Tag: Waters of the US

Half Of The U.S. No Longer Subject To The New WOTUS Rule

On April 12, 2023, Daniel L. Hovland, a federal judge in North Dakota, temporarily blocked the implementation of the latest “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule. This action affects 24 states and is on the heels of a previous ruling by Jeffrey Vincent Brown, another federal judge for the southern district of Texas, that now excludes Texas and Idaho from the new WOTUS rule. At issue is the codification of the significant nexus test. According to two judges, the new 2023 rule that the balance of harms weighs towards the States. It benefits the public to “ensure that federal agencies do not extend their power beyond the express delegation from Congress.”

Where is WOTUS not in use?

  • West Virginia
  • North Dakota
  • Georgia
  • Iowa
  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arkansas
  • Florida
  • Indiana
  • Kansas
  • Louisiana
  • Mississippi
  • Missouri
  • Montana
  • Nebraska
  • New Hampshire
  • Ohio
  • Oklahoma
  • South Carolina
  • South Dakota
  • Tennessee
  • Utah
  • Virginia
  • Wyoming
  • Texas
  • Idaho

Implications for these states

The impact of the outcome of the Sackett case by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is the driver for these two decisions. At issue there is a need to have a new rule before the SCOTUS ruling. A revised rule will clarify whether the Rapanos version of the “significant nexus” test is an appropriate exercise of the EPA’s jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.

Neither the federal government nor the States know what the controlling test is, and Supreme Court precedent to date has been of scant assistance.  Hopefully, the Supreme Court decision in Sackett will provide some clarity.  The outcome of the Sackett  case may have significant implications for the EPA’s authority to determine jurisdictional waters under the Clean Water Act.  It may also determine the EPA’s ability to enforce the 2023 WOTUS Rule.  Until then, every state will continue to swim in waters of uncertainty, ambiguity, and chaos.

Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge United States District Court

Which definition are they using?

Working in these states is a bit unclear as to which definition should be used. Presumably, the last standing definition was the WOTUS recodification rule of 2019. This rule preceded the infamous 2020 Navigable Waters Rule, which was remanded and vacated in 2021.

It will be difficult to obtain permits and authorizations if federal agencies can’t use the 2023 WOTUS rule in half of the U.S. There is no clarity as to what constitutes a jurisdictional water body, making permitting almost impossible.

We expect a decision on the Sackett case from SCOTUS by the end of the term in June. Even if the Court provides a decision, there is no doubt that the next set of court cases against EPA and the Corps will be to challenge that the 2023 rule is inconsistent with the SCOTUS decision, whatever it may be.

Sources

Fischler, J. (2023). Federal judge temporarily blocks new Biden WOTUS rule in two dozen states. Ohio Capital Journal. Retrieved from: https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023/04/18/federal-judge-temporarily-blocks-new-biden-wotus-rule-in-two-dozen-states/

2023 Waters of the United States

This week, the new Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule was enacted. On December 30, 2022, the agencies announced the final “revised definition of ‘waters of the United States” rule. The rule was published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2023, and became effective on March 20, 2023.

The agencies developed this rule with consideration to the relevant provisions of the Clean Water Act and the statute as a whole, relevant Supreme Court case law, and the agencies’ technical expertise after more than 45 years of implementing the longstanding pre-2015 “waters of the United States” framework. This rule also considers the best available science and extensive public comment to establish a definition of “waters of the United States” that supports public health, environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic growth.

There are numerous lawsuits and challenges to this rule. These come from both sides of the aisle and include several lobbying groups, environmental organizations, states, and tribes. In addition, we are still waiting to hear from the U.S. Supreme Court on the now-infamous Sackett case. This case directly challenges the new WOTUS rule.
The following is the new WOTUS rule. There are several pages associated with the rule, but this is the meat of it.

Part 328 Definition of Waters of the United States- Regulatory Text

  1. The authority citation for part 328 continues to read as follows:
    • Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Definitions

  1. Revise § 328.3 to read as follows:
    • For the purpose of this regulation these terms are defined as follows:
      • a) Waters of the United States means:
        • 1) Waters which are:
          • (i) Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
          • (ii) The territorial seas; or
          • (iii) Interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;
        • (2) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section;
        • (3) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section:
          • (i) That are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; or
          • (ii) That either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
        • (4) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters:
          • (i) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or
          • (ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3)(i) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters; or
          • (iii) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (3) of this section when the wetlands either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
        • (5) Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section:
          • (i) That are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3)(i) of this section; or
          • (ii) That either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    • (b) The following are not “waters of the United States” even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of this section:
      • (1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act;
      • (2) Prior converted cropland designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The exclusion would cease upon a change of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA;
      • (3) Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water;
      • (4) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased;
      • (5) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing;
      • (6) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons;
      • (7) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States; and
      • (8) Swales and erosional features ( e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow.
    • (c) In this section, the following definitions apply:
      • (1) Wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
      • (2) Adjacent means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, and the like are “adjacent wetlands.”
      • (3) High tide line means the line of intersection of the land with the water’s surface at the maximum height reached by a rising tide. The high tide line may be determined, in the absence of actual data, by a line of oil or scum along shore objects, a more or less continuous deposit of fine shell or debris on the foreshore or berm, other physical markings or characteristics, vegetation lines, tidal gages, or other suitable means that delineate the general height reached by a rising tide. The line encompasses spring high tides and other high tides that occur with periodic frequency but does not include storm surges in which there is a departure from the normal or predicted reach of the tide due to the piling up of water against a coast by strong winds such as those accompanying a hurricane or other intense storm.
      • (4) Ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
      • (5) Tidal waters means those waters that rise and fall in a predictable and measurable rhythm or cycle due to the gravitational pulls of the moon and sun. Tidal waters end where the rise and fall of the water surface can no longer be practically measured in a predictable rhythm due to masking by hydrologic, wind, or other effects.
      • (6) Significantly affect means a material influence on the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. To determine whether waters, either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, have a material influence on the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the functions identified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section will be assessed and the factors identified in paragraph (c)(6)(ii) of this section will be considered:
        • (i) Functions to be assessed:
          • (A) Contribution of flow;
          • (B) Trapping, transformation, filtering, and transport of materials (including nutrients, sediment, and other pollutants);
          • (C) Retention and attenuation of floodwaters and runoff;
          • (D) Modulation of temperature in waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or
          • (E) Provision of habitat and food resources for aquatic species located in waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
        • (ii) Factors to be considered:
          • (A) The distance from a water identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
          • (B) Hydrologic factors, such as the frequency, duration, magnitude, timing, and rate of hydrologic connections, including shallow subsurface flow;
          • (C) The size, density, or number of waters that have been determined to be similarly situated;
          • (D) Landscape position and geomorphology; and
          • (E) Climatological variables such as temperature, rainfall, and snowpack.

Army Corps Halts Coverage Under Nationwide Permits

Several weeks ago, landowners and permit applicants received an email notification regarding the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Nationwide Permits (NWPs). Namely, according to the notice, the Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) would not clarify any coverage requests under a variety of CWA Section 404 NWPs.

The Clean Water Act Section 404 NWPs are the general permits that authorize activities under the previously mentioned act, which “will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when performed separately, and will have only minimal cumulative adverse effects on the environment.”

In the email from the Army Corps, it is stated: 

We were informed today that due to the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on October 21, 2021, to remand USEPA’s 2020 CWA 401 rule with vacatur, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not finalizing any permit decisions that rely on a certification or waiver under the 2020 rule at this time. The Corps is working to provide more refined guidance that provides a way forward that allows us to finalize permit decisions. (Emphasis added) 

All interested parties can find this informal notification on at least one government website in the “Latest News” section.

However, following the current developments, the agency has not issued a formal notice or press release yet, which has halted coverage under its NWP program. The Army Corps finalized the NWPs list in January 2021, and the entire list went through formal notice and comment rulemaking. Before being issued, the NWPs were subject to the CWA Section 401 certification process. Nevertheless, this move affects the following 16 NWPs:

12. Oil or Natural Gas Pipeline Activities
21. Surface Coal Mining Activities
29. Residential Developments
39. Commercial and Institutional Developments
40. Agricultural Activities
42. Recreational Facilities
43. Stormwater Management Facilities
44. Mining Activities
48. Commercial Shellfish Mariculture Activities
50. Underground Coal Mining Activities
51. Land-Based Renewable Energy Generation Facilities
52. Water-Based Renewable Energy Generation Pilot Projects
55. Seaweed Mariculture Activities
56. Finfish Mariculture Activities
57. Electric Utility Line and Telecommunications Activities
58. Utility Line Activities for Water and Other Substances

Information worth mentioning is the fact that the Army Corps’ notification was published weeks after EPA’s announcement that the Northern District of California court decision “requires a temporary return to EPA’s 1986 rule until EPA finalizes a new certification rule.” It is still unclear why the N.D. of California decision would result in a nationwide vacatur of the 401 Rule or why that court decision would affect NWPs. The NWPs were properly promulgated, and the procedure was based on the law that was in effect at the time. To date, there is no official explanation by any agency. In fact, there is no consideration or conclusion by any court that NWPs, or the Section 401 certifications issued for them, are unlawful.

Another circumstance that raises questions is the Senate vote 92-5 to confirm Michael Connor to serve as the assistant secretary of the Army for civil works. The notification was issued on the same date as the confirmation of Mr. Connor, so it is unknown whether he ordered the halt in permitting. Without any doubt, Mr. Connor has the power to make headway on the administration’s infrastructure, resilience, and climate goals, which in fact, will be hindered by the significant uncertainty left on its account. We can summarize that, until further notice, NWP coverage will not be granted for stormwater management projects, land- or water-based renewable energy projects; or electric, telecommunications, or water utility line activities, as well as residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and recreational activities.

In the meantime, until the government comes up with a solution and a decision on this matter, landowners and project proponents have an option to apply for an individual CWA Section 404 permit. The NWP process is designed to streamline the process for those activities with minimal environmental impact. As for comparison, the NWP process usually takes 60 days to be finished, while an individual permit can take up to one year or more. Annually, the Army Corps grants CWA Section 404 general permit coverage for more than 50,000 activities, and in the same period, issues on average 2,500 individual CWA 404 permits.     

This Army Corps’ notification raises many questions. First of all, it is unknown how long it will last the process of “providing more refined guidance”? Is there a need for changes and new programmatic Section 401 certifications for the NWPs mentioned above? Will the agency be on the lookout for those certifications before coverage can be granted? If the answer is YES, what changes will follow? There are two possibilities for the development: re-promulgation of NWPs, which would include new certification conditions; and the second option is the agency to strive for adding new conditions without going through the rulemaking process? Until the EPA comes up with a new certification rule, it remains unclear whether the agency will require each of the activities authorized under CWA Section 404 to receive an individual Section 401 certification.  

Property owners and project proponents are directly affected by this situation because of the potentially delayed certification process with individual permit applications. This, however, is quite a different sort of problem than halting coverage under already-issued NWPs. 

There has also been some unofficial information that the Corps has already reinstated the Nationwide permit review. However, as they have not confirmed that the Nationwide permits were put on hold they have not announced any further updates. There is a lot of confusion on this matter and it is highly recommended that you check with your local Corps District to confirm if the Nationwides in question are available for your region. There seems to be a high variability between districts as to the status of the the Nationwide program.

Waters of the State

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 15, Issue 42

On Friday, October 9, 2015 the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a stay of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) new rule defining the scope of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (The Clean Water Rule). Until we hear otherwise, the Clean Water Rule is no longer in effect across the entire nation. The nationwide stay may be short-lived, and is contingent upon how the Sixth Circuit answers the key question regarding its own jurisdiction. There is a briefing on the jurisdictional issue is scheduled for completion on November 4, and the court indicated that its decision could be issued “in a matter of weeks.”

There are two sets of state lawsuits that have arisen as a result of the August, 28, 2015 Clean Water Rule. The first was alliance of 18 states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) that filed motions with the Court seeking (1) a stay of the rule during the pendency of the court’s proceedings and (2) a ruling from the Sixth Circuit that it lacked jurisdiction to hear their appeals (enabling pursuit of their cases before the district courts). On July 28, 2015, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all Court of Appeals cases in the Sixth Circuit.

On August 27, 2015, the U.S. District Court for North Dakota granted such a motion filed by a second set of 13 states (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming, and New Mexico). This was one day before the new Clean Water rules was set to go into effect. On September 4, 2015, the court clarified that the rule was enjoined only in the 13 plaintiff states, not nationwide. The EPA and the Corps promptly informed the public that enforcement of the new rule in all but the aforementioned 13 states would commence effective August 28, 2015. Enforcement would also pertain the 18 states in the other case.

The Sixth Circuit Court in a 2-1 decision issued a stay of the new Clean Water Rule on October 9, 2015. Two judges in the majority found that the petitioners had demonstrated a “substantial possibility of success on the merits of their claims,” specifically mentioning that it was “far from clear” that the new rule’s distance limitations were harmonious with the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Rapanos. The court also indicated that the process by which the distance limitations were adopted was “facially suspect” because the proposed rule did not include distance limitations, calling into question whether the final rule was a logical outgrowth of the proposal (as required under the Administrative Procedure Act). Finally, the court found that the government had not “persuasively rebutted” the petitioners’ argument that the rule’s bright-line distance limitations were devoid of specific scientific support.

In an interesting twist, the lone dissenting judge did not reach the merits of the petitioners’ motion, believing it was “not prudent for [the] court to act before it determines that it has subject-matter jurisdiction.” The majority of 2 countered that it had “no doubt” of the court’s authority to make orders preserving the status quo pending consideration of the outstanding jurisdictional question.

2015WoUSbooks

At the heart of this matter is the concept of states’ rights. The issue is that under the Clean Water Act the state makes the water quality decisions in regards to impacts to both waters of the US and waters that the state has legislated as jurisdictional by the state. As a not so minor point of fact, the Clean Water Rule has nothing to do with improving water quality. It simply designates what is and what is not regulated by the federal government. There is not one syllable in the rule that discusses how the implementation and enforcement of the rule will benefit water quality. We the regulated public are left to assume that if the federal government regulates the waterbody, it will by default become cleaner. It does not take much research to document that this is rarely the case. The recent disaster in Colorado comes to mind.

It is for this reason that under section 401 of the Clean Water Act the states are responsible for water quality decisions. The authors of the original Act recognized this for simple reason that water quality is best managed on a local level. It is simply not possible for a federal entity to have the sensitively to the local needs. This is underscored by another aspect of the Clean Water Act’s goal of transferring jurisdictional determination and permitting roles to the state. This is laid out in detail under section 404(g). It was never the intention of the Act’s authors for the federal government to perpetually run the Clean Water Act programs. Rather it was their intent to transfer this role to the states.

The EPA and Corps are on Constitutional shaky ground. At issue is the role of the federal government. In every wetland related Supreme Court case the Court has ruled based upon the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The federal government can only regulate waters of the US in so far as the impacts to them effect interstate or foreign commerce. Unfortunately, the concept of significant nexus as defined by Justice Kennedy in the Rapanos case has been widely misinterpreted. A significant nexus to downstream waters has to effect interstate or foreign commerce in order to make a water body federally jurisdictional. Making the clean water “dirty” is not the same thing. The Commerce Clause must be satisfied to enable federal jurisdiction.

The states are not limited by the Commerce Clause. If the voting public in a state decides to pass legislation though their state representatives to protect a certain water body type, they are empowered to do this. However, this must take the form of legislation and not rule making. When the Supreme Court ruled in the SWANCC case that isolated wetlands (not commerce connected) are not federally jurisdictional, many state environmental departments tried to enforce rules to protect these types of wetlands. If there was not enabling state legislation, these rules fell apart.

The bottom line is the question as to whether the federal government can mandate regulation over land that would otherwise be regulated by the state without satisfying the Commerce Clause. There is also the small matter of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) question as to the manner in which the rules have been vetted thought the public review process. It was sort of a bait and switch operation. However, this may delay the implementation of the Clean Water Rules but it most likely will not derail it. That matter is left to the state cases.

EPA and Army Corps of Engineers Withdraw Interpretive Waters of the U.S. Rule

Swamp Stomp

Volume 15, Issue 7

On January 29th, 2015, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers announced a memorandum of understanding to withdraw the Interpretive Waters of the U.S. Rule. The “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of the Army Interpretive Rule Regarding the Applicability of Clean Water Act Section 404(f)(1)(A)” originally outlined which conservation activities provide farmers an exemption from Clean Water Act permitting.

In the “Cromnibus” funding legislation that was passed in December 2014, Congress requested that the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers officially withdraw the IR due to “over burdensome” regulations on farming and ranching. Congress concluded that the rule not only created uncertainty instead of clarity, but also threatened fines of up to $37,500 per day.

Some members of Congress spoke in opposition to the rule before the legislation was passed requesting that the rule be withdrawn. Last October, Republican members of the Senate Ag Committee advised that the IR would move the NRCS into an enforcement role instead of creating a trusted source for conservation assistance.

The senators claimed, “This unique relationship is built on voluntary conservation programs and a mutual commitment to protecting natural resources and keeping land in agriculture. Bringing USDA into the Clean Water Act permitting process would profoundly shift the nature of this successful approach by dismantling a longstanding partnership between the Federal government and agriculture community.”

The rule offered 56 “normal farming and ranching” exemptions under Natural Resources Conservation Service regulations. However, most farm groups opposed the rule. The opponents to the rule argued that using these practices as CWA exemptions would alter farmer-NRCS interaction and dispirit environment best practices.

Robert Bonnie, the Under Secretary for the Natural Resources and Environment at the USDA, however, claimed that any practices implemented by the rule would be voluntary, and are designed to assist farmers avoid the time and cost of permitting.

Bonnie’s claim was refuted by the Senior Director of Regulatory Relations at the American Farm Bureau Federation, Don Parrish. He said, “I heard Mr. Bonnie say that the only way to be in compliance with the Clean Water Act is if you do these 56 practices the way NRCS standards say you have to do them—and they are very prescriptive, they use a lot of ‘shalls’—if a farmer builds a fence that does not comply with NRCS’ standards, the cloud then is that he’s violated the Clean Water Act.”

On February 2, 2015, Jamie Jonker, vice president for sustainability and scientific affairs for the National Milk Producers Federation, stated, “Our concern with the initial proposal from last year is that it could have altered the longstanding and productive relationship between farmers and the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, in a way that would have made it harder for farmers to implement water conservation measures.”

The official IR withdrawal notice was put into effect on January 29, 2015. The Waters of the U.S. proposal, however, remains in consideration by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. The final comment period on the full “Waters of the U.S.” proposal closed November 14, 2014.

The memorandum withdrawing the Interpretive Rule can be found here: http://www2.epa.gov/uswaters/memorandum-withdrawing-interpretive-rule

Wetland Delineation Backlog

Swamp Stomp

Volume 14, Issue 32

On July 30, 2014 roughly 350 farmers from across eastern South Dakota attended a public forum with Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) officials to discuss issues related to wetland delineations. The forum was spooned by South Dakota Farm Bureau, South Dakota Soybean Association (SDSA), South Dakota Corn Growers, and the South Dakota Farmers Union. As of July 1, 2014 the NRCS has reported that there are over 5,130 wetland determination requests in the Prairie Pothole region of the US waiting to be reviewed. South Dakota leads the backlog with over 2,993 requests.

NRCS estimates that it takes one to two years to process a wetland determination request given this backlog. It is the hope of both NRCS and the farmers to find a way to bring this time frame down to one year or less. Once a farmer does receive the wetland delineation, he or she has only 30 days to take action if an appeal is desired. This was a point of concern given that 30 days is a relatively short length of time. This is especially a problem if the appeal occurs during a farmer’s peak planting or harvest season.

“The number of people attending this forum speaks to the importance of finding a solution to the backlog and confusion over how wetland delineations are handled,” said Wayne Smith, Executive Director of the South Dakota Farm Bureau, which represents 14,000 farm, ranch, and rural families across the state. “These farmers are sincere in their desire to work with the NRCS, but they also want to be able to get information in a timely way and to know that that information is consistent and science-based.”

Much of the backlog is related to the current NRCS policy that all wetland delineations submitted by a consultant on the farmer’s behalf must be field inspected by NRCS. Even if this is a spot check the time to travel to the site and spend just a few minutes on-site really adds up when you look at the number so these inspections that must be done. If you allotted just 4 hours per site, which would include travel to and from the farm it would take over 6 years for one inspector to clear the current t backlog in South Dakota alone. There are three individuals listed as NRCS wetland specialists in South Dakota. So, if these three folks eat and sleep in the wetlands and only do inspections, they could easily knock this out in 2 years. They cannot go back to the office and must visit at least two sites per day.

I have run into some pretty intense work schedules in my nearly 30 years in the wetland delineation business. However this beats all. I do not see how anyone could ever keep up this regime without burning out.

These wetland delineations are being done for compliance with a variety of USDA agricultural programs. The USDA program is not a regulatory compliance program. The wetland delineations are done to help NRCS evaluate eligibility for a number of USDA subsidy programs. It is the current policy of the USDA to avoid wetland impacts to the maximum extent possible. A farmer who impacts a wetland runs the risk of losing farm subsidies and depending upon the date of impact could be forced to return prior subsidy monies.

If a farmer has impacted a wetland there is also the possibility of Clean Water Act (CWA) violations being discovered by the Corps and EPA. This too has severe labor concerns as there are far fewer regulators able to look at potential violation sites.

There have been a couple of suggestions to solve the review problem. One suggestion is to employ remote sensing technologies to confirm the presence of wetlands. Currently NRCS does do this to a limited extent. At issue is that many farmers have reported that when NRCS uses offsite methods more areas are determined to be wetlands then the on-site methods would reveal. The main issue is the presence or abscess of hydric soils. Many of the prairie potholes lack any hydric soil indicators and consequently are not wetlands.

In many cases even if the prairie pothole is a wetland it may be deemed isolated and not subject to wetland regulation under the Clean Water Act. However, USDA policy usually precludes impacts to wetlands whether or not they are waters of the US. Under current CWA rules isolated wetlands are not waters of the US. Under the proposed new CWA rules they would be jurisdictional. The new rules make it quite clear that all prairie potholes are waters of the US regardless of the presence of hydric soils.

The solution to the backlog seems to be found in the new CWA rules. If there is no dispute that prairie potholes are waters of the US, then there should be no reason for a backlog. Categorically these areas would be waters of the US and there would be no need for a wetland delineation. It would be fairly easy to identify the prairie potholes remotely as they do tend to stand out on an air photo. There would be no need for a soils investigation so there is no real reason to ever leave the office.

Perhaps this is a solution. Prairie potholes are a unique landform and offer a variety of ecological benefits. However, there is a significant economic impact to the farmers in this region if they have to develop a total avoidance practice. It may not even be possible for this to be achieved. Unfortunately, the new CWA rules do not address these economic impacts at all. The Whitehouse Office of Management and Budget (OMB) report on these new rules is focused entirely on the cost to manage compliance and never addresses the cost to the public. In my humble opinion there needs to be a balance between environmental stewardship and the economic impacts of that stewardship. In this case perhaps the non-wetland prairie potholes should be exempt from the CWA rules. However, this will bring the backlog back on line.

What do you think?

2014 EPA Water Rule Changes

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 14, Issue 10

As of the end of 2013, the US EPA has announced 134 new and modified agency rule changes.    It is a health list when compared to the 53 new rules in 2012.  They have been quite busy.  The rules are separated into major areas that include: air, chemical safety, solid waste and water.  The vast majority of these new rules are focused on greenhouse gas emissions, client change and the like.  However, water issues are quite significant.  There are 14 new water rules under consideration and include the definition of “Waters of the United States” Under the Clean Water Act.

To help you sort though all of this I have included the 14 water rule changes along with a brief summary of each one.

epa

Pre-rule Stage

RID:  2040-AF43

Title:  NPDES Regulations to Address Water Quality Impacts from Forest Road Discharges

Summary:  The EPA is exploring the use flexible non-permitting approaches under the Clean Water Act to regulate certain discharges of stormwater from forest roads, including logging roads, in order to address water quality impacts from those discharges. The EPA recognizes that effective best management practices (BMPs) exist that protect receiving waters and minimize impacts. The EPA is considering approaches that leverage effective BMP programs.

RID:  2040-AF46

Title:  Section 610 Review of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Summary:  The EPA promulgated revised regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) on February 12, 2003 (68 FR 7175). The “2003 CAFO Rule” expanded the number of operations covered by the CAFO regulations and included requirements to address the land application of manure from CAFOs. The 2003 CAFO Rule required all CAFOs to seek NPDES permit coverage.

Proposed Rule Stage

RID:  2040-AD39

Title:  Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces – Phase II

Summary:  CWA section 312(n) directs EPA and DoD to establish national discharge standards for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces. The proposed standards will apply to approximately 6,000 vessels of the Armed Forces and are intended to reduce the adverse environmental impacts associated with the discharges, stimulate the development of improved pollution control devices, and advance the development of environmentally sound ships by the military.

RID:  2040-AF03

Title:  Development of Best Management Practices for Recreational Boats under Section 312(o) of the Clean Water Act

Summary:  The Clean Boating Act amends section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to exclude recreational vessels from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting requirements. In addition, it adds a new CWA section 312(o) directing EPA to develop regulations that identify the discharges incidental to the normal operation of recreational vessels (other than a discharge of sewage) for which it is reasonable and practicable to develop management practices to mitigate adverse impacts on waters of the United States.

RID:  22040-AF16

Title:  Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications

Summary:  EPA proposed changes to the water quality standards (WQS) regulation to improve its effectiveness in helping restore and maintain the Nation’s Waters. The core of the current WQS regulation has been in place since 1983.  These revisions will allow EPA, States, and authorized tribes to better achieve program goals by providing clearer more streamlined requirements to facilitate enhanced water resource protection.

RID:  2040-AF25

Title:  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Application and Program Updates Rule

Summary:  EPA plans to propose regulations that would update specific elements of the existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) in order to better harmonize regulations and application forms, improve permit documentation and transparency, and provide clarifications to the existing regulations. In this effort EPA plans to address application, permitting, monitoring, and reporting requirements that have become obsolete or outdated due to programmatic, technical or other changes that have occurred over the past 35 years.

RID:  2040-AF30

Title:  Definition of “Waters of the United States” Under the Clean Water Act

Summary:  After U.S. Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos, the scope of “waters of the US” protected under all CWA programs has been an issue of considerable debate and uncertainty. The Act has a single definition for “waters of the United States.” As a result, these decisions affect the geographic scope of all CWA programs. SWANCC and Rapanos did not invalidate the current regulatory definition of “waters of the United States.” However, the decisions established important considerations for how those regulations should be interpreted, and experience implementing the regulations has identified several areas that could benefit from additional clarification through rulemaking. U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are developing a proposed rule for determining whether a water is protected by the Clean Water Act. This rule would make clear which waterbodies are protected under the Clean Water Act.

RID:  2040-AF48

Title:  Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; Analysis and Sampling Procedures

Summary:  This regulatory action would amend “Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants” at 40 CFR part 136 to approve test procedures (analytical methods) for use by testing laboratories for water monitoring. These test procedures are used to implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program unless an alternate procedure is approved by a Regional Administrator. The regulation would also revise, clarify, and correct errors and ambiguities in existing methods and the water monitoring regulations.

Final Rule Stage

RID:  2040-AC84

Title:  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Use of Sufficiently Sensitive Test Methods for Permit Applications and Reporting

Summary:  EPA is launching an effort to update specific elements of the existing NPDES regulations in order to provide clarifications related to the NPDES permit application and NPDES permit monitoring analytical detection level requirements.

RID:  2040-AE95

Title:  Criteria and Standards for Cooling Water Intake Structures

Summary:  Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Under a consent decree with environmental organizations, EPA divided the 316(b) rulemaking into three phases. All new facilities except offshore oil and gas exploration facilities were addressed in Phase I in December 2001. In July, 2004, EPA promulgated Phase II which covered large existing electric generating plants. In July 2007, EPA suspended the Phase II rule following the Second Circuit decision.  In light of the Supreme Court 2009 decision and its recognition that EPA has broad discretion in its 316(b) regulations, EPA initiated consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. EPA and the Services began informal consultation in 2012, but concluded in 2013 that formal consultation was necessary. In order to accommodate the regulatory 135-day time frame for formal consultation, plaintiffs agreed to a modification to the settlement agreement, extending final rule deadline to November 4, 2013.

RID:  2040-AF14

Title:  Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category

Summary:  EPA establishes national technology-based regulations, called effluent limitations guidelines and standards, to reduce discharges of pollutants from industries to waters of the U.S. These requirements are incorporated into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permits issued by EPA and States and through the national pretreatment program.

RID:  2040-AF21

Title:  Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Estuaries and Coastal Waters

Summary:  EPA is under a Consent Decree deadline to sign a notice of final rulemaking for numeric nutrient water quality criteria (which are elements of water quality standards) for the State of Florida’s estuaries and coastal waters by September 30, 2013. Pursuant to a judicial order, EPA’s obligation to sign a notice of final rulemaking for numeric nutrient water quality criteria for flowing waters in south Florida (including canals), tidally influence segments, and the downstream protection values for flowing waters into estuaries by September 30, 2013 has been stayed until 30 days after the court rules on EPA’s motion to modify the Consent Decree to relieve EPA of its obligation to finalize criteria for those waters.

RID:  2040-AF39

Title:  Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Streams and Downstream Protection of Lakes: Remanded Provisions

Summary:  This final rule addresses an order by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida from February 18, 2012, which remanded to the EPA two portions of its numeric water quality standards for nutrients in Florida that were promulgated and published on December 6, 2010. This rule promulgates criteria for the remanded provisions and provides additional explanation: the flowing waters criteria derived using the reference condition approach for Florida streams and for the derivation of the downstream protective values (DPVs) for unimpaired lakes. Per the terms of the Consent Decree, EPA signed for publication in the Federal Register proposed criteria on November 30, 2012.

RID:  2040-AF44

Title:  Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Point Source Category

Summary:  This action will address revisions to the effluent guidelines and standards for the construction and development (C & D) point source category 40 CFR 450. The C&D rule was issued on December 1, 2009 and became effective on February 1, 2010. This action would revise several of the non-numeric portions of the rule in response to litigation.