draft final report of the assumable waters subcommittee ...€¦ · draft final report of the...

DRAFT Final Report of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee

Submitted to the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy

and Technology (NACEPT)

May 2, 2017

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

• 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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’.”

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

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

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

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.

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

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;

• 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,

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

TheSubcommitteerecommendsthatretainedwatersandadjacentwetlands,tothegreatestextentpracticable,beidentifiedonanappropriatemaporgeographicinformationsystemforadministrativepurposes.Thiswillprovidereadilyavailableinformationtoregulatoryagencies,aswellasthegeneralpublic,applicantsandotherinterestedparties.Insupportofthisrecommendation,theSubcommitteeencouragesstates,tribes,andUSACEdistrictstousethebestavailabletechnologies,suchasLiDAR(LightDetectionandRanging)remotesensing,drones,andothertoolsduringthedevelopmentoftheMOAbetweenastateortribeandtheUSACEdistrict.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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

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

“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

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.

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.)

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: stoner.nancy@epa.gov

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.

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 jeanne.christie@aswm.org, 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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

draft final report of the assumable waters subcommittee ...€¦ · draft final report of the...

Documents

analytical chemistry division subcommittee on solubility...

subcommittee agenda -...

subcommittee lessons learned

agenda early readiness assessment subcommittee - …...

compliance & best practices subcommittee april 22, 2005...

joint subcommittee on the future competitiveness of higher...

safety subcommittee

council of the great city schools williams, nominations...

waters, waters everywhere

trinity management council subcommittee trinity river ... ·...

appropriations subcommittee on … subcommittee on education...

lci subcommittee

1 free template from 1. 2 2 naesb coordinate interchange...

testimony of joseph p. borg director, alabama … garrett,...

wholesale market subcommittee

redox classification of natural waters oxic waters - waters...

education subcommittee

subcommittee update

epidemiology subcommittee

aclu subcommittee on government operations 2014 ·...