Tag: usacoe

Army Corps Halts Coverage Under Nationwide Permits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s next for WOTUS after judge drops Trump’s 2020 NWPR rule?

Back in 2020, the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) promulgated by the Trump administration significantly reduced the coverage of the water bodies in the United States. For many environmental organizations, agricultural and specialty crop stakeholders, this decision was inadequate, and Trump found himself the target of criticism. In contrast, developers and industry stakeholders welcomed this decision with open arms.

Nevertheless, as the political set is changing, the decisions issued by the Administration undergo changes as well. Quickly after taking the service, President Biden took steps toward repealing the Trump-rule. After reviewing the actions taken by Trump Administration, the key term in the Clean Water Act (CWA) is changing for another time. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), on June 9, 2021, made a joint announcement that they intend to examine and make alterations to the WOTUS rule. Biden Administration explained that these alternations are driven by the inconsistency and certain obstacles to the new scientific and environmental policy aspirations. Additionally, Corps and EPA had sizeable concerns about the NWPR and established an unavoidable need for changes. They intended to replace the NWPR through the rulemaking process.  

Almost three months later, On August 30, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona entered an order in Pasqua Yaqui Tribe v. EPA, so now things have moved in the planned direction, and the Biden administration can take a short break. The federal court ruling made a decision to put an end to the Trump-era Clean Water Act rule. It is not specified whether the Arizona district court’s order would apply locally or nationwide.       

As Judge Rosemary Márquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled, the decision to withdraw the federal protection for streams and wetlands across the country was defective and too flawed to keep in place. The decision made by the federal court effectively puts an end to the Trump era and is a fundamental change that affects the entire nation. Consequently, the Navigable Waters Protection Rule is not currently in effect.

While the Navigable Waters Protection Rule is one of the most controversial decisions of the previous Administration, according to many, the new regulatory go in favor of both developers and farmers. At the same time, the EPA is spared from punishment by ruling out the Trump-rule, as the agency is preparing a replacement for the NWPR. 

In an email, the former EPA Office of Water attorney, Mark Ryan, said that: “The immediate effect is a nationwide vacature of the 2020 rule. There will be an appeal. Assuming the judge’s order is not stayed on appeal, then EPA will not have to go to the trouble of repealing the 2020 rule, and can move straight to drafting the new rule (which is almost certainly underway already).”

When it comes to the ruling and determining which “waters of the United States” are qualified to undergo federal protection under the Clean Water Act, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers consider implementing the 1986 regulation, which George W. Bush interpreted in the Agencies’ 2008 guidance. Legal experts explain that there is quite a big difference between restoring the Clean Water Rule and reverting to the pre-2015 status quo.  

This change makes some space and relieves EPA of unnecessary obligations. Therefore, instead of revoking the previous regulation, the EPA can focus its efforts and resources to anew the definition of “water of the U.S..” Ryan stated: “I think this relieves a bit of the pressure. Now they have one, not two big rulemakings to deal with.”

The most recent update about the EPA’s decision is that the agency currently discusses and evaluates the ruling. Timothy Carroll, the EPA spokesperson, stated that there aren’t any further comments on the final decision.  All things considered, the recent changes leave many open questions. The one most commonly asked is whether there will be a return to the 2015 Obama rule?! Do the industry stakeholders intend to appeal the vacatur order to support the NWPR? Will the Ninth Circuit limit the extent of the vacatur to Arizona? How do these decisions impact the current regulatory landscape?

GOP Lawmakers Encourage EPA to Rethink Clean Water Rule

Swamp Stomp

Volume 15, Issue 8

The Republican controlled Congress is expected to place a significant dent in President Barack Obama’s environmental agenda this year, and plans to begin with the “Waters of the U.S.” rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers. On February 4, 2015, GOP lawmakers advised top environmental officials that they ought to abandon their proposal to define what is and is not considered a body of water by federal law.

The Republican majority that now controls both the House of Representatives and the Senate demonstrated its intent to derail the project in an unusual joint hearing between the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

During the hearing, Republicans expressed indignation at what they referred to as a “power grab,” while Democrats retorted with claims that opposition to the rule is based upon a tower of misconceptions.

Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California asserted, “I’m confused because I think people are arguing against some mythical rule.” Then later when responding to the claim that the government was seeking to regulate tiny and inconsequential bodies of water, she claimed, “We don’t want to regulate a puddle. That’s ridiculous.”

The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers first proposed the rule in order to simplify and clarify the meaning of the 1972 Clean Water Act. The Act covers rivers, lakes, and year-round wetlands, but there has been longstanding confusion over whether waterways such as streams that dry up for part of the year and wetlands that are only wet during springtime are included.

The rule is of the greatest importance to farmers, developers, and other landowners, because the Clean Water Act requires the use of permits for developing or discharging into waters included under the Act. As a result, farmers and officials in many states have vigorously opposed the rule ever since it was announced in 2014.

The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers received over 1 million comments from the public about the proposal. This number reflects how widespread the issue has become, as well as the growing interest in the highly technical federal proposal.

Despite the opposition, both the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers hope to finalize the rule this spring.

Congressional Republicans, however, plan to resist the establishment of such a rule. They have asserted that they will introduce new legislation to prevent the administration from finalizing the rule. If such legislation is passed, then a potential veto showdown with the president may materialize.

The Republican Representative Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania claimed, “If this rule goes into effect, it will open the door for the federal government to regulate just about any place where water collects—and in some cases regulate land-use activities.” The rule, he said, would be an “end run around Congress—another example of overreach by this administration.”

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has been extremely vocal in defending the rule, and was called upon during the hearing to do so again. She said, “The proposal was not an attempt to expand the federal government’s jurisdiction, but instead to merely clarify it. And the proposal is just that—a proposal; federal officials are reviewing all those comments that have come in and will respond to the widespread concerns that have been expressed.”

EPA Public Comments Close on 11/14/14

Swamp Stomp

Volume 14, Issue 45

Pubic comments on the proposed “Waters of the US” regulations close on November 14, 2014.  That is if they do not extend them once again.  I very much encourage you to submit your comments before then.  Many of our readers already have done so as evidenced by the over 250,000 comments submitted to date.

You can submit your comments online by going to:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880-0001

If you do comment, I would encourage you to post your comment tracking number in the comments section of this post.  My comment comment tracking number is 1jy-8fd2-fndk.  I have posted my full comment below.

My main concern is not that the definition needs to be revamped.  Rather, it is more focused on the way it is being done.  I am very concerned that the vast majority of water resource and wetland professionals have been left out of this discussion.  The regulations have been drafted by a very select group of mostly academics including at least one foreign national from Canada.  There are virtually no professionals involved.

I do not believe that this new definition is a matter of the “right thing to do.”  It is more a matter of is it the legal thing to do.  Does the President have the right to act alone and promulgate a regulation that expands the  reach of government into private landownership?  I believe that is a matter for our representative and elected officials in Congress to take up.

What do you think?

– Marc

Environmental Protection Agency

Water Docket

Mail Code 2822T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: Comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s and U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers’ Proposed Rule to Define “Waters of the United States” Under the Clean

Water Act,

Docket ID No. EPA-HW-OW-2011-0880

To whom it may concern:

I would like to offer my comments on the proposed “Waters of the US” (2011-EPA-OW-0880) as advertised the Federal Register on April 21, 2014.

My chief comment relates to the overall stated premise of these new rules. The proposed rules are concerned with the perceived issue that the existing rules do not adequately represent the intent of Congress (ergo the people) when they passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. Currently, it is the Agencies’ stated belief that the intent of Congress was to claim jurisdictional authority over nearly every body of water in the United States including wetlands and non-wetlands.

In 2001 The Supreme Court ruled in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) that Congress did not have unlimited authority to regulate all bodies of water. This was emphasized on isolated wetlands associated with the SWANCC site. These wetland areas lacked the required commerce connection to downstream waters. The Clean Water Act is limited in jurisdiction to only those waters that have a potential to affect interstate or international commerce. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution limits the role of the Federal government in this matter to only those areas that could affect commerce.

The proposed rules seem to ignore the SWANCC ruling of the Supreme Court. In fact, it is the stated intention of this rule to reverse the Courts decision.

Under the Constitution, it is the role of the executive branch to administer the laws that are passed by Congress. It is acknowledged that many aspects of the Clean Water Act are purposely left to the discretion of the executive branch to interpret these laws by promulgating regulations such as this proposed rule. However, the Executive branch does not have the authority to expand the regulations beyond what the laws allows. Similarly, it is the role of the Judicial Branch to reign in Congress and the President should they pass a law that is beyond what the Constitution allows as was done with the SWANCC case.

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) report referenced in the proposed rule states that there is a minimal expansion of Federal jurisdiction over what is currently called “Waters of the US”. The report estimates that the expansion is only about 3%. While this may seem small on a relative scale it represents a land area roughly the size of the State of Arizona. This is in fact a rather large expansion of the Federal Governments reach into private land ownership. I am very concerned with the concept that the Executive Branch can expand the Federal Governments land holdings without the consent of the other two branches of government and the people.

Much of the proposed rule is based upon a misinterpretation of Supreme Court Justice Kennedy’s lone opinion in the 2006 John A. Rapanos, et ux., et al., Petitioners v. United States; June Carabell, et al., Petitioners v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al. case. The concept of significant nexus is central to his opinion. However the proposed rule offers no further insight into what constitutes “significant.”

The proposed rule does by way of reference to the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Connectivity Report delve into the concept of “nexus.” The SAB report ostensibly argues that all bodies of water are connected to all other bodies of water. At a very fundamental level this is true. However, the SAB report does not address the concept of which of these connections or nexus are “significant” as described by Justice Kennedy. If it is assume that all waters are connected and that there is no procedure to distinguish these connections as significant, then are we to assume that all connected water bodies are considered ““Waters of the US?”

It is clear in the opinions of the Supreme Court Justices that there is a difference between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional waters. What is not clear, and in fact these proposed regulations make it much less clear, what exactly is a ““Waters of the US.”

Furthermore, I draw your attention to the 199 additional documents posted to the Regulation.gov docket folder in the last two weeks. They in fact have not been posted and the public is greeted with this 12 page notice:

Additional Supporting Materials for Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880

EPA will be adding the following documents to the docket. Copyrighted material is publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202–566–1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202–566–2426.

To what purpose do these documents serve? Why at this juncture are the Agencies concerned with copyright issues? It does beg the question of whether these copyright issue were addressed in the SAB report. Perhaps this should be disclosed.

How does this serve the public trust when the vast majority of these documents are only available by taking a trip to Washington, D.C. If the agencies feel that these documents are necessary to support their case for further regulations, then they should resolve the stated copyright concerns and publish them on the website in their entirety.   Otherwise these 199 documents should be removed from the docket.

I disagree that there is a regulatory need to update the definition of what is a waters of the United States. What is needed and was voiced by Justice Alito in the Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency case is for Congress to more narrowly define what is meant by a “Waters of the US” by amending the Clean Water Act.   This would afford the public through its elected representatives in Congress to express its concerns and support for what should be regulated as a “Waters of the US” and what should not. This current proposed regulation dictates to the public what is and is not jurisdictional without the consent of the governed. With over a quarter- million public comments already submitted, it is clear that this is a matter for the people to decide, not a single branch of the government.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Marc Seelinger, PWS

Japanese Honeysuckle—Effects on Wetland Delineations in AGCP and EMP Regions

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 14, Issue 41

In 1988 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published the National Wetland Plant List (1988 NWPL), which not only listed all the plants common to wetlands in each region, but also classified them based on how frequently they occurred in wetlands under natural conditions. This 1988 listing classified Lonicera japonica, commonly known as the Japanese Honeysuckle, as a Facultative-minus (FAC-) species. Facultative (FAC) species generally have a similar likelihood of occurring in both wetlands and non-wetlands; the (+) and (–) modifiers indicate species that have a higher probability of occurring in one habitat over the other—the (+) modifier indicates species more likely to appear in wetlands, and the (–) modifier is given to species less likely to occur in wetlands. Therefore, the Japanese Honeysuckle was classified as a species that may appear in wetlands, but was unlikely to do so. As a result, it became extensive within the transitional zone between wetland and non-wetland habitats.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), however, updated the list in 2012. The 2012 NWPL changed the specification of the Japanese Honeysuckle in the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont (EMP) Region and in the Atlantic Gulf Coastal Plain (AGCP) Region from FAC- to FAC. This shift meant that the Japanese Honeysuckle was then classified as a wetland plant instead of a non-wetland plant.

Furthermore, this change in classification had the possibility of changing the delineation of wetlands in the EMP and AGCP regions. When the Japanese Honeysuckle occurred as a dominant species in a wetland area, there was a strong possibility of a positive dominance test for hydrophytic, or wetland, vegetation, which may have resulted in the expansion of the wetland’s boundaries.

The 2014 NWPL once again saw a change in the classification of the Japanese Honeysuckle. The Japanese Honeysuckle shifted from FAC to Facultative-Upland (FACU) in the AGCP Region. FACU species sometimes occur in wetlands—less frequently than FAC-, however—but generally occur in non-wetland habitats. Therefore, the Japanese Honeysuckle is no longer categorized as a wetland plant in the AGCP Region. Subsequently, this may result in the reduction of wetland boundaries in that region.

The Japanese Honeysuckle maintained its FAC classification in the EMP Region for a longer time than in the AGCP Region, however, its classification was altered earlier this year. March 31, 2014 saw the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) submit a request that the classification of the Japanese Honeysuckle be changed from FAC to FACU in the EMP region. The COE responded on May 22 by listing the Japanese Honeysuckle on their website as FACU, effective immediately. The change in classification will be reflected on the 2015 NWPL, but the 2014 NWPL will remain unaltered. Now that the Japanese Honeysuckle is considered a non-wetland plant in the EMP Region, wetland delineations have the possibility of changing as the boundaries of wetlands may decrease.

The COE publishes changes to species classifications on their website, however, provides no formal public notification when revisions are made. Until such a process is implemented, the only way of finding out about classification changes is to periodically check the COE website.

USACOE suspending the existing general permits

Swamp Stomp

Volume 13, Issue 35

I bet that got your attention. I guess I should note that this is limited to the New England district. That is still a pretty big area and a very large population affected.

The following is a press release from the Corps. The important date is this Wednesday, as in tomorrow. Comments are due then.

Nationwide B

CONCORD, Mass. – The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District has proposed suspending the existing general permits in each of the six New England states and issuing the New England General Permit (NE GP) to authorize certain activities that require Department of Army permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act.

The Corps has extended the public comment period to Aug. 28, 2013. Here is a link to the proposal: http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Portals/74/docs/regulatory/StateGeneralPermits/NEGP/NEGP-PN.pdf. The original notice was issued on June 13, 2013 with a 45-day comment period. The comment extension is to allow inviduals and groups more time to submit their comments.

The NE GP would authorize activities in waters of the U.S. within the boundaries of and/or off the coasts of the six New England states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine), including activities occurring within the boundaries of Indian tribal lands that have no more than minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment.

When GPs were first used in New England in the 1990s, they provided the Corps with significant efficiency, allowing a more streamlined review of minor projects under Section 10 and Section 404. At that time, it made sense to have a separate GP in each state as there were vast differences in state programs and priorities. Over time, however, both the Corps Regulatory program and state wetland programs have evolved. It now makes sense to develop a regional general permit that will continue to maintain a high level of environmental protection while allowing the Corps to streamline processes in New England, reduce regulatory redundancy, ensure consistent compliance with national policy, and alleviate a significant administrative burden for its staff, which currently must reissue each of the six state GPs every five years.

This also would facilitate permit review by partner tribal nations and agencies, be more user-friendly for the regulated public, especially those working in multiple states, and encourage consistency in wetlands and waterway regulation in New England while allowing for flexibility in establishing special conditions, thresholds, and processes that are important to individual states.

The proposed NE GP will not result in significant substantive changes to how activities in waters of the U.S. are regulated in the New England states. The NE GP organizes eligible work into activity-specific categories. This is intended to satisfy the requirements of Section 404(e) of the Clean Water Act, which allows the Corps to issue general permits for activities that are similar in nature and will cause only minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects. Identifying specific activities will allow the Corps to adequately assess cumulative impacts of permitted activities, as well as fully assess impacts on threatened and endangered species.

General Permits are encouraged under the Clean Water Act as a way to streamline state and Federal regulatory programs. The District has had success with streamlining these programs with the use of GPs in New England (in Connecticut since 1990, in Maine since 1983, in Massachusetts since 1993, in New Hampshire since 1992, in Rhode Island since 1997, and in Vermont since 1997).

The public notice with the proposed New England General Permit (NAE 2013-00714) can be reviewed at

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Portals/74/docs/regulatory/StateGeneralPermits/NEGP/NEGP-PN.pdf.

Public comments on this proposal should be submitted in writing by Aug. 28, 2013 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Regulatory Division (ATTN: Greg Penta), 696 Virginia Road, Concord, MA 01742-2751. Additional information is available from Greg Penta at 978-318-8862 or toll free 800-343-4789 or 800-362-4367 (if calling in Massachusetts) or by email to gregory.r.penta@usace.army.mil. Those who are interested in attending a question and answer session on this topic should contact Greg Penta.