatersandpreventsedimenttransport,directlysupportingandpreservingnavigation.Thus,suchstate-establishedboundariescanprovidebothapracticalandalogicalbasisfortheestablishmentofanationaladministrativeboundarybetweenwetlandsretainedbytheUSACEandwetlandsassumedbyastateortribe.Theestablishmentofanationaladministrativeboundarywouldresolveanumberofadjacencyissues.TheuseofanadministrativelinetoassignregulatoryresponsibilityfortheimplementationoftheCWAensurescompleteprotectionofwaterandwetlandresourceswithoutconfusionorunnecessaryduplication,whilepreservingtheUSACE’s
![Page 32: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
29
responsibilitytoprotectandmaintainnavigationundertheRHAasrequiredbyCongress.SincetheboundarydefinesthelandwardextentoftheadjacentwetlandsretainedbytheUSACE,iteliminatestheneedtodeterminetheextentandconnectivityoflargewetlandsystemstoallocateadministrativeauthoritybetweentheUSACEandastateortribe.TheboundarywouldbeestablishedpriortoprogramassumptionandincorporatedintoGISorothermappingmethodstofacilitateastateortribe’sassessmentofthecostsandbenefitsofassumption.Finally,becauseWetlandsAlternativeCestablishesabrightlineboundary,theentiretyofexpansivewetlandsystemssuchasthoseinexamplesfromAlaska,Minnesota,andtheFondduLacReservationwouldnotberetainedbytheUSACE.Thus,morewetlandswouldbeassumablethanwouldbethecaseunderotheralternatives.Basedontheabovediscussion,theSubcommitteeagreedthatadefaultdistanceof300feetfromtheretainednavigablewaterwouldbefullyadequatetoprotectfederalnavigationinterestsandcouldserveasareasonablenationaladministrativeboundary.TheSubcommitteeidentifiedseveralpossibleimplementationstrategiesoncethisnationaladministrativeboundaryisestablished,whicharepresentedbelow.
i. WetlandsAlternativeC1:USACERetainsAllWetlandsTouchingRetainedNavigableWatersandExtendingLandwardtotheNationalAdministrativeBoundary
UnderWetlandsAlternativeC1,theUSACEwouldretainpermittingauthorityoverallwetlandsphysically“touching”retainednavigablewatersandextendinglandwardtothenationaladministrativeboundary.Thestateortribewouldassumethosewetlandsbeyondtheestablishedboundary.Additionally,wetlandsthatareshorewardoftheadministrativeboundarybutnot“touching”aretainednavigablewaterwouldbeassumedbythestateortribe(seeFigure3:WetlandsAlternativeC1justbelow).
WhiletheadministrativeboundarywouldclearlydefinetheextentofUSACEretentionforlargeorexpansivewetlands,manyprojectswouldstillrequireacase-by-casefieldinspectiontodeterminewhethertheaffectedwetlandisinfacttouchingtheretainedwater.Thisalternativewouldlikelyresultinthegreatest
![Page 33: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
30
amountofwetlandsassumablebyastateortribe,butcontainssomeimplementationinefficienciessimilartoWetlandsAlternativesAandBduetotheneedforcase-by-casefieldinspectionsonmanyprojects.Forinstance,physicalseparations,suchasriverbermsorbeachdunesaredynamic,meaningthatthisalternativewouldresultinanequallydynamic"sometimesinorsometimesout"scenariothatisnotconducivetopredictabilityforthepublic.
ii. WetlandsAlternativeC2:USACERetainsAllAdjacentWetlandsBetweenRetainedWatersandtheNationalAdministrativeBoundary
UnderWetlandsAlternativeC2,theUSACEretainspermittingauthorityoverallwetlandsadjacenttoretainednavigablewatersuptothenationaladministrativeboundary.Thestateortribewouldonlyassumethosewetlandsbeyondthenationaladministrativeboundary(seeFigure4:WetlandsAlternativeC2justbelow).
Underthisalternative,thereisnoneedforcase-by-casefieldinvestigationstodeterminetheextentandconnectivityoflargeorexpansivewetlandsystems.ThepartitioningofadministrativeauthorityunderSection404assumptionwouldbecompletelyseparatefromissuesrelatingtodeterminingSection404jurisdiction,andthefarthestreachofallretainedwetlandswouldbeknownpriortoprogramassumption.WetlandsAlternativeC2providessubstantialclarityandcertaintyforstates,tribes,theUSACE,andtheregulatedpublic.
![Page 34: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
31
iii. WetlandsAlternativeC3:USACERetainsAllWetlandsLandwardtoanAdministrativeBoundaryEstablishedDuringtheDevelopmentoftheMemorandumofAgreementwiththeUSACE,witha300-footNationalAdministrativeBoundaryasaDefault
WetlandsAlternativeC3establishesa300-footnationaladministrativeboundaryuptowhichtheUSACEretainspermittingauthorityoverallwetlandsregardlessofwhethertheyaretouchingretainednavigablewaters.However,underthisalternative,thatboundarycouldshiftinaccordancewithnegotiationsbetweenastateortribeandtheUSACEduringthedevelopmentoftherequiredMOAwiththeUSACE.Theactualboundarycouldbeestablishedtoaccountfortheexpertiseandcomprehensiveprogramsofastateortribe,planningandregulatoryauthorities,regionalorgeographicdifferences,andotherlocalconditionsthatmayaffectorcomplementtheCWASection404Program.Forexample,the300footNationalAdministrativeBoundarycouldbemoveduptoascloseas75feettomatchupwithestablishedbuildingsetbackrequirements,orasfarawayas1,000feettomatchupwithabroadstateshorelandboundary.Intheeventthatnegotiationstoestablishanadministrativeboundaryspecifictothatstateortribeareunsuccessful,theextentofUSACE-retainedwetlandsdefaulttothe300-footNationalAdministrativeBoundary(seeFigure5:WetlandsAlternativeC3justbelow).
ThisalternativeretainstheclarityandcertaintyofWetlandsAlternativeC2andcontinuestoseparateassumptionfromissuesrelatingtodeterminingSection404jurisdiction.However,WetlandsAlternativeC3alsoprovidestheaddedbenefitofimprovingtheconsistencyandeffectivenessofanassumedprogrambyallowingstatesortribestoincorporateSection404requirementsintoexistingprogramsandrequirementsestablishedtoaddresslocalresourceneedsandcircumstances.InformulatingWetlandsAlternativeC3,whichestablishesanadministrativeboundarymeasuredfromretainedwaterstodefinethelimitsofafederally-administeredSection404programandthebeginningofastate-ortribally-assumedprogram,theSubcommitteediscussedstateortribalprogramsthatcouldformthebasisforestablishinganadministrativeboundary.Forexample,astateortribemay
![Page 35: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
32
havestatutesorregulationsforriparianbuffersorsetbacks.Thebenefitsassociatedwithbuffersorsetbacksaccruefromtheexistenceofappropriatevegetationandtheirabilitytoreduceerosionandsedimentation,amongotherbenefits,whichbenefitsaredirectlylinkedtonavigability.Finally,inadditiontoexistinggovernmentprograms,theconsiderationofnaturalfeaturessuchastopography,hydrology,orotheruniqueconditionsmayalsoinfluencethelocationofanadministrativeboundaryandimprovetheeffectivenessandefficiencyofanassumedCWASection404permitprogram.Criteriaforestablishingastateortribal-specificadministrativeboundarycouldbedevelopedbytheEPAinguidanceorregulations,andallowfortherecognitionandintegrationofstateortribal-specificprogramsandcircumstancesasdiscussedabove,providedtheabilitytokeepnutrients,sediment,ordebrisfromimpactingtheretainednavigablewaterismaintained.ThestateortribeandtheUSACEwouldaddressthesecriteriaduringthedevelopmentoftheMOAand,oncenegotiationswerecompleted,documenttherationalefortheselectedadministrativeboundaryintheMOA.
7. SubcommitteeDiscussionandRecommendationsonIdentifyingAdjacentWetlands
a. Majorityrecommendation:USACERetainsAllWetlandsLandwardtoanAdministrativeBoundaryEstablishedDuringtheDevelopmentoftheMemorandumofAgreementwiththeUSACE,witha300-footNationalAdministrativeBoundaryasaDefault.
Afterconsiderationofvariousoptions,allrecommendingSubcommitteemembersexcepttheUSACErepresentativerecommendthattheEPAadoptandimplementapolicyconsistentwithWetlandsAlternativeC3todifferentiatebetweenwetlandsretainedbytheUSACEandthoseassumedbyastateortribeunderanassumedSection404Program.Themajority’sreasonsforthisrecommendationincludethatWetlandsAlternativeC3:• isconsistentwiththeSubcommittee’sfindingsandconclusionsabouttheoriginand
purposeofSection404(g);• establishesanadministrativeboundarythatisconsistentwithmanystateandtribal
boundariesalreadyestablishedforadministrativeease;• providesstatesandtribeswiththeflexibilitytoadjusttheboundarybasedontheir
uniquecircumstances,includingbutnotlimitedtoregulatoryauthority,topography,andhydrology;
• assuresthattheUSACEisabletomaintainnavigabilityasrequiredbytheRiversandHarborsAct;
• allowsfortheidentificationandmappingoftheadministrativeboundarypriortoprogramassumption,providingclarity,understanding,andafterassumption,easeofimplementation;
![Page 36: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
33
• usesaprocesstodeterminetheextentofretainedwetlandsthatiseasilydistinguishedfromtheprocessusedtodetermineSection404jurisdiction,resultinginimprovedefficiency,regulatorycertainty,andsufficientwetlandresourcesforastateortribetoassume;
• providesaclear,reasonable,andimplementableseparationofadministrativeauthoritybyestablishingaclearlydemarcatedboundarybetweenUSACE-retainedandstateortribally-assumedwetlandareas;and
• maximizestheefficiencyandeffectivenessofassumedprogramsbyallowingthemtobetailoredtoastate’sortribe’sspecificcircumstances.
DiscussiononthejustificationandrationaleforWetlandsAlternativeC3follows,includingcomparisonstootheralternativeswhenappropriatebasedoncriteriadevelopedbytheAdjacencyworkgroup.Criterion#1:WetlandsAlternativeC3isconsistentwithSection404(g)oftheCWA.Congresspassed404(g)withtheexpressedintentionthatstatesandtribeswouldplayasignificantroleintheadministrationoftheSection404program.Thepurposeofsection404(g)(1)istoidentifythosewatersandwetlandsthatmustberetainedbytheUSACE.ThelegislativehistoryalsoindicatesthatthepurposeofretentionbytheUSACEisrelatedtoRHASection10authoritiesprimarilytomaintainnavigabilityandrelatedinterests.WetlandsAlternativeC3isconsistentwithCongressionalintentbecauseitprovidesclarityonthewetlandsthat astateortribemayassume,therebyremovingoneofthecurrentbarrierstoassumption.WetlandsAlternativeC3isalsoconsistentwithCongressionalintentbecauseitestablishesanadministrativeboundarythatwillensurethattheUSACEcanprotectandmaintainnavigabilityandwaterqualityinretainedwaters.Theuniquestate-assumedsection404programadministeredbyNewJerseysince1994hasclearlydemonstratedthatastate-specificadministrativeboundary,differentfromaCWAjurisdictionalboundary,isbothimplementableandconsistentwithSection404(g)(1).WetlandsAlternativeC3allowsfortheestablishmentofotherassumedprogramswithstate-specificortribal-specificadministrativeboundaries.Criterion#2:WetlandsAlternativeC3providesaclear,reasonable,andimplementableseparationofadministrativeauthority.ThestatedchargeoftheAssumableWatersSubcommitteeistoprovideadviceandrecommendationsonhowtobestclarifywhichwatersastateortribecanassumeunderanEPA-approvedCWASection404program.WetlandsAlternativeC3,byestablishinga“brightline”administrativeboundary,providesneededclarity.Thepublic,states,
![Page 37: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
34
tribes,andfederalagenciescaneasilyidentifytheappropriatepermittingauthorityatthetimeanapplicationissubmitted.WetlandsAlternativeA(USACERetainsAllWetlands,WhetherTouchingorNotTouchingRetainedNavigableWaters,RegardlessofFurthestReach)andWetlandsAlternativeB(USACEretainsentiretyofwetlandstouchingretainedwaters,regardlessoffurtherreach)wouldresultinfourproblemscenarios.First,largewetlandcomplexescanextendtensorevenhundredsofmilesfromtheretainedwater.ExamplesprovidedbythestatesofAlaskaandMinnesotademonstratethatusingtheregulatoryCWAjurisdictionaldefinitionofadjacencytodescriberetainedwetlandswouldresultinexpansivewetlandsystemsbeingretainedbytheUSACE,leavingfewerwetlandstobeassumedbyastateortribe.Second,wetlandsoftenextendawayfromnavigablewatersinintricateandsnakelikenetworks,whichcouldresultinaconfusingpatternofUSACEandstateortribalpermittingauthorityacrossthelandscape.Forexample,theSt.LouisRiver(atributarytoLakeSuperior)formssomeoftheboundariesoftheFondduLacIndianReservationinMinnesotawherewetlandscomprise44%oftheReservation.WetlandsadjacenttotheSt.LouisRiver,whichhasbeendeterminedtobeanavigablewater,areinterconnectedwithotherwetlandsthatextendtensofmilesawayfromtheriver,wellbeyondotherwetlandsthatarenotconnectedoradjacenttotheriver.Third,wetlandsadjacenttoUSACE-retainedwaterscanextendbeyondstate-assumedwaters.Forexample,theUSACEretainsastreamwiththeexceptionoftheupstreamportionofitthatisbeyondthepointofnavigability(or“headofnavigation”),butwetlandsadjacenttotheretainedportionofthestreamcontinuetoextendfartherupthewatershed(acommonoccurrence,particularlyinupstreamreaches).Absentsomeadministrativedemarcationofwhichadjacentwetlandswouldberetained,anawkwardsituationresultswhereastateortribeassumesanupstreamsectionofastream,buttheUSACEretainsitsadjacentwetlands.Fourth,scenariosthatrequirecase-by-casefieldinspectionstodeterminetheappropriateregulatingauthoritywillreducetheefficienciesofanassumedprogram.Priortoassumption,theproblemsassociatedwithWetlandsAlternativesAandBwouldmakeitdifficultforstatesortribestoaccuratelyassessthefeasibilityandbenefitsofassumptionbecausetheextentofretainedwetlandswouldbeunknownorunclear.Lackingaknownboundaryforretainedwetlands,itwouldrequireasignificantupfrontinvestmentforastateortribetomakeaninformeddecisionaboutpursuingassumptionofthe404programandaccuratelyplanningforitsdevelopment.Intheeventthatastateortribeassumedtheprogramwithouthavingascertainedtheboundary,theproblemscenariosdiscussedabovewouldessentiallymakeitmoredifficultforthestateortribetodeliveronthestakeholderefficienciesanticipatedunderanassumedSection404permitprogramsuchaseaseofdeterminingadministrativecontrol,speedof
![Page 38: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
35
reachingapermitdecision,andothercustomerserviceimprovements.UseofWetlandsAlternativeC3wouldeliminatetheseproblemsbyestablishingastandardnationalboundary.Criterion#3:WetlandsAlternativeC3establishesanadministrativeboundarythatcanbeconsistentwithalreadyestablishedstateortribalprogramboundaries.Manystatesandtribeshavealreadyestablishedvariousboundaries,lines,ordemarcationsintheirstateortribalprograms.Foradministrativeease,theseestablishedlinescanbeusedtoestablishtheadministrativelineforretainedandassumablewaters.SuchanadministrativeboundarywillassurethattheUSACEisabletomaintainnavigabilityasrequiredbyRHAwaterwardoftheboundary,whilethestateortribeassumesauthoritytoprotectwetlandsandwaterqualityasrequiredbytheCWAlandwardoftheboundary.Criterion#4:WetlandsAlternativeC3providesflexibilitytomaximizetheefficiencyandeffectivenessofaState-orTribally-assumed404program.InWetlandsAlternativeC3,underprescriptiveguidanceorregulationsthatestablishadefaultadministrativeboundary(i.e.,300feetfromretainednavigablewater),statesandtribescanstillfurthernegotiatethelocationoftheadministrativeboundarywiththeUSACEduringtheestablishmentoftherelevantMOA(forexample,75or1000feet).UnlikeWetlandsAlternativesC1andC2,WetlandAlternativeC3allowsthepartiestoestablishaboundarytakingintoaccountotherexistingregulatoryprogramsorrequirementsandtheuniquelandscapecharacteristicsofthestateortribalterritory.Thiscouldleadtobetterenvironmentalresults,administrativeefficiency,clarityforthepublicandregulators,andastrengtheningofthealignedstateortribalprogram.WetlandsAlternativeC3alsoprovidesstatesandtribeswiththeabilitytotailorthelinetofeaturesspecifictothestateortribe.Insuchalargegeographicallyandbiologicallydiversenation,therearesignificantdifferencesinlandscapesandthenatureofourwatersandwetlandsamongthestates.WetlandsAlternativeC3allowsUSACEandthestateortribetoaddresstheseregionalresourcedifferencesandprovideanopportunitytoutilizethebestavailableinformation,tools,andprocedures.Forexample,thedistanceusedtoestablishtheadministrativeboundarycouldvarybasedonuniquefloodplaincharacteristicsofagivenwaterbody.Focusingonup-frontmappingmayevenencouragethedevelopmentofimproved,morecomprehensiveinventoriesandcartography.Criterion#5:UnderWetlandsAlternativeC3,theadministrativeboundaryforretainedwetlandscanbeidentifiedandmappedpriortoprogramassumption,providingclarity,understanding,andeaseofimplementation.
![Page 39: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
36
Inmanycases,thestateortribewouldassertcontinuouspermittingauthorityoverallwatersandwetlandsregardlessofwhethertheUSACEalsoregulatesthosewatersandwetlands.Inothercases,astateortribemaychoosetominimizeoreliminatepermittingduplicationentirelyandnotrequireapermitforprojectspermittedbytheUSACE(i.e.,exemptlandownersfromstateortribalpermittingrequirements).Whileineithercase,theextentofretainedwatersandwetlandsmustbeidentified,inthoseinstanceswhereastateortribeexemptsfederallyregulatedactivities,itisevenmoreimportantforlandownerstoknowthepermittingauthoritybeforesubmittingapermitapplication(i.e.,knowtheboundaryandextentofretainedwetlands)becausetheapplicationwillgotoeitherthestate,tribeortheUSACE.WetlandsAlternativeC3providesarelativelysimpleandconsistentmechanismforidentifyingtheclearboundaryofretainedwetlands.TheextentofthewetlandsretainedbytheUSACEunderWetlandsAlternativesAandBarenotlimitedbydistance.Thiscouldmakeidentifyingandmappingassumablewatersextremelychallenging.WetlandsAlternativesAandBwouldoftenrequireacase-by-caseanalysisortheequivalentofajurisdictionaldeterminationofproposedprojectstodeterminetheappropriatepermittingauthority(s).Criterion#6:WetlandsAlternativeC3improvesapplicantconfidenceandprogrameffectiveness.Absentamaporclearlyidentifiedboundarycriteria,applicantsmaynotknowwhothepermittingauthorityisuntilaftertheirapplicationissubmitted.Thisuncertaintywouldresultinlongerorinconsistentpermittingtimeframes.Regulatoryuncertaintyalsotendstoresultinlesseffectiveregulation.Astandardizedboundaryeliminatespermittingbarriers.SeparatingtheadministrativeboundaryfromSection404jurisdictionissuesandcouplingitwithotherstateandtribalregulatoryprogramsimprovespredictabilityforagenciesandapplicants.Improvedconsistencyshortenspermittingwaittimes.Criterion#7:WetlandsAlternativeC3improvesdecision-makingabilitiesforStatesandTribesBoundingtheextentofretainedwetlandsallowsstatesandtribestobetterassesspotentialassumptionanddevelopmentofa404program.TheWetlandsAlternativesAandBdonotsupportaconsistentandclearbasisforstatesortribestodeterminetheextentandlocationofwetlandstheywouldbeassuming.Criteria#8:WetlandsAlternativeC3identifiesretainedandassumablewetlandsindependentlyofSection404jurisdictionWetlandsAlternativesAandBusethesameorsimilarcriteriatodetermineretainedwetlandsasareusedtodetermineSection404jurisdiction.Thesealternativesgenerate
![Page 40: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
37
confusionbetweentheadministrativeprocessofassumptionandtheCWAjurisdictionaldeterminationsoftheregulatoryprogram.WetlandsAlternativeC3providesastateortribewithawell-understoodandprecisescopeofassumablewetlandsthatshouldnotbeaffectedorconfusedbychangestoCWAjurisdictionaldefinitions.WetlandsAlternativeC3providesregulatorycertaintyabouttheagencyresponsiblefor404permitting,evenwhilecertaintymaychangeoverwhethertheactivitywillrequireapermitunderfederallaw.SummaryofMajorityRecommendationCongresspassedsection404(g)oftheCWAtoenableastateortribetoassumesection404permittingauthorityovermany,butnotall,ofthe“watersoftheUnitedStates.”However,thelegislativehistoryrelatingtoretainedwetlandsdoesnotrevealaconclusivelegislativeintentaboutthemeaningof“adjacent.”Whatiscertainisthattheword“adjacent”in404(g)(1)wasfocusedonadjacencytoPhase1waters,essentiallySection10RHAwaters.WetlandsAlternativeC3ensurestheUSACE’sabilitytomaintainnavigabilityasrequiredbytheRHA,whilethestateortribe(underanassumedprogram)protectswetlandsandwaterqualityasrequiredbytheCWA.ItisalsocleartothemajorityoftheSubcommitteethattheword“adjacent”isusedinSection404(g)(1)foradifferentpurposethanitisusedinthe“watersoftheUnitedStates”regulationspublishedbytheUSACEin1977.TheUSACEregulationsdefinethewetlandsthataresubjecttoCWAregulationwhileSection404(g)(1)describeswhichentitywillexercisepermittingauthorityoverthem.Asaresult,theEPAhassubstantialadministrativediscretioninallocatingadministrativeauthoritybetweenstates,tribes,andtheUSACEpursuanttoSection404(g)(1).Sincealljurisdictionalwetlandswillcontinuetobesubjectto404protections,itisreasonabletousethatdiscretiontoestablishanadministrativeboundarythatclearlyidentifiesthedivisionofregulatoryauthority.WetlandsAlternativeC3isnotonlyconsistentwiththeCWAandlegislativehistory,butitalsoaddressesshortcomingsofotheralternatives.Itprovidesclaritywhilestillallowingindividualstatesandtribestheabilitytotailortheprogramtotheiradministrativeneedsandalignwithotherregulatoryprogramstoimprovetheefficiencyandeffectivenessoftheregulations.WetlandsAlternativeC3clearlyseparatesadministrativeauthorityfromjurisdiction,resultinginclear,predictable,andimplementableadministrativeboundaries;areasonableextentofassumablewetlands;andstateortribalprogramsthatareinsulatedfromchallengesto404jurisdiction.UnderWetlandsAlternativeC3,statesandtribeswillbeabletoaccuratelyassessthefeasibilityandbenefitsofassumptionbecausetheextentofretainedwetlandswillbeaknownfactor.Statesandtribescanmakeinformeddecisionsaboutpursuinganassumedprogramandplanforitsdevelopment.Finally,WetlandsAlternativeC3
![Page 41: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
38
ensuresthattheregulatedpublic,states,tribes,andfederalagencieswillknowthepermittingauthorityatthetimeanapplicationissubmitted.
b. USACErecommendation:WetlandsAlternativeA–USACERetainsAllAdjacentRegardlessofFurthestReach
TheUSACErepresentativeontheSubcommitteeproposedWetlandsAlternativeAandhaswrittenthefollowingsectionexplainingthereasonstheUSACEfavorsthisAlternative.
UnderWetlandsAlternativeA,theUSACEwouldretainpermittingauthorityoverallwetlandsadjacenttoretainednavigablewaters.WetlandsAlternativeAusesthedefinitionofadjacentwetlandscurrentlybeingusedbytheUSACEforregulatoryactionsunderSection404.Adjacentwetlandsaredeterminedinaccordancewithcurrentregulationsandimplementingguidance.Withrespecttoimplementingwhich“wetlandsadjacentthereto”shouldberetainedbytheUSACEunderstateortribalassumption,suchwetlandswouldbeidentifiedbycontinuingtousethedefinitionofadjacentwetlandswhichhasnotchangedsinceitwasoriginallypublishedinUSACEregulationsinJuly1977.ThisdefinitionexistedatthetimeCongresspassedSection404(g).ItisreasonabletoconcludethatifCongresshaddesiredtolimitthewetlandsthataretoberetainedbytheUSACEduringaprogramassumption,morerestrictivelanguagewouldhavebeenincludedinthestatuteratherthansimplyusingtheterm“adjacent”whichhadalreadybeendefinedandofwhichtheCongresswouldhavecertainlybeenaware.Theinterpretationof“legislativeintent”basedonCongressionalCommitteeReportsandfloordebateshasnotprovidedrationaletosupportchangesininterpretationoftheterm“adjacent”.ThisalternativeinherentlysatisfiesthecriterioninthechargetothesubcommitteethattherecommendationbeconsistentwiththeCWAandinparticularsection404(g).TheUSACEhasadefinedprocessofdeterminingwhetherparticularwetlandsareconsideredadjacentandUSACEpersonnelarefamiliarwiththeseprocedures.Inpractice,ifadischargeofdredgedorfillmaterialisproposedintoawetlandthatisdeterminedtobeadjacenttoretainednavigablewaters,theUSACEwouldbethepermittingauthority.Ifitisnot,thestateortribewouldbe.TheprocessofdeterminingwhetheraparticularwetlandisadjacenttotheretainednavigablewaterswouldbeagreeduponduringdevelopmentoftheMOA.Thisalternativemeetsthecriterionofprovidingclarityregardingwhoisthepermittingauthority(thestateortribeortheUSACE)anditiseasilyunderstoodandimplementableinthefield.
8. ImplementationandProcessRecommendationsTheSubcommitteealsodevelopedadditionalimplementationandprocessrecommendations.Theserecommendationsapplynomatterwhichsubstantiverecommendationsarefollowed.Notethattherecommendationsbelowsometimesreferto
![Page 42: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
39
regulationchanges,sometimestofieldlevelguidance,andsometimestomemos.Theimportantpointisthattheguidanceisrequested,whileitisunderstoodthattheformtheguidancetakesmaybedifferent.AllrecommendingmembersoftheSubcommitteesupporttheserecommendations.TheUSACEsupportstheserecommendations,exceptandunlesstheycontradicttheirpreferredalternativesasdescribedearlierinthisreport.
a. MaintainMichiganandNewJersey404AssumedPrograms
NothingintheserecommendationsorreportisintendedtorequirealterationsorchangestotheexistingassumedprogramsinMichiganandNewJersey.TheSubcommitteerecognizesthatthesetwolong-standingprogramswerecreatedthroughspecificstate-districtnegotiationsandhaveestablishedandfunctionaltrackrecords.
b. DevelopGuidancefortheField
TheSubcommitteerecommendsthatthefederalagenciesdevelopguidanceorregulationsonstateandtribal404Programassumption.Thisguidancecouldbeintheformofamemorandumtothefield,and/oramendmentstocurrentEPASection404StateProgramRegulations(40CFRPart233).TheEPAandUSACEshoulddevelopthisguidancejointly,withinputfromstatesandtribes,forusebytheEPARegionalOfficesandUSACEdistricts,aswellasbystateandtribalgovernments.TheguidanceshouldenablestatesortribesandtheUSACEdistrictstodistinguishbetweenstate-ortribal-assumablewatersandthosewaterswhereresponsibilityfor404permittingistoberetainedbytheUSACEfollowingassumption.Itisalsoimportantthattheguidancecarefullydifferentiatebetweenthelegaldefinitionofjurisdictionalwaters(i.e.watersoftheUnitedStates),andtheassignmentofadministrativeauthoritybasedonstate-ortribally-assumedwatersandUSACE-retainedwaters.TheSubcommitteedidnotdeterminewhethertheguidanceshouldbeimplementedthroughpolicyorregulation.
c. ProvideFlexibility
ThedistributionandconcentrationofwatersoftheUnitedStates,aswellasthesubsetofthosewatersthatmaybeadministeredunderanassumedSection404program,differgreatlyacrossthenation.Forexample,stateortribalterritorycanbecomprisedofcoastalzonesoraridwesternregions;theycansupportlargerinterstaterivers,orsustainnumerouslakes,streams,andwetlandswithintheirterritorialboundaries.Theextentofwaters,theprimaryhydrologicpatternsthatdictatetheflowanduseofwaters,andtheoverallecologycanalsovarygreatly,ascanthetypeandextentofinterstateandforeigncommercetransportedonthewaterswithinstateortribalterritory.ThisvariabilityrequiresthattheguidancecalledforaboveprovidestatesandtribessufficientflexibilitytomeetthegeographicallyandprogrammaticallydiverseneedsofthestatesandtribeswhileadheringtoCWAsection404(g)(1).
d. IncorporateNationalPrinciplesandConsiderationsintoFieldGuidance
Fieldguidanceshouldincorporategeneralprinciplesandconsiderations–arisingfromthelanguageofSection404(g),recordsreflectingCongressionalintent,andsubsequentfederalregulations-thatidentifytheextentofstateortribalassumablewaters,and
![Page 43: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
40
leadtorelativelyconsistentdecisionsfromstatetostateandtribetotribe,andcertainlywithinaparticularstatefromtheperspectiveofvariousagencies.Theprinciplesandconsiderationsthatshouldbeincorporatedintonationalguidancearelistedbelow.
i. Federalagenciesshouldsupportstateortribalassumption,consistentwithCongressionalintent.MostSubcommitteemembersbelieve,basedonthebackgroundleadinguptotheenactmentofthe1977CWAamendments,thatCongressintendedstatesandtribestoplayasignificantroleintheadministrationofSection404,astheydoinotherCWAprograms,includingassumption.
ii. Programassumptionisapartnershipbetweenastateortribeandfederalagencies.Thispartnershipenablesastateortribetonotonlyreduceduplicationofstate,tribalandfederalpermitting,butalsotakefulladvantageofstate,tribalandfederalexpertise.Provisionsoftheprogramassumptionregulationsensureanequivalentorgreaterlevelofresourceprotectionmeeting404criteria,provideforfederalgovernmentoversight,andmaintainUSACEresponsibilitiesinnavigablewaters,includingadjacentwetlands
iii. ThefinallistofretainedwaterspreparedbytheUSACEinaccordancewithcurrentfederallawandregulationsshouldalsoincludeinputfromthestateortribeandtheappropriatefederalagencies.ThelistshouldbeavailableatthesigningoftheMOAbetweenthestateortribeandtheUSACE.
iv. Anationalmethodologyshouldbedevelopedtosupporttheidentificationofretainedwaters.ThemethodologyshouldbeflexibleandenableastateortribeandUSACEtousethebestrecords,data,andproceduresavailable.
v. TriballandsdefinedasIndiancountry,includinglandswithinreservationboundaries,dependentIndiancommunities,andotherlandsheldintrustforthetribesbythefederalgovernment,maybeassumedbyatribeifapprovedbytheEPA,buttypicallymaynotbeassumedbyastate.
e. ProvideGeneralProceduresfortheAssumptionProcess
FieldlevelnationalguidancepreparedbytheEPAandUSACE,withinputfromstatesandtribes,shouldincludegeneralprocedurestobefollowedwhenastateortribeproposestoassumetheSection404permitprogram.TheguidancewouldamendorsupplementexistingEPAregulationsgoverningthestateassumptionprocessin40C.F.R.Part233byprovidingagreaterdegreeofspecificityaboutnegotiationsbetweenastateortribeandtheUSACE.
i. Astateortribeinitiatesthe404ProgramassumptionprocesswiththeEPAandtheUSACE.
ii. Uponrequestbyastateortribethatisconsideringassumption,theUSACEDistrictwillprovidealistand/ormapofwaterswithinstateortribalbordersthatwouldberetainedbytheUSACEbaseduponnationalguidanceorregulation.
![Page 44: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
41
iii. Thetermsusedin404(g)1suchasthe“ordinaryhighwatermark”(inland)or“meanhighwatermark”(coastal)or“meanhigherhighwatermark”(Westcoast)mayrequirefurtherclarificationordefinitionintheUSACEDistrict’sinitiallisting.
iv. TheUSACElistofretainedwatersprovidedbytheUSACE,EPA,and/orthetribemayincludewaterslocatedonIndianreservationland(unlesssuchwatershavealreadybeenassumedbyatribe).Inmanycases,thesewaterswillberetainedbytheUSACEforCWA404administrationbecausestateswilllackauthoritytoregulateactivitiesonIndianreservationlands.Engagementwithtribeswillbeimportanttodeterminetheextentoftheselands.
v. Whereatribeisproposing404Programassumption,thetribewillprepareadescription(list,map)ofIndiancountrylandsoverwhichthetribewouldrequestSection404programauthority.ThetribewillcoordinatewiththeEPAandstateregulatoryauthoritiesandstateandfederaltribalcoordinatorsinthereviewoflandsthatwouldbeundertribalauthority.
vi. Thestateortribewillreviewtheretainedwaterslist,andmayrequestadditionalinformationfromtheUSACEregardingthebasisforincludingparticularwaters,ifneeded.TheUSACEwillmakeavailabletothestateortribeanywrittennavigationaldeterminations,courtorders,orsimilardocumentation.ThestateortribeandtheUSACEmayalsoagreetomodifythelistbasedonmoreaccurate,currentlyavailablegeographicinformation.TheEPAshouldparticipateinthisreview,toensurethatthelistofassumedwatersisconsistentwiththeCWAandacceptableatthetimetheEPAapprovesassumption.
vii. ThestateortribeandtheUSACEwillincludetheagreed-uponlistofwatersforwhichSection404administrationmustberetainedbytheUSACEinanMOAregardingstateortribalassumption(see40CFR§233.14).TheMOAwillclarifythatallotherwaterswillbeundertheadministrationofthestateortribeinaccordancewith404(g)uponapprovalofthestateortribalprogrambytheEPA.Descriptionsofwatersunderstateortribalandfederalauthoritymaybebasedonanydatathatareavailableandusefultothepublic,includinglists,maps,descriptions,digitalgeographicinformation,etc.
viii. TheMOAbetweenthestateortribeandtheUSACEshouldincludeprovisionstoamendtheMOAandtheattachedlistsofstateortribalandfederalauthorityatsuchtimeasthestatusofaparticularwaterismodifiedduetoimprovements,legaldecisions,orotherpertinentchanges(suchasnaturaleventswhichsignificantlyaltertheconditionofawaterway).Ifdesired,aregularperiodforreviewmaybeestablished.
ix. ThefieldguidanceshouldestablishadisputeresolutionproceduretobefollowedifastateortribeandtheUSACEdistrictarenotabletocompletethelistofretainedwatersaspartoftheMOAdevelopmentwithinareasonableamountoftime.ThisdisputeresolutionprocessshouldbedevelopedbytheEPAandUSACE.
f. UtilizeBestAvailableTechnology
![Page 45: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
42
TheSubcommitteerecommendsthatretainedwatersandadjacentwetlands,tothegreatestextentpracticable,beidentifiedonanappropriatemaporgeographicinformationsystemforadministrativepurposes.Thiswillprovidereadilyavailableinformationtoregulatoryagencies,aswellasthegeneralpublic,applicantsandotherinterestedparties.Insupportofthisrecommendation,theSubcommitteeencouragesstates,tribes,andUSACEdistrictstousethebestavailabletechnologies,suchasLiDAR(LightDetectionandRanging)remotesensing,drones,andothertoolsduringthedevelopmentoftheMOAbetweenastateortribeandtheUSACEdistrict.
![Page 46: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
43
Appendix A: Tribal Findings, Issues, and Considerations during Assumption
Section518oftheCWA,enactedaspartofthe1987amendmentstothestatute,authorizestheEPAtotreateligibleIndiantribesinamannersimilartostates(“treatmentasastate“orTAS)foravarietyofpurposes,includingadministeringeachoftheprincipalCWAregulatoryprogramsandreceivinggrantsunderseveralCWAauthorities(81FRat30183).ThisincludesCWASection404.
TheSubcommittee,withtheleadershipofitstwotribalparticipants,identifiedasetof“TribalIssues”thattheEPA,USACE,states,tribesandotherinterestedpartiesshouldbeawareofwhenconsideringassumptionunderCWASection404(g)(1).Itshouldbenotedthattheremaybespecificjurisdictionalandotherlegalmattersthatareindisputewithinspecificstatesandwithspecifictribes.TheEPAmayneedtoconsidertheseissuesasitaddressesanyapplicationforassumptionoftheprogram.
a. USACERetainsIndianCountryAquaticResources
TheEPA-approvedstateassumedprogramsgenerallywouldnotextendtowatersandwetlandswithinIndiancountry.Instead,suchareaswouldgenerallycontinuetobeadministeredbyUSACE,atleastuntilsuchtimethatatribeisapprovedbytheEPAtoassumethe404programitself.25ThisretentionofadministrationbyUSACEshouldbeoutlinedinanyMOAbetweentheUSACEandthestatewhensuchstatewishestoassumethe404program.
b. IndianReservationBoundariesTribalIndianReservationboundariesarenotnecessarilystatic;forinstance,additionallandscanbeaddedtoreservationsandnewreservationscanbecreated.AsstatedintheIndianReorganizationActof1934“TheSecretaryoftheInteriorisherebyauthorizedtoproclaimnewIndianreservationsonlandsacquiredpursuanttoanyauthorityconferredbythisAct,ortoaddsuchlandstoexistingreservations:Provided,thatlandsaddedtoexistingreservationsshallbedesignatedfortheexclusiveuseofIndiansentitledbyenrollmentorbytribalmembershiptoresidenceatsuchreservations,”(25U.S.CodeSection467)andasprovidedbytheBureauofIndianAffairsregulations(25CFRSection§151.3,151.10,and151.11).
Inaddition,IndianReservationscanhavevariedlandownershippatterns.SomeIndianreservationsconsistsolelyoflandsthatareheldintruststatuswiththeUnitedStates.Otherreservationsmayhavemixedownershipofpropertywithinthereservation(includingtribal,publicandprivateownership).Mixedownershipandtruststatuswithinreservationscanoccurforavarietyofreasonsincludinglandinheritance,whenandhowthereservationwasestablished,andtreatmentofthereservationbyCongressasinterpretedincourtdecisions.TheEPAhasinterpretedCWAsection518asincludingadelegationofauthoritybyCongresstoeligibleIndiantribestoadministerregulatoryprogramsunderthestatuteovertheirentirereservations,irrespectiveofwhoownstheland81FR30183(May16,2016).
c. LandsOutsideoftheReservation
25See40CFR233.1(b).
![Page 47: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
44
InCWASection518(e)(2),thephrase“…orotherwisewithinthebordersofanIndianreservation.”isinterpretedtomodifyeachcategoryofland(i.e.,“…heldbyanIndiantribe,heldbytheUnitedStatesintrustforIndians,heldbyamemberofanIndiantribeifsuchpropertyinterestissubjecttoatrustrestrictiononalienation…”).26Thus,anylandthatanIndiantribewishestoregulateundertheCWA–includingundersection404–mustqualifyasIndianreservationlandasusedinCWA518.SuchlandsmustthereforebelocatedwithintheexteriorboundariesofaformalIndianreservation,orqualifyasaninformalIndianreservation–e.g.,tribaltrustlandslocatedoutsidetheboundariesofaformalreservationorPueblos.Thus,privatelyownedreservationlandsthatarepartofthereservationshouldgenerallybeexcludedfromassumedstateprograms,andthusretainedbyUSACE),orcouldgenerallybeassumedbytherelevanttribe.
Landscanbebroughtintotrustatvarioustimes,beforeorafterastateortribehasassumeda404program,andtrustlandscancreateapatchworkofassumedandretainedwaters.Thus,cooperativerelationshipsandagreementsshouldbedevelopedbetweenthefederalagencies,statesandtribesinordertoappropriatelyadministertheprogram.Therefore,theassumptionMOAsbetweenthestatesortribesandtheEPAandtheUSACEshouldcontainlanguageonhowchangesinthetruststatusofIndianlandisgoingtobehandled.
26SeePreambletotheCleanWaterActTreatmentAsaState–TASrulesat56FR64881and58FR8177).(SeealsoCWASection518(e)(2).
![Page 48: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
45
Appendix B: Michigan and New Jersey’s Assumed Programs
a. CaseStudyofMichiganprogram
Michiganhasalonghistoryofleadershipinenvironmentalprotectionandmanagement,beginningwithpassageofastatewaterpollutioncontrolstatutein1929.SowithpassageoftheFederalWaterPollutionControlActAmendmentsof1972,MichiganbeganworkingtoalignstateprogramswiththenewfederalregulationstoenableMichigantoadministertheCWAprograms.MichiganwasdelegatedauthoritytoadministertheSection402,NationalPollutionDischargeEliminationProgramin1973.In1972Michiganalsopassedaninlandlakesandstreamsstatutethatestablisheddredgedorfillregulationsoverinlandwaters.RegulationsoverdredgedorfillactivitiesandbottomlandoccupationswithintheGreatLakeshadbeeninplacesince1955.Duringthe1970’sasthefederalagenciesweredevelopingimplementationguidelinesandregulations,andCongresswasconsideringamendmentstotheCWA,MichiganbegandevelopmentofawetlandprogramandwasbuildingapartnershipwiththeUSACE.MichiganandtheUSACEsignedanagreementin1977touseajointpermitapplicationformforprojectswithinallstateandfederallyregulatedwaters,andtocoordinatepublichearingswhenrequiredforthoseprojects.Overthenextseveralyears,theagenciescontinuedtoalignthestateandfederalprogramstoimproveefficiencyandreduceduplication,includingissuanceofadditionalfederalgeneralpermitsandstatestatutoryamendments.Followingpassageofthe1977CWAamendmentsthataddedSection404(g)(1),Michiganpassedawetlandstatutein1979withtheintentionofassumingtheSection404program.In1981theagenciesenteredintotwoadditionalagreementstostreamlinethestateandfederalprograms.Thefirstwasanagreementtocoordinateenforcementactionsandafter-the-factpermittingprocedures.Thesecondwasanagreementtosharestaffresources;thisagreementallowedthestatetoplacestaffinlocationsthroughoutthestatetoconductsitereviewsforbothstateandfederalpermits,inexchangetheUSACEprovidedjointstafftraining,reimbursedstatetravelcosts,andfundedthedevelopmentofpublicoutreachmaterials.Thiseffortlaidthegroundworkforassumptionofthe404program.Michiganformallyrequestedassumptionin1983andtheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)approvedtheprogramthesameyear.WiththesigningoftheUSACEMemorandumofAgreement(MOA)in1984,whichidentifiedtheretainedwaters,Michiganbecamethefirststatetoassumethe404program27. 2749FR38948,Oct.2,1984.Redesignatedat53FR20776,June6,1988.Redesignatedat58FR8183,Feb.11,1993.Effectivedate,October16,1984.
![Page 49: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
46
TheEPAandUSACEMemorandaThe1983MOAwiththeEPAprovidedtheframeworkforMichigan’sadministrationofthe404program.Theagreementspecifiesthestate’sresponsibilitiesforpermittingandenforcement,thefederaloversightresponsibilitiesincludingproceduresforfederalreviewofcertainpermitapplications,andstateprogramreportingrequirements.ThecategoriesofpermitapplicationswhichtheEPAdidnotwaivefederalreviewunderSection404(j)arespecificallydefined;theyincludeproposedstategeneralpermitcategoriesandmajordischargesofdredgedorfillmaterial.Majordischargesarefurtherdefinedandinclude:dischargesoftoxicpollutantsorhazardoussubstances;impactstouniquewatersforageographicregion,commercialorrecreationalvaluesofasignificantarea,orendangeredorthreatenedspecies;andwetlandfills,breakwaterorseawallconstruction,orculvertenclosuresofspecifiedvolumesandsizes.Michigan’sprogramagreementwiththeEPAwasupdatedin2011afteranextensivereviewofMichigan’sprogramandnearlythreedecadesofprogramchangesatboththefederalandstatelevel.Theupdatedagreementissubstantiallythesameastheoriginalagreement,withnewlanguageaddedtoclarifyresponsibilitiesforcoordinationwithotherstatesandtribes,coordinationwithfederalagenciesformitigationbanks,andstreamliningofreportingrequirements.The1984MOAwiththeUSACEidentifyingretainedwatersisstillineffect.IndefiningwaterstobeassumedbythestateandthewaterstoberetainedbytheUSACEtheMOAsimplystatesthatallwaterswithinthestateareassumedotherthanwatersidentifiedbythelanguagein404(g)(1).TheMOAquotesthe404(g)(1)language,andthenstatesthatthosewatersareidentifiedonanattachedlistof“NavigableWatersoftheUnitedStatesinU.S.ArmyEngineerDistrict,Detroit,November1981”.ThelistofnavigablewatersoftheUnitedStatesidentifiesspecificwaterwaysbynameandlocation,andidentifiestheheadofnavigationthatistheupstreamlimitoftheUSACE’sretainedauthorityunderthe404program.CurrentstatusofMichigan’sprogramMichiganhasbeensuccessfullyimplementingthe404programforover3decades.Butimplementationrequirescontinualcoordinationwiththefederalagencies.Statestaffscreeneachpermitapplicationtodetermineiftheproposedprojectislocatedwithinassumedorretainedwaters.Iftheprojectisinaretainedarea,acopyoftheapplicationisforwardedtotheUSACE.Michiganstillregulatesallwatersandwetlandsthroughoutthestate,soapplicationswithinretainedwatersarecoordinatedwiththeUSACE.Allapplicationinformationissharedbetweentheagencies,siteinspectionsarecoordinatedwhenappropriate,andpermitconditionsandmitigationrequirementsarecoordinatedtoavoidconflictsandinconsistencies.SinceMichiganhasarobustwetlandmitigationprogramandthestatecanownproperty,holdconservationeasements,andholdfinancialinstruments,statestaffnormallytaketheleadinnegotiatingandreviewingmitigationproposals.ThestateandUSACEalsocoordinatecomplianceandenforcementactionswithinretainedwaterstoreduceduplicationandpreventconflictingcompliancerequirements.
![Page 50: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
47
CoordinationwiththeUnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService(USFWS)isalsoanecessarypartoftheprogram.StatestaffareresponsibleforscreeningapplicationsforpotentialimpactstothreatenedandendangeredspeciesandcoordinatingwithUSFWSandstateendangeredspeciesstaff.StatestaffalsoworkwithUSFWStodevelopspeciesspecificscreeningcriteria,permitconditionsandbestmanagementpractices.StatestaffworkcontinuouslywiththeEPAstafftocoordinatereviewofmajordischargeapplications,neworrevisedgeneralpermitcategories,majorenforcementactions,andallstatutory,ruleorpolicychangesthataffectthe404program.Thestatehasonestaffpersonwhoisdesignatedasthe404programliaisontostreamlinecommunicationbetweentheagencies.AnnuallyMichiganprocessesapproximately3000to4000permitapplicationsunderthe404programinassumedwaters.Normally60to70percentofthoseprojectsfallwithinthestate’sgeneralpermitcategories.Typically,theEPAreviewsonetotwopercentofthetotalapplicationsbecausetheyfallwithinthemajordischargecategoriesdescribedinthestate’sMOAwiththeEPA.Inaddition,statestaffinvestigatesandtakesactiononapproximately1000to1500reportsofnon-compliance.b. CaseStudyofNewJerseyprogram
NewJerseyisthemostdenselypopulatedstateinthenationwithapopulationof8,958,013in8,721.3squaremilesor1,195.5peoplepersquaremile(2015StatisticsfromtheU.S.Census).Asaresult,NewJerseyfacesmanyenvironmentalissuesinadvanceofotherstatesandhasdevelopedanactiveandvocalgrassrootsenvironmentalmovement.Asearlyas1917,NewJerseyenactedaWaterfrontDevelopmentlawtoprotectnavigationandensureadequatedockageforshippingalongthecoast.In1929,thestatebeganprotectingstreamsundertheFloodHazardAreaControlActwhichregulatedstructuresplacedwithinthenaturalwaterwayofanystream.TheNewJerseyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectionwascreatedonthefirstEarthDay,April22,1970.Thatsameyear,NewJerseypassedtheCoastalWetlandsAct.Inresponsetopassageofthe1972FederalCoastalZoneManagementAct,in1973NewJerseypassedtheCoastalAreaFacilityReviewAct.In1977,thestate’sPinelandsPreservationActbeganprotectingfromdevelopmentauniqueareainthesouthernpartofNewJersey.Italsoprohibiteddevelopmentinfreshwaterwetlands.NewJerseydoesnothaveitsownUSACEDistrict.ThestateisservedbytheNewYorkDistrict,locatedinNewYorkCityandservingNewYorkstateandtheeasternportionofNewJersey;andthePhiladelphiaDistrict,locatedinPhiladelphia,PennsylvaniaandservingPennsylvaniaandthewesternpartofNewJersey.Inthe1980s,theUSACEprogramincludedNationwidepermitswhichwereself-regulatingandthatallowedupto10acresofimpactsperpermit.NewJersey
![Page 51: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
48
useditsWaterQualityCertificateauthoritytotrytolimittheimpacts.However,areviewbytheU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceof40wetlandfillcasesinnorthernNewJerseybetween1980and1984documentedapproximately800acresofwetlandimpactsresultingfromillegalfilling,Nationwidepermits,andIndividualpermitactivities.Inthemid-1980s,environmentalgroupsinNewJerseyunitedwiththegoalofobtainingastatefreshwaterwetlandsprotectionlaw.OnJune8,1987,GovernorTomKeanenactedabuildingmoratoriumprohibitingalldevelopmentinwetlandsuntilpassageofawetlandlaw.OnJuly1,1987,NewJerseypassedtheFreshwaterWetlandsProtectionAct(FWPA),effectiveJuly1,1988.Thelawcontainedaprovision,directingthestateto“takeallappropriateactiontosecuretheassumptionofthepermitjurisdictionexercisebytheUnitedStatesArmyCorpsofEngineerspursuanttotheFederalAct.”(N.J.S.A.13:9B-27)Tofulfillthismandate,thestatutewasstructuredtogivethestatethenecessaryauthoritytoassumetheFederalpermittingprogram.Inaddition,thestatelegislatureappropriatedsufficientfundsfortheDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectiontostaffandequipastatewide,freshwaterwetlandsregulatoryprogramindependentoftheUSACE.NewJerseysubmittedanapplicationforassumptiontotheEPAin1993.TheprogramwasapprovedandNewJerseybecamethesecondstatetoimplementanassumedFederal404programin1994.MOAwiththeEPAAsrequiredbytheFederalTransferRegulations28,NewJerseysignedamemorandumofagreementwiththeEPA.InadditiontothoseprojectsthatcontinuetorequireFederalreviewinaccordancewiththeEPAtransferregulations,NewJerseyagreedthatthefollowingprojecttypeswouldalsocontinuetogetFederalreviewunderitsassumedprogram:
• Fillingof5ormoreacresofwetlands;• Significantreductioninecological,commercialorrecreationalvalueof5ormoreacres;• Culvertslongerthan100feet;• Channelizationofmorethan500feetofriverorstream.
MOAwiththeArmyUSACEAsrequiredbytheFederalTransferRegulations,theStateofNewJerseysignedamemorandumofagreementwiththeUSACE29.ThestateandtheUSACEagreedtothefollowingdefinitiontodistinguishassumedandnon-assumedwaters:
2840CFRPart233:404StateProgramRegulations2959FR9933,Mar.2,1994
![Page 52: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
49
“AllwatersoftheUnitedStates,asdefinedat40C.F.R.Section232.2(q),withintheStateofNewJerseywillberegulatedbyNJDEPaspartoftheirstateprogram,withtheexceptionofthosewaterswhicharepresentlyused,oraresusceptibletouseintheirnaturalconditionorbyreasonableimprovementasameanstotransportinterstateorforeigncommerceshorewardtotheirordinaryhighwatermark,includingallwaterswhicharesubjecttotheebbandflowofthetideshorewardtotheirmeanhighwatermark,includingwetlandsadjacentthereto.Forthepurposesofthisagreement,theUSACEwillretainregulatoryauthorityoverthosewetlandsthatarepartiallyorentirelylocatedwithin1000feetoftheordinaryhighwatermarkormeanhightideoftheDelawareRiver,GreenwoodLake,andallwaterbodieswhicharesubjecttotheebbandflowofthetide.”The“1000feet”criterionhadtwosources.First,theUSACEtraditionallytookjurisdictiontoelevation10incoastalareasinNewJerseyundertheRiversandHarborsAct.Theyconsideranywetlandsand/orwaterslocatedbetweenthewaterand10feetabovesealeveltobenavigablewatersor“wetlandsadjacentthereto.”Theyestimatedthatonaverage,thedistancefromtheMeanHighWaterLinelandwardto10feetabovesealevelisapproximately1000feet.Inaddition,thestate’swetlandmapsweredrawnatascalewhereoneinchequals1000feet.Therefore,thestateandtheUSACEagreedtouse1000feetfromtheordinaryhighwatermarkormeanhightideasthedivisionbetweenwaterstoberetained(regulatedbybothagencies),andthosetobeassumed(regulatedbythestatealone).MOUwiththeUSFishandWildlifeServiceTheU.S.FishandWildlifeService(FWS)opposedassumptionbytheStateofNewJersey.Inordertoassuagetheirconcerns,thestatevoluntarilysignedamemorandumofunderstanding(MOU)withboththeEPAandFWS.TheMOUrequiresthestatetoprovidecertainapplicationsdirectlytotheFWSforreviewiftheyarelocatedwithinmunicipalitiesknowntocontainfederally-listedthreatenedorendangeredspecies.CoordinationwithStateHistoricPreservationOffice(SHPO)Aspartofitsassumedprogram,thestatealsoscreensapplicationsforreferraltotheSHPOtocomplywithSection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationAct(16U.S.C.Section470(f)).CurrentStatusofProgramThestateofNewJerseyreviewsallincomingwetlands/waterspermitapplicationsregardlessofwhethertheyareinassumedornon-assumedwaters.Thestatealsoconductsjurisdictionaldeterminationsthroughoutmostofthestate.Thestateprescreensincomingpermitapplicationstoidentifyprojectsconstituting“majordischarges,”whicharethensenttotheEPAforFederalreview.Inaddition,ifapermitapplicationfallswithinoneoftheidentifiedmunicipalitieswithfederally-listedthreatenedorendangeredspecies,andconstitutesoneofthepermittypesofconcerntotheFWS,thestatescreenstheapplicationandsendsacopytotheFWS.TheFWSreturnscommentstoDEPandtheEPAforconsideration.Ifthestatecannot
![Page 53: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
50
satisfyFWSconcerns,theprojectbeginsanewreviewwiththeEPAthroughthe“majordischarge”process.ThestatecannotapproveaSection404permitovertheEPAobjections.Inthosecaseswhereaprojectisinanon-assumedwater,thestateissuesitsstatepermitindependentlyoftheUSACE.However,monthlycoordinationmeetingswiththeUSACElettheagenciescompareinformationonprojectsunderreviewbybothagencies.Inaddition,theagenciescoordinaterequiredmitigation.NewJerseyalsoreviewsandapprovesmitigationbanksindependentlyinassumedareas.Innon-assumedareas,thestateisamemberofboththeNewYorkandPhiladelphiaUSACEInteragencyReviewTeams.Thestatealsoconductscomplianceandenforcementforviolationsinnon-assumedwaters.Overtheyears,thestatehasmadebetween550and2000permitdecisionsannually.Ofthese,onaveragefewerthan10applicationsperyearrequirecoordinationwiththeEPAas“majordischarges,”approximately80peryearrequiredFWSreview,andbetween225and250arecoordinatedwiththeStateHistoricPreservationOffice.Inaddition,thestate’sEnforcementBureauhasundertakenanaverageof1000actionsannuallyonreportsofnon-compliance.
![Page 54: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
51
Appendix C: Letter from the Association of Clean Water Administrators, the Environmental Council of the States, and the Association of State Wetland Managers
(This page intentionally left blank.)
![Page 55: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
April 30, 2014 Nancy K. Stoner Acting Assistant Administrator for Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency William Jefferson Clinton Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (4101M) Washington, DC 20460 Via email to: [email protected]
Dear Acting Assistant Administrator Stoner:
Re: Assumable Waters under Clean Water Act Section 404
In the rule proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regarding the scope of the definition of “waters of the United States,” a statement in the preamble explains that the rule does not affect the scope of waters subject to state assumption in accordance with §404(g). 79 Fed. Reg. 22,188, p. 22,200 (April 21, 2014). The undersigned organizations appreciate that such language was included in the proposed rule addressing this critical aspect of state §404 program assumption.
We agree with the preamble statement in the rule that “[c]larification of waters that are subject to assumption by states or tribes or retention by the Corps could be made through a separate process under section 404(g)” (ibid). We recommend that steps to further clarify the scope of assumable and non-assumable waters be initiated in a timely manner. We are concerned that states currently considering assumption are having difficulty making progress because of the current uncertainty.
We would appreciate the opportunity to actively engage in a discussion with EPA to address this issue. Our organizations recognize that any steps toward clarification must be undertaken thoughtfully in accordance with the provisions of §404(g), and without altering the existing state 404 programs in Michigan and New Jersey. Clear identification of assumable and non-assumable waters has been made more difficult by legal decisions that address terms such as “navigable” and “adjacent.” Nonetheless, Congress intended that states be able to assume regulatory responsibility for the majority of waters within their boundaries. Clarification of assumable waters will help to facilitate state assumption where it is desired – providing benefits to the public, the resource, and the state and federal agencies.
Under §404 of the Clean Water Act – all waters regulated by the Corps or by a state/tribal program – are deemed “waters of the United States.” We believe that “other waters,” as well as some portion of both “navigable waters,” and “adjacent wetlands” may be administered by a state or tribe in accordance with 404(g). We look forward to discussions with EPA to explore this very important area of public policy.
![Page 56: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Our goal is to work collaboratively to discern the criteria that will be used by a state/tribe, EPA, and the Corps to identify assumable/non-assumable waters pursuant to §404(g). We would also like to reach agreement on how to formalize these criteria (e.g., Memorandum of Understanding). Several steps may be needed to address both the immediate concerns of states pursuing assumption and the needs of those that may do so in the future.
Our organizations are committed to supporting state efforts to assume the Section 404 program by identifying issues and working with partners to resolve them. See, for example, ECOS Resolution #08-3 on State Delegation of the Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit Program – originally approved in 2008 – was on April 2, 2014 reaffirmed, with the addition of the following language: “[NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF THE STATES] Encourages U.S. EPA to work with states to bring clarity and certainty to the identification of assumable and non-assumable waters.”
We look forward to a timely and productive discussion with you. Please contact Jeanne Christie of ASWM at 207-892-3399 or [email protected], to discuss this request. Thank you again for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Alexandra Dapolito Dunn Sean Rolland Jeanne Christie ECOS ACWA ASWM Cc: Ken Kopocis, EPA Benita Best-Wong, EPA Jim Pendergast, EPA Bill Ryan, OR DSL Ben White, AK Eric Metz, OR DSL Ginger Kopkash, NJ Bill Creal, MI
![Page 57: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
54
Appendix D: List of Subcommittee members
CollisG.Adams,CWS,CPESCWetlandsBureauAdministratorNewHampshireDepartmentofEnvironmentalServicesLandResourcesManagementVirginiaS.AlbrechtSpecialCounselNationalAssociationofHomebuildersHunton&WilliamsLLPCraigW.AubreyChief,DivisionofEnvironmentalReviewEcologicalServicesProgramU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceHeadquartersEcologicalServices,MS:ESTrevorBaggioreDivisionDirector,WaterQualityArizonaDepartmentofEnvironmentalQualityLaureenMonicaBolesNACEPTLiaisonPegBostwickSeniorPolicyAnalystAssociationofStateWetlandManagersGreatLakesOfficeDavidL.Davis,CPWD,PWSDirector,OfficeofWetlands&StreamProtectionVirginiaDepartmentofEnvironmentalQualityJamesP.DeNomieTribalConsultant*TribalMemberofBadRiverChippawaTribeofLakeSuperiorMidwestAllianceofSovereignTribesTomDriscollGovernmentRelationsRepresentativeNationalFarmersUnion
DavidS.Evans,DeputyDirectorCo-ChairoftheSubcommitteeOfficeofWetlands,Oceans,andWatershedsUSEPA/OWOW(resignedasof12-9-2016duetoemploymentchange)KimberlyFishAssistantDivisionChiefMichiganDepartmentofEnvironmentalQualityWaterResourcesDivisionRichardD.GitarWaterRegulatorySpecialist/TribalInspectorOfficeofWaterProtectionFondduLacReservationJanGoldman-CarterDirectorofWetlandsandWaterResources,NationalWildlifeFederationNationalAdvocacyCenterMichelleHaleDirector,DivisionofWaterAlaskaDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservationWilliamL.JamesU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineersNationalMiningExpertLesLemmWetlandsSectionManagerMinnesotaBoardofWaterandSoilResourcesSusanD.LockwoodEnvironmentalSpecialist4NewJerseyDEPDivisionofLandUseRegulationEricD.Metz,P.W.S.PlanningandPolicyManagerAquaticResourceManagementProgramOregonDepartmentofStateLands
![Page 58: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
55
BarryRabe,Ph.DCo-ChairoftheSubcommitteeDirectoroftheCenterforLocal,State,andUrbanPolicy.GeraldR.FordSchoolofPublicPolicyUniversityofMichiganDaveRossSeniorAssistantAttorneyGeneralWyomingAttorneyGeneral'sOffice
Water&NaturalResourcesDivision(resignedasof5-16-2016duetoemploymentchange)GaryT.SetzerPolicyAdvisor,OfficeoftheSecretaryMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironmentMichaelJ.Szerlog,ManagerAquaticResourcesUnitOffice of Environmental Review and Assessment, EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,EPARegion10
![Page 59: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
56
Appendix E: Subcommittee Charter
IntroductionSection404(g)oftheCleanWaterAct(CWA)laysouttherequirementsfortheassumptionandimplementationofstateandtribalCWAsection404permittingprograms.Congress,withtheadditionofCWAsection404(g),madeclearthatstatesandtribeswishingtoassumeadministrationofthedredgeandfillpermitprogram,coulddosoforcertainwaters.ThisSubcommitteeundertheNationalAdvisoryCouncilforEnvironmentalPolicyandTechnology(NACEPT)willfocusonaverynarrowandspecificchargerelatedtowhichwatersastateortribeassumespermittingresponsibilityforunderanapprovedCWAsection404programandforwhichwaterstheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE)willretainCWAsection404permittingauthority.Tobeknownasthe“AssumableWatersSubcommittee,”(Subcommittee),theSubcommitteewillbeaskedtoprovideadviceanddeveloprecommendationsonhowtheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)canbestclarifyforwhichwatersthestate/tribehasCWAsection404permitresponsibilities,andforwhichwaterstheUSACEretainsCWAsection404permitresponsibility,underanapprovedstate/tribalprogram.ThiseffortispartoftheAdministrator’sprioritiesasitsupportsstatesandtribesseekingtoassumetheCWAsection404programbyprovidingclarityonthescopeofwatersforwhichtheywouldberesponsibleforadministeringtheCWAsection404program.Specifically,thiseffortwilladdressthestates’requesttoprovideclarityonthisissueenablingthemtoassessanddeterminethegeographicscopeandcostsassociatedwithimplementinganapprovedprogram.
BackgroundTheNACEPTisaFederalAdvisoryCommitteecharteredundertheFederalAdvisoryCommitteeAct(FACA),PublicLaw92–463.TheEPAestablishedtheNACEPTin1988toprovideadvicetotheEPAAdministratoronabroadrangeofenvironmentalpolicy,management,andtechnologyissues.TheEPAisnowseekingtoformasubcommitteeundertheNACEPT,tobeknownastheAssumableWatersSubcommittee(Subcommittee)toprovideadviceonhowtheEPAcanbestclarifythewatersthatastateortribemayassumepermittingresponsibilityforunderanapprovedCWAdredgeandfillpermitprogram.Subcommitteemembers,liketheparentNACEPTcommittee,serveasrepresentativesfromacademia,industry,non-governmentalorganizations,andfederal,state,tribal,andlocalgovernments.
TheSubcommitteeisbeingformedtoprovideadviceandrecommendationsconcerningafocused,butcritical,aspectofimplementingtheCWAsection404programforthedischargeofdredgeandfillmaterials.TheUSACEcurrentlyevaluatesCWAsection404permitapplicationsforactivitiesinthemajorityofthenation’swaterssubjecttotheCWA.Althoughstatesandtribesmayassumethedredgeandfillpermitresponsibilitiespursuanttosection404(g)oftheCWA,onlytwostates(MichiganandNewJersey)andnotribeshaveassumedsuchresponsibilitytodate.Whenastateortribeconsidersassumingsuchresponsibilities,amongthefirstquestionsthatneedstobeansweredisforwhichwaterswillthestateortribeassumepermittingresponsibilityandforwhichwaterswilltheUSACEretainpermittingauthority.StateshaveraisedconcernstotheEPAthatsection404oftheCWAanditsimplementing
![Page 60: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
57
regulationslacksufficientclaritytoenablestatesandtribestoestimatetheextentofwatersforwhichtheywouldassumeprogramresponsibilityandthuscalculateassociatedprogramimplementationcosts.30ThelackofclarityonthesequestionshasbeenidentifiedbythestatesasachallengetopursuingassumptionasenvisionedundertheCWA.31TheSubcommitteewillhavealimiteddurationandnarrowfocus.OtheraspectsofstateortribalassumptionwillnotbewithinthescopeofthedeliberationsforthisSubcommittee.Forexample,theSubcommitteewillnotbedeliberatingonthemeritsofassumption,noronanyaspectofthelargerquestionofwhichwatersare“watersoftheU.S.”ItwillfocusonhowtheEPAcanclarifythewatersforwhichastateortribeassumesCWAsection404permittingresponsibilityandforwhichwaterstheUSACEwillretainthisauthority.ChargetotheSubcommitteeThefinalSubcommitteereporttoNACEPTshouldprovideadviceandrecommendationstoEPAonhowtoclarifyforwhichwatersstatesandtribeswillassumeCWAsection404permittingresponsibilities,andforwhichwaterstheUSACEwillretainpermittingauthority.Therecommendationsshouldreflectconsiderationofthefollowingassumptions:
1) ACWAsection404permitisrequired–meaningthereisanactivityregulatedundersection404thatwillresultinadischargeofdredgeorfillmaterialtoaWateroftheU.S.
2) AnyrecommendationmustbeconsistentwiththeCWAandinparticularsection404(g)3) Clarityregardingwhoisthepermittingauthority(thestate/tribeortheUSACE)should
beeasilyunderstoodandimplementableinthefieldProposedScheduleTheSubcommitteewillmeetapproximatelyfourtosixtimesfollowinginitiationofthegroupfortwelvetosixteenmonthsface-to-faceorviavideo/teleconference.Additionally,membersmaybeaskedtoparticipateinadhocworkgroupstodeveloppotentialpolicyrecommendationsandreportstoaddressspecificissues.Tentativemeetingschedule(subjecttochange):
• September2015–Meeting1• December2015–Meeting2• LateFebruary2016–Meeting3• April2016–Meeting4• June2016–Meeting5• September2016–Meeting6(ifneeded)tofinalizerecommendationstoNACEPT
Appendix F: The Legislative History of Section 404(g)(1) of the Clean Water Act32
30EnvironmentalCouncilofStates,theAssociationofCleanWaterAdministrators,andtheAssociationofStateWetlandManagersletter.April30,2014.Lettercanbefoundinthedocket.31Ibid32PreparedbyVirginiaAlbrecht,JanGoldman-Carter,andDaveRoss
![Page 61: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
58
I. IntroductionSection404oftheCleanWaterAct(“CWA”)authorizestheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(“theUSACE”)toissuepermitsforthedischargeofdredgedorfillmaterialinto“navigablewaters.”33
Pursuanttosection404(g)(1),States,withapprovalfromtheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(“EPA”),mayassumeauthoritytoadministerthe404permitprograminsomebutnotallnavigablewaters.Thewatersthatastatemaynotassume,andwhichtheUSACEmustretainevenafterastatehasassumedtheprogram,aredefinedinaparentheticalphraseinsection404(g)(1)as:(…thosewaterswhicharepresentlyused,oraresusceptibletouseintheirnaturalconditionorbyreasonableimprovementasameanstotransportinterstateorforeigncommerceshorewardtotheirordinaryhighwatermark,includingallwaterswhicharesubjecttotheebbandflowofthetideshorewardtotheirmeanhighwatermark,ormeanhigherhighwatermarkonthewestcoast,includingwetlandsadjacentthereto)….34Thismemorandumexploresthemeaningofthisparentheticallanguagebyreviewingthelegislativehistoryofthe1977CWAamendmentsthatledtosection404(g)(1).ThelegislativehistorysummarizedbelowincludesthereportsoftheHouseCommitteeonPublicWorksandTransportationandtheSenateCommitteeonEnvironmentandPublicWorks,passagesfromearlierversionsofboththeHouseandSenatebills,andexcerptsfromtheConferenceReportregardingthefinallanguageoftheamendments.Aftercarefulreviewofthismaterial,itisclearthatthewatersCongressintendedtheUSACEtoretainafterastateassumed404authorityare:(1)thewatersidentifiedbytheUSACEasPhaseIwatersinits1975regulations,exceptforthosenavigablewatersoftheUnitedStatesdeemednavigablebasedsolelyonhistoricuses,and(2)wetlandsadjacenttotheretainedPhaseIwaters.35II. HistoryofSection404(g)(1)
a. Respondingtoacourtorder,theUSACEproposestoexpanditsdefinitionofnavigablewatersforsection404.
AftertheCWAwasenactedin1972,theUSACEpromulgatedregulationsdefiningtheCWAterm“navigablewaters”synonymouslywiththeRHAterm“navigablewatersoftheUnitedStates.”TheNationalWildlifeFederationandtheNaturalResourcesDefenseCouncilchallengedtheUSACE’CWAdefinition,andinMarch1975theDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofColumbiaorderedtheUSACEtoissuenewregulationsbroadeningthe
3333U.S.C.§1344(a).3433U.S.C.§1344(g)(1).35Asdescribedbelow,PhaseIwaterswereunderstoodtobe“navigablewatersoftheUnitedStates”alreadyregulatedbytheUSACEundersection10oftheRiversandHarborsAct(“RHA”),plusadjacentwetlands.
![Page 62: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
59
definitiontoaccordwiththebroaderwaterqualitypurposesoftheCWA.36OnJuly25,1975,incompliancewiththecourtorder,theUSACEissuedrevisedregulationscreatingaphasedscheduleforexpandingtheprogram,asfollows:
(a)PhaseI:[effectiveimmediately]dischargesofdredgedmaterialoroffillmaterialintocoastalwatersandcoastalwetlandscontiguousoradjacenttheretoorintoinlandnavigablewatersoftheUnitedStates37andfreshwaterwetlandscontiguousoradjacenttheretoaresubjectto…regulation.
(b)PhaseII:[effectiveJuly1,1976]dischargesofdredgedmaterialoroffillmaterialintoprimarytributaries,freshwaterwetlandscontiguousoradjacenttoprimarytributaries,andlakesaresubjectto…regulation.
(c)PhaseIII:[effectiveafterJuly1,1977]dischargesofdredgedmaterialoroffillmaterialintoanynavigablewater[includingintrastatelakes,riversandstreamslandwardtotheirordinaryhighwatermarkanduptotheheadwatersthatareusedininterstatecommerce]aresubjectto…regulation.38
36Nat.Res.Def.Council,Inc.v.Callaway,392F.Supp.685(D.D.C.1975).TheCWAdefinestheterm“navigablewaters”tomean“thewatersoftheUnitedStates.”AtthetimetheCWAwaspassed,theUSACEhadbeenregulating“navigablewatersoftheUnitedStates”undertheRiversandHarborsActformorethan100years.Thestrikinglysimilarlanguageinthetwostatutesledtoconfusion.TheUSACE’initialpost-CWAregulationstreatedthetermssynonymously.39Fed.Reg.12,115,12,119(Apr.3,1974).Butthetwostatuteshaddifferentpurposes–theRHAwasfocusedonmaintainingnavigablecapacity,theCWAonwaterquality.AndtheCWAConferenceReportstatedthatthe“term‘navigablewaters’[should]begiventhebroadestpossibleconstitutionalinterpretationunencumberedbyagencydeterminationswhichhavebeenmadeormaybemadeforadministrativepurposes.”S.REP.NO.92-1236,at144(1972),reprintedinCOMM.ONPUB.WORKS,93DCONG.,1ALEGISLATIVEHISTORYOFTHEWATERPOLLUTIONCONTROLACTAMENDMENTSOF1972,at281,327(Jan.1973).37Theterm“navigablewatersoftheUnitedStates”isatermofartusedtoreferencewaterssubjecttotheUSACEjurisdictionundertheRHA.TheUSACEdefinedtheterminthe1975regulationsas“watersthathavebeenusedinthepast,arenowused,oraresusceptibletouseasameanstotransportinterstatecommercelandwardtotheirordinaryhighwatermarkanduptotheheadofnavigationasdeterminedbytheChiefofEngineers,andalsowatersthataresubjecttotheebbandflowofthetideshorewardtotheirmeanhighwatermark….See33CFR209.260…foramoredefinitiveexplanationofthisterm.”40Fed.Reg.31,320,31,324(July25,1975).Theregulatorycross-referenceincludedinthisdefinitionwastotheUSACE’thencurrentRHAregulations.Thoseregulationsemphasizedthat,“[p]recisedefinitionsof‘navigablewaters’or‘navigability’areultimatelydependentonjudicialinterpretation,andcannotbemadeconclusivelybyadministrativeagencies.”33C.F.R.§209.260(b)(1973).Thoseregulationswerelaterupdated,andnowread“[p]recisedefinitionsof‘navigablewatersoftheUnitedStates’or‘navigability’areultimatelydependentonjudicialinterpretationandcannotbemadeconclusivelybyadministrativeagencies.”33C.F.R.§329.3(2015).3840Fed.Reg.at31,326.
![Page 63: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
60
b. RespondingtotheUSACE’regulations,theHouseCommitteeonPublicWorkswritesabilltolimit404jurisdictiontoPhaseIwaters.
ReviewingthenewUSACEregulations,theHouseCommitteeonPublicWorksandTransportationexpressedconcernthat“fullimplementationofthispermitprogramunderthenewregulationswouldhaveadramaticeffectontheoverallCorpsofEngineerspermitprogram.”39TheCommitteeReportnotedthatpermitsundertheRHAnumberedcloseto11,000peryearandwereexpectedtoremainconstant,butthenew404regulationswouldincrease404applicationsfrom2,900to30,000peryearasPhasesIIandIIIbecameeffective.40TheCommitteewasconcernedthattheexpanded404program“willproveimpossibleofeffectiveadministrationand…discouragetheStatesfromexercisingtheirpresentresponsibilitiesinprotectingwaterandwetlandareas.”41TheCommitteereportstatedthatenvironmentalprotectionshouldbeasharedresponsibilityoftheStatesandtheFederalgovernment.Notingthat“[t]heFederalgovernmenthastraditionallyhadtheresponsibilityofprotectingthenavigablewatersoftheUnitedStatesforpublicuseandenjoyment,”theCommitteeconcludedthat“activitiesaddressedbysection404,totheextenttheyoccurinwatersotherthannavigablewatersoftheUnitedStates…aremoreappropriatelyandmoreeffectivelysubjecttoregulation[by]theStates.”42
c. TheHousebilltrackstheRHAdefinition,exceptitomits“historic”navigablewatersof
theUnitedStates.
ToaddresstheconcernsidentifiedintheCommitteereport,section17oftheCommitteebill,H.R.9560,addedadefinitionof“navigablewaters”tobeappliedtothe404programthatis“thesameasthedefinitionofnavigablewatersoftheUnitedStatesasithasevolvedovertheyearsthroughcourtdecisionswithoneexception.[It]omitsthehistoricaltestofnavigability.”43TheCommitteenotedthatthehistoricaltesthadbeenused“toclassifyasnavigable…manybodiesofwater…[that]werenotcapableofsupportinginterstatecommerceintheirexistingconditionorwithreasonableimprovement,”44forexample,watersthatwereusedinthefurtradeinthe1700’s,“wheretraderswouldtransporttheirfursbytrailtothelake,acrossthelakebyboat,andthenagainbytrailintoanotherState.”45Similarly,“smalllakeslocatedentirelywithinoneState,whichwerepartofahighwayofcommerceinthe1800’sbyvirtueoftheirproximitytoarailwaytrackwhichledintoanotherState,[had]beenclassifiedasnavigable.”46Thus,theCommitteeintendedtoexclude“smallintra-statelakes…which
39H.R.REP.NO.94-1107,at22(1976).40Id.41Id.42Id.43Id.at23.44Id.45Id.46Id.
![Page 64: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
61
couldnotconceivablybeusedtodayorinthefutureforinterstatecommerce.”47TheCommittee“fe[lt]stronglythatifawaterisnotsusceptibleofuseforthetransportofinterstateorforeigncommerceinitspresentconditionorwithreasonableimprovement,thenitshouldnotbeconsidereda‘navigablewateroftheUnitedStates.’”48
ReflectingtheseCongressionalintentions,section17readasfollows:
Theterm“navigablewaters”asusedinthissectionshallmeanallwaterswhicharepresentlyused,oraresusceptibletouseintheirnaturalconditionorbyreasonableimprovementasameanstotransportinterstateorforeigncommerceshorewardtotheirordinaryhighwatermark,includingallwaterswhicharesubjecttotheebbandflowofthetideshorewardtotheirmeanhighwatermark(meanhigherhighwatermarkonthewestcoast).49
Asdiscussedbelow,section17morphedduringthelegislativeprocess,andtheabovelanguageendedupin404(g)(1)andwasusedtodescribethenavigablewaterstheUSACEwouldretaininacaseofstateassumption.Thelanguage“wetlandsadjacentthereto”wasaddedtothefinalbillseparately.
d. DuringdebateintheHouse,the404permitrequirementisextendedtocertain
wetlands,andcertainactivitiesareexempted.
Section17wasdebatedvigorouslyontheHousefloorin1976.50ManyvehementlyopposedrestrictingtheUSACE’jurisdiction,whileproponentsofsection1751fearedtheUSACE’sinfringementonStates’authoritiesandfarmers’operations.52Inacompromise,thefinalHousebillincludedtheCommittee’sdefinitionof“navigablewaters”(for404purposes),butprotectedwetlandsbyrequiring404permitsfordredgeandfillactivitiesin“coastalwetlandsand…thosewetlandslyingadjacentandcontiguoustonavigablestreams.”53Thebilldidnotincludewetlandsinthedefinitionofnavigablewaters,however.
Thebillalsoexemptedfromthepermitprogramnormalfarmingactivities,ranching,andtheconstructionormaintenanceoffarmorstockpondsandirrigationditches.54
Additionally,itcreatedaprocessforStatestoadministertheprogramthemselveswhenevertheSecretaryoftheArmyfoundthattheyhavesufficientlegalauthorityand
47Id.at23-24.48Id.at24.49Id.at63.50See122CONG.REC.16,514-73(June3,1976).51Note:Inthefinalbill,thedefinitionof“navigablewaters”appearsinsection16.Id.at16,572.52Seeid.at16,514-73.53Id.at16,553.54Id.at16,552.
![Page 65: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
62
capabilitytocarryoutsuchfunctionsandthatthedelegationofauthoritywouldbewithinthepublicinterest.55TheHouseofRepresentativespassedH.R.9560andapprovedtheseamendmentstothe404programonJune3,1976.56
e. TheSenatebillcreatesamechanismforStatestoassumethe404programbutdoesnotmodifythedefinitionofnavigablewaters.
TheSenatetookupthebillinthesummerof1977.Emphasizingtheambitiouswaterqualitygoalsofthe1972CleanWaterAct,theSenateCommitteeonEnvironmentandPublicWorksdeclinedtoredefine“navigablewaters”forpurposesofthe404program.Instead,theSenatebill,S.1952,insection(l)(5),allowedStatestoassumetheprimaryresponsibilityforimplementingthepermitprogram“outsidetheUSACEprogramintheso-calledphaseIwaters.”57ThewatersthatwouldberetainedbytheUSACEifastateassumedtheprogramwerethesamewaterstheHousebillhaddefinedas“navigablewaters”exceptsection(l)(5)addedadjacentwetlands:
[A]nycoastalwatersoftheUnitedStatessubjecttotheebbandflowofthetide,includinganyadjacentmarshes,shallows,swampsandmudflats,andanyinlandwatersoftheUnitedStatesthatareused,havebeenusedoraresusceptibletousefortransportofinterstateorforeigncommerce,includinganyadjacentmarshes,shallows,swampsandmudflats.58
S. 1952wouldallowtheStatestoassumeauthorityover“phase2andphase3waters.”59Theassumptionproceduresweremodeledonthe402proceduresfortransferofNationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(“NPDES”)authoritytotheStatesinthehopesthatthefamiliarprocesswouldexpeditestateadoptionoftheprogram.60TheamendmentalsoexemptedactivitiessimilartothoseexemptedintheHousebillandprovidedforgeneralpermitstoeliminatedelaysandadministrativeburdensassociatedwiththeprogram.61TheSenateconcludedthatuntiltheapprovalofastateprogramforPhaseIIandPhaseIIIwaters,theUSACEwouldadministersection404inallnavigablewaters.62TheSenatepassedS.1952onAugust4,1977.63
55Id.at16,572.56Id.at16,569.57S.REP.NO.95-370,at75(1977)reprintedinCOMM.ONENV’T&PUBL.WORKS,95THCONG.,4ALEGISLATIVEHISTORYOFTHECLEANWATERACTOF1977(“LEGIS.HISTORY1977”),at635,708(Oct.1978).584LEGIS.HISTORY1977,at830.59Id.at708.60Id.at710-11.61Id.at707.62Id.at708.63123CONG.REC.26,775(Aug.4,1977).
![Page 66: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
63
f. Thefinalbilldoesnotchangethedefinitionof“navigablewaters”butdoesprovideforstateassumptionthatwouldeffectivelylimitUSACEpermittingauthorityinassumedStatestoPhaseIwaters.
Ultimately,thefinalbill,H.R.3199,referredtoasthe1977CleanWaterActAmendments,didnotchangethedefinitionofnavigablewatersforthe404program.Instead,theamendmentswereacombinationoftheHouseandSenatebills.WhilemembersoftheHouse,andmorespecificallytheHouseCommitteeonPublicWorksandTransportation,wantedtoredefine“navigablewaters”forthe404program,othersstronglyopposedsuchrestrictions.Bothchambersagreed,however,thattheStatescouldproperlyassumeauthorityforadministeringthe404programinwatersotherthanthosecalledoutinsection17oftheHousebillandsection(l)(5)oftheSenatebill.Accordingly,theconfereesagreeduponanamendmentthatwouldleavethedefinitionof“navigablewaters”unchanged,butwouldallowtheStatestoassumetheprograminmostwaters.
Thus,underthe1977amendments,theStatescanadministeranindividualandgeneralpermitprogramforthedischargeofdredgedorfillmaterialinto“phase2and3watersaftertheapprovalofaprogrambytheAdministrator.”64Ifandwhenastateassumedtheprogram,theC’permittingauthoritywouldbelimitedto“thosewatersdefinedasthephaseIwatersintheCorps…1975regulations,withtheexceptionofwatersconsiderednavigablesolelybecauseofhistoricaluse.”65ThefinalbillinsertedthelanguagethattheHouseCommitteehadoriginallyusedtolimitUSACEjurisdiction,exceptthattheConferenceCommitteeadded“wetlandsadjacentthereto”totheparentheticalphrasedefiningthewatersoverwhichtheUSACEwouldalwaysretainpermittingauthority.66ThelegislativehistoryinboththeHouseandtheSenateevidencesaCongressionalexpectationthatmostStateswouldassumethe404program,andthereforeeffectivelylimitUSACEpermittingauthoritytoPhaseIwaters.
Byusingtheestablishedmechanisminsection402…,thecommitteeanticipatestheauthorizationofstatemanagementofthe[404]permitprogramwillbesubstantiallyexpedited.Atleast28stateentitieswhichhavealreadyobtainedapprovalofthenationalpollutantdischargeeliminationsystemunderthesectionshouldbeabletoassumetheprogramquickly.67
64H.R.REP.NO.95-830,at101(1977)reprintedin3LEGIS.HISTORY1977,at185,285.65123CONG.REC.38,969(Dec.15,1977).TheUSACE’sJuly19,1977finalregulationscharacterizedPhaseIascovering“watersalreadybeingregulatedbytheCorps[]plusalladjacentwetlandstothesewaters.”42Fed.Reg.37,122,37,124(July19,1977).66H.R.REP.NO.95-830,at39,reprintedin3LEGIS.HISTORY1977,at285.67S.REP.NO.95-370,at77-78,reprintedin4LEGIS.HISTORY1977,at710-11.
![Page 67: DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee ...€¦ · DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee Submitted to the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022063014/5fd10bc51a63864adc43a929/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
64
Also,“thecorps[conducted]…astudy[in1976]todeterminethescopeofstateprogramssimilartoorduplicativeofcorpsregulationsandtodeterminetheinterestoftheStatesinacceptingdelegationofthe404program.”68Basedonthepreliminaryresponsesof52statesandterritories,34indicatedtheirintent,undercertainconditions,suchasfederalfunding,toassumethedredgeandfillprogram.69Only6respondedthattheywouldnotseekassumptionoftheprogram,and12wereundecided.70
g. SummaryofKeyPoints
Thelanguageinthe404(g)(1)parentheticalphrasethatdefinesthewatersoverwhichtheUSACEwillretainjurisdictioninanassumedstateisidenticaltothelanguageusedbytheHouseCommitteetonarrowthedefinitionof“navigablewaters,”exceptthatitincludes“wetlandsadjacentthereto.”
CongressintendedthattheparentheticallanguagebeinterpretedtomeanthesamewatersastheUSACEhaddefinedasPhaseIwatersinits1975regulations,exceptthosedeemednavigablebasedsolelyonhistoricaluse.Thus,watersdeemednavigablebasedonhistoricaluseonlyareassumablebyastate.
The1977Congressanticipatedthatmoststateswouldassumethe404programandthereforeregulatedredgeandfillactivitiesinPhaseIIandIIIwaters,leavingtheUSACEwithauthorityoverPhaseIwaters(includingtheiradjacentwetlandsbutexcludinghistoricalusewaters).
TheparentheticalwatersidentifiedbytheUSACEasPhaseIwatersinits1975regulationsincorporatedthedescriptionof“navigablewatersoftheUnitedStates”alreadyregulatedbytheUSACEundersection10oftheRHA,excepttheparentheticalexcludedwatersdeemednavigablebasedsolelyonhistoricaluse,andincludedadjacentwetlands.TheUSACE’sregulationsatthetimeemphasizedthat“[p]recisedefinitionsof‘navigablewaters’or‘navigability’areultimatelydependentonjudicialinterpretation,andcannotbemadeconclusivelybyadministrativeagencies.”33C.F.R.§209.260(b)(1973).Thelanguagechangedlater,andthecurrentregulationnowstates“[p]recisedefinitionsof‘navigablewatersoftheUnitedStates’or‘navigability’areultimatelydependentonjudicialinterpretationandcannotbemadeconclusivelybyadministrativeagencies.”33C.F.R.§329.3(2015).
68H.R.REP.NO.95-139,at67,reprintedin4LEGIS.HISTORY1977,at1196,1262.69Id.70Id.