Earlier this week, following a Supreme Court ruling, the EPA announced a revised definition for WOTUS, which has major implications for landowners, environmentalists, and industry stakeholders like us. Two critical changes were highlighted:
The requirement that wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act must have a continuous surface connection to navigable waterways.
The removal of the highly debated "significant nexus" test.
A new rule from the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Called "Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point," the new rule prevents municipal sewage treatment plants from process shale wastewater.
Radical Enviro Groups' Notice of Intent to Sue the EPA to Force Regulation of...Marcellus Drilling News
Another "sue and settle" lawsuit that attempts to force the federal Environmental Protection Agency to illegally regulate oil and gas drilling--which Constitutionally is left up to the individual states. It is a sleazy way to stop fracking and drilling for what these groups consider to be "dirty" fossil fuels.
Revised regulations from the Dept. of Interiori's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that will govern how and when fracking happens on the 700 million acres of federally owned land, mostly in the Western United States. The BLM oversees a huge amount of land with some 92,000 oil and gas wells on its property. The new rules tighten reporting of fracking chemicals and the way cement is used to protect holes drilled to retrieve oil and gas.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management New Rules for Fracking on Federally-Owned LandsMarcellus Drilling News
Newly proposed rules, released on May 4 by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management that will govern hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian-owned lands in the U.S. The new rules require all chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing to be publically disclosed, rules for how wells are cased, and rules requiring drillers to get plans pre-approved for wastewater disposal.
Federal Register - Oct 22, 2015 - EPA 40 CFR Part 98 - Greenhouse Gas Reporti...Marcellus Drilling News
The EPA is finalizing revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to add new reporting requirements for greenhouse gas emissions sources in the petroleum and natural gas industry. The revisions add calculation and reporting methods for emissions from oil wells with hydraulic fracturing, natural gas gathering and boosting facilities, and blowdowns of natural gas transmission pipelines between compressor stations. The revisions also require reporting of well identification numbers. The EPA is also finalizing confidentiality determinations for new data elements required in the revisions. The final rule is effective January 1, 2016.
The document is a letter from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) to the U.S. Government Accountability Office providing comments on a protest filed regarding an Air Force procurement. The SBA argues that the Air Force failed to comply with its legal obligation to set aside the procurement for small businesses. The SBA believes its interpretation of the Small Business Act, which does not contain geographic restrictions, should be given deference over the position of the Air Force. Prior GAO decisions have found the SBA's views entitled to deference in such matters.
On August 3, 2015, President Obama and EPA announced the Clean Power Plan – a historic and important step in reducing carbon pollution from power plants that takes real action on climate change. Shaped by years of unprecedented outreach and public engagement, the final Clean Power Plan is fair, flexible and designed to strengthen the fast-growing trend toward cleaner and lower-polluting American energy. This plan will cause electricity rates to spike higher than they have ever been and will lead to the elimination of Constitutional freedoms in the United States. It must be dumped.
A new rule from the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Called "Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point," the new rule prevents municipal sewage treatment plants from process shale wastewater.
Radical Enviro Groups' Notice of Intent to Sue the EPA to Force Regulation of...Marcellus Drilling News
Another "sue and settle" lawsuit that attempts to force the federal Environmental Protection Agency to illegally regulate oil and gas drilling--which Constitutionally is left up to the individual states. It is a sleazy way to stop fracking and drilling for what these groups consider to be "dirty" fossil fuels.
Revised regulations from the Dept. of Interiori's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that will govern how and when fracking happens on the 700 million acres of federally owned land, mostly in the Western United States. The BLM oversees a huge amount of land with some 92,000 oil and gas wells on its property. The new rules tighten reporting of fracking chemicals and the way cement is used to protect holes drilled to retrieve oil and gas.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management New Rules for Fracking on Federally-Owned LandsMarcellus Drilling News
Newly proposed rules, released on May 4 by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management that will govern hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian-owned lands in the U.S. The new rules require all chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing to be publically disclosed, rules for how wells are cased, and rules requiring drillers to get plans pre-approved for wastewater disposal.
Federal Register - Oct 22, 2015 - EPA 40 CFR Part 98 - Greenhouse Gas Reporti...Marcellus Drilling News
The EPA is finalizing revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to add new reporting requirements for greenhouse gas emissions sources in the petroleum and natural gas industry. The revisions add calculation and reporting methods for emissions from oil wells with hydraulic fracturing, natural gas gathering and boosting facilities, and blowdowns of natural gas transmission pipelines between compressor stations. The revisions also require reporting of well identification numbers. The EPA is also finalizing confidentiality determinations for new data elements required in the revisions. The final rule is effective January 1, 2016.
The document is a letter from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) to the U.S. Government Accountability Office providing comments on a protest filed regarding an Air Force procurement. The SBA argues that the Air Force failed to comply with its legal obligation to set aside the procurement for small businesses. The SBA believes its interpretation of the Small Business Act, which does not contain geographic restrictions, should be given deference over the position of the Air Force. Prior GAO decisions have found the SBA's views entitled to deference in such matters.
On August 3, 2015, President Obama and EPA announced the Clean Power Plan – a historic and important step in reducing carbon pollution from power plants that takes real action on climate change. Shaped by years of unprecedented outreach and public engagement, the final Clean Power Plan is fair, flexible and designed to strengthen the fast-growing trend toward cleaner and lower-polluting American energy. This plan will cause electricity rates to spike higher than they have ever been and will lead to the elimination of Constitutional freedoms in the United States. It must be dumped.
A decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court that does just a little bit of trim work to the EPA's massive power grab and attempts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions (the stuff you breathe out with every breath). The Supreme Court said the EPA can't simply rewrite the 2007 law passed by Congress, as they had tried to do. It also said the EPA can still regulate large sources of CO2, like electric generating power plants--but it can't regulate smaller emitters like shopping centers. A mixed bag.
The Obama Administration filed a notice of appeal challenging a recent federal court decision that struck down the Bureau of Land Management's hydraulic fracturing regulation. The court found that Congress had unambiguously expressed its intent to exclude hydraulic fracturing from federal regulation in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. However, the Administration's appeal introduces uncertainty and could signal an attempt to regulate fracturing before the presidential election. It may also spur increased legislative efforts by opponents of fracturing to authorize regulation.
This document is a complaint filed by the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its Administrator in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. ARTBA is challenging EPA's denial of two rulemaking petitions submitted by ARTBA regarding the preemptive scope of the Clean Air Act regarding emissions from nonroad vehicles and engines. ARTBA seeks declaratory and injunctive relief requiring EPA to revise its rules and policies to conform with ARTBA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act.
The USA hydraulic fracturing (fracking) regulations handbook, 2012benturner06
This document provides a summary of regulations for hydraulic fracturing in the United States at both the federal and state levels. It discusses the key regulatory bodies and laws governing fracking for each of 11 states where significant fracking activity is occurring. For each state, it outlines the relevant regulatory agency and describes the rules and policies they have implemented related to environmental protection and public health. The report was published in 2013 by GlobalData and is intended to help businesses understand the regulatory landscape for fracking across different US states.
The Congress has recessed for Thanksgiving and is considering whether to pass a five-year Farm Bill or one-year extension during the lame duck session. The Senate Agriculture Committee leadership is also in flux as Senator Cochran reaches out to replace Senator Roberts as Ranking Member. Additionally, the EPA denied waivers to the Renewable Fuel Standard despite recognizing economic hardships caused by drought.
This document summarizes the key aspects of the Bureau of Land Management's final rule regarding hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands:
1) It improves public disclosure of fracturing operations and chemicals used while protecting trade secrets. Operators must disclose details to BLM and the public, using FracFocus.
2) It strengthens well construction standards to ensure integrity and protect water resources, requiring cement evaluation and remediation if needed.
3) It provides for interim storage of recovered fluids in closed tanks to contain them, with limited exceptions.
4) It aims to increase oversight and transparency without undue delays or costs for operators.
Iroquois Gas Transmission Proposed Rate Settlement Agreement to Charge Custom...Marcellus Drilling News
The document summarizes a settlement agreement between Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. and other participants to resolve a rate case. The settlement agreement establishes reduced rates for Iroquois over three years, provides rate stability through August 2020, and resolves all issues in the proceeding. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves the settlement as fair and reasonable.
FERC DEIS for Mountain Valley Project and Equitrans Expansion ProjectMarcellus Drilling News
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for two pipeline projects located mainly in Virginia. The projects will flow an additional 2 billion cubic feet per day of Marcellus/Utica shale gas from West Virginia into Virginia and from there to other points in the southeast U.S. The DEIS gives a preliminary thumbs up to the projects.
On June 21, 2016, United States District Judge Scott Skavdahl granted BakerHostetler’s petition for review of final agency action and declared the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) hydraulic fracturing rule unlawful. The court’s judgment sets aside BLM’s hydraulic fracturing rule.
Howard Slobodin: Agency Rulemaking Update, TWCA Fall Conference 2015TWCA
The document summarizes updates on pending and proposed rulemakings from TCEQ and TWDB. For TCEQ, rules are proposed that would limit who can file petitions for rulemaking, amend public comment processes, and establish standards for seawater desalination projects. For TWDB, proposed rules would expand the definition of "interregional conflicts" and consider shifting some county boundaries between regional water planning areas.
1. The document is a letter from the EPA General Counsel responding to questions from the Chairman of a House subcommittee regarding the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.
2. The EPA argues that while the Clean Air Act does not expressly mention regulating greenhouse gases, the Act gives the EPA broad authority to regulate air pollutants if they are reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The absence of explicit statutory authority does not preclude EPA action.
3. The EPA also asserts that provisions mentioning carbon dioxide and global warming do not restrict the EPA's regulatory authority provided by other parts of the Clean Air Act. The EPA believes it has authority to regulate greenhouse gases under
This document contains an op-ed by Mario Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute arguing that the EPA has no authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Lewis summarizes arguments made by state attorneys general that the CAA requires EPA to regulate CO2, and rebuts each point. He argues definitions of "air pollutant" do not grant regulatory authority, and that CO2 is mentioned in non-regulatory sections of the CAA with warnings not to infer additional regulation. The document concludes the attorneys general are engaged in a transparent power grab to expand their prosecutorial reach.
The final disposition of the Act 13 law that was challenged by seven selfish PA towns, an anti-drilling doctor and a wacko environmental group. The PA Supreme Court couldn't be bothered deciding these points and sent it back to a lower court for a final decision. The Commonwealth Court found that the Public Utility Commission could not evaluate a town's zoning ordinances to be sure they don't violate state standards. It also found the language in Act 13 limiting a doctor from making public the specific formulas used by drillers in their fracking fluids. There were a few other notable decisions as well.
This document is a master's thesis submitted by Sabrina Dawn Trask to American Public University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Science degree. The thesis provides a review of the EPA's proposed rule to clarify the definition of "waters of the United States" and analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed rule on oil and gas development. The thesis includes a literature review on the evolution and key definitions of the Clean Water Act, relevant Supreme Court decisions, an overview of the proposed rule, and a methodology section describing three case studies analyzing potential permitting needs under the current and proposed definitions.
FERC Order Denying Rehearing Requested by NY AG Schneiderman re Constitution ...Marcellus Drilling News
New York Attorney General Eric Scheiderman requested the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rehear and investigate the matter of tree clearing in NY along the proposed path of the Constitution Pipeline (still not built). Schneiderman alleged the Constitution should have prevented landowners from clearing trees on their own property ahead of the pipeline's approval by Lord Cuomo. FERC told Schneiderman to get lost--no rehearing of the matter.
This document summarizes the key compliance challenges with California's Construction General Permit. It discusses the background and requirements of the permit, including filing permit documents, developing stormwater pollution prevention plans, and electronic reporting. It outlines the state and federal regulatory frameworks for water quality permits. It also describes enforcement procedures such as inspections, notices of violation, and penalties. Overall, the document provides an overview of the construction stormwater permit requirements and compliance processes in California.
Rule Aliens; Legal Assistance Restrictions Legal Assistance To Citizens Of Mi...legalservices
This document amends regulations regarding the eligibility of citizens from the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Republic of Palau to receive legal aid services. It revises definitions related to compost and fertilizer made from recovered organic materials. It also details that the changes to eligibility regulations will take effect on October 15, 2007.
The document is a letter from 12 industry organizations to the EPA Acting Administrator regarding a notice from Earthjustice to file suit over EPA's review of national ambient air quality standards for ozone. The organizations represent thousands of stakeholders that could be impacted by revisions to the ozone standards. They request to be involved in any discussions on the timeline for completing EPA's review in order to ensure transparency and that EPA has adequate time to consider complex scientific data and public comments. They argue that past settlements have led to rushed rulemakings undermining EPA decision making.
The 37-page report from the Congressional Research Service takes a close look at federal legislation and its governance of/relationship to regulation of hydraulic fracturing. Specifically, the report looks at the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, along with a number of other federal laws. The report also takes a look at state preemption of local zoning regulations when it comes to oil and gas drilling--a hot legal issue in many states, with pending court cases in Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York.
This document summarizes North Carolina statutes regarding agency rulemaking. It outlines:
1) Requirements for rule adoption including compliance with rulemaking procedures and restrictions on content of rules.
2) Principles agencies must follow in rule development including reducing compliance burdens, ensuring rules are reasonably necessary, and considering costs and benefits.
3) Requirements for rulemaking including annual rule reviews, coordination between overlapping agencies, and fiscal analysis.
4) Limitations on certain environmental rules prohibiting standards more restrictive than federal law, with exceptions.
5) Procedures for the public to petition agencies to adopt rules.
Winter Springs Sediment Removal: A Major Step ForwardVictoriaColangelo
Our city has identified six locations within five pivotal ponds where sediment has impeded stormwater runoff, reducing the hydraulic capacity of these ponds. To tackle this, we are seeking qualified vendors who will help restore the functionality of our stormwater management infrastructure. This project is essential for maintaining our commitment to environmental stewardship and community safety.
A decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court that does just a little bit of trim work to the EPA's massive power grab and attempts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions (the stuff you breathe out with every breath). The Supreme Court said the EPA can't simply rewrite the 2007 law passed by Congress, as they had tried to do. It also said the EPA can still regulate large sources of CO2, like electric generating power plants--but it can't regulate smaller emitters like shopping centers. A mixed bag.
The Obama Administration filed a notice of appeal challenging a recent federal court decision that struck down the Bureau of Land Management's hydraulic fracturing regulation. The court found that Congress had unambiguously expressed its intent to exclude hydraulic fracturing from federal regulation in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. However, the Administration's appeal introduces uncertainty and could signal an attempt to regulate fracturing before the presidential election. It may also spur increased legislative efforts by opponents of fracturing to authorize regulation.
This document is a complaint filed by the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its Administrator in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. ARTBA is challenging EPA's denial of two rulemaking petitions submitted by ARTBA regarding the preemptive scope of the Clean Air Act regarding emissions from nonroad vehicles and engines. ARTBA seeks declaratory and injunctive relief requiring EPA to revise its rules and policies to conform with ARTBA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act.
The USA hydraulic fracturing (fracking) regulations handbook, 2012benturner06
This document provides a summary of regulations for hydraulic fracturing in the United States at both the federal and state levels. It discusses the key regulatory bodies and laws governing fracking for each of 11 states where significant fracking activity is occurring. For each state, it outlines the relevant regulatory agency and describes the rules and policies they have implemented related to environmental protection and public health. The report was published in 2013 by GlobalData and is intended to help businesses understand the regulatory landscape for fracking across different US states.
The Congress has recessed for Thanksgiving and is considering whether to pass a five-year Farm Bill or one-year extension during the lame duck session. The Senate Agriculture Committee leadership is also in flux as Senator Cochran reaches out to replace Senator Roberts as Ranking Member. Additionally, the EPA denied waivers to the Renewable Fuel Standard despite recognizing economic hardships caused by drought.
This document summarizes the key aspects of the Bureau of Land Management's final rule regarding hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands:
1) It improves public disclosure of fracturing operations and chemicals used while protecting trade secrets. Operators must disclose details to BLM and the public, using FracFocus.
2) It strengthens well construction standards to ensure integrity and protect water resources, requiring cement evaluation and remediation if needed.
3) It provides for interim storage of recovered fluids in closed tanks to contain them, with limited exceptions.
4) It aims to increase oversight and transparency without undue delays or costs for operators.
Iroquois Gas Transmission Proposed Rate Settlement Agreement to Charge Custom...Marcellus Drilling News
The document summarizes a settlement agreement between Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. and other participants to resolve a rate case. The settlement agreement establishes reduced rates for Iroquois over three years, provides rate stability through August 2020, and resolves all issues in the proceeding. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves the settlement as fair and reasonable.
FERC DEIS for Mountain Valley Project and Equitrans Expansion ProjectMarcellus Drilling News
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for two pipeline projects located mainly in Virginia. The projects will flow an additional 2 billion cubic feet per day of Marcellus/Utica shale gas from West Virginia into Virginia and from there to other points in the southeast U.S. The DEIS gives a preliminary thumbs up to the projects.
On June 21, 2016, United States District Judge Scott Skavdahl granted BakerHostetler’s petition for review of final agency action and declared the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) hydraulic fracturing rule unlawful. The court’s judgment sets aside BLM’s hydraulic fracturing rule.
Howard Slobodin: Agency Rulemaking Update, TWCA Fall Conference 2015TWCA
The document summarizes updates on pending and proposed rulemakings from TCEQ and TWDB. For TCEQ, rules are proposed that would limit who can file petitions for rulemaking, amend public comment processes, and establish standards for seawater desalination projects. For TWDB, proposed rules would expand the definition of "interregional conflicts" and consider shifting some county boundaries between regional water planning areas.
1. The document is a letter from the EPA General Counsel responding to questions from the Chairman of a House subcommittee regarding the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.
2. The EPA argues that while the Clean Air Act does not expressly mention regulating greenhouse gases, the Act gives the EPA broad authority to regulate air pollutants if they are reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The absence of explicit statutory authority does not preclude EPA action.
3. The EPA also asserts that provisions mentioning carbon dioxide and global warming do not restrict the EPA's regulatory authority provided by other parts of the Clean Air Act. The EPA believes it has authority to regulate greenhouse gases under
This document contains an op-ed by Mario Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute arguing that the EPA has no authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Lewis summarizes arguments made by state attorneys general that the CAA requires EPA to regulate CO2, and rebuts each point. He argues definitions of "air pollutant" do not grant regulatory authority, and that CO2 is mentioned in non-regulatory sections of the CAA with warnings not to infer additional regulation. The document concludes the attorneys general are engaged in a transparent power grab to expand their prosecutorial reach.
The final disposition of the Act 13 law that was challenged by seven selfish PA towns, an anti-drilling doctor and a wacko environmental group. The PA Supreme Court couldn't be bothered deciding these points and sent it back to a lower court for a final decision. The Commonwealth Court found that the Public Utility Commission could not evaluate a town's zoning ordinances to be sure they don't violate state standards. It also found the language in Act 13 limiting a doctor from making public the specific formulas used by drillers in their fracking fluids. There were a few other notable decisions as well.
This document is a master's thesis submitted by Sabrina Dawn Trask to American Public University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Science degree. The thesis provides a review of the EPA's proposed rule to clarify the definition of "waters of the United States" and analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed rule on oil and gas development. The thesis includes a literature review on the evolution and key definitions of the Clean Water Act, relevant Supreme Court decisions, an overview of the proposed rule, and a methodology section describing three case studies analyzing potential permitting needs under the current and proposed definitions.
FERC Order Denying Rehearing Requested by NY AG Schneiderman re Constitution ...Marcellus Drilling News
New York Attorney General Eric Scheiderman requested the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rehear and investigate the matter of tree clearing in NY along the proposed path of the Constitution Pipeline (still not built). Schneiderman alleged the Constitution should have prevented landowners from clearing trees on their own property ahead of the pipeline's approval by Lord Cuomo. FERC told Schneiderman to get lost--no rehearing of the matter.
This document summarizes the key compliance challenges with California's Construction General Permit. It discusses the background and requirements of the permit, including filing permit documents, developing stormwater pollution prevention plans, and electronic reporting. It outlines the state and federal regulatory frameworks for water quality permits. It also describes enforcement procedures such as inspections, notices of violation, and penalties. Overall, the document provides an overview of the construction stormwater permit requirements and compliance processes in California.
Rule Aliens; Legal Assistance Restrictions Legal Assistance To Citizens Of Mi...legalservices
This document amends regulations regarding the eligibility of citizens from the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Republic of Palau to receive legal aid services. It revises definitions related to compost and fertilizer made from recovered organic materials. It also details that the changes to eligibility regulations will take effect on October 15, 2007.
The document is a letter from 12 industry organizations to the EPA Acting Administrator regarding a notice from Earthjustice to file suit over EPA's review of national ambient air quality standards for ozone. The organizations represent thousands of stakeholders that could be impacted by revisions to the ozone standards. They request to be involved in any discussions on the timeline for completing EPA's review in order to ensure transparency and that EPA has adequate time to consider complex scientific data and public comments. They argue that past settlements have led to rushed rulemakings undermining EPA decision making.
The 37-page report from the Congressional Research Service takes a close look at federal legislation and its governance of/relationship to regulation of hydraulic fracturing. Specifically, the report looks at the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, along with a number of other federal laws. The report also takes a look at state preemption of local zoning regulations when it comes to oil and gas drilling--a hot legal issue in many states, with pending court cases in Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York.
This document summarizes North Carolina statutes regarding agency rulemaking. It outlines:
1) Requirements for rule adoption including compliance with rulemaking procedures and restrictions on content of rules.
2) Principles agencies must follow in rule development including reducing compliance burdens, ensuring rules are reasonably necessary, and considering costs and benefits.
3) Requirements for rulemaking including annual rule reviews, coordination between overlapping agencies, and fiscal analysis.
4) Limitations on certain environmental rules prohibiting standards more restrictive than federal law, with exceptions.
5) Procedures for the public to petition agencies to adopt rules.
Similar to Pre-publication Version of the Final Rule - Amendments to the Revised Definition of Waters of the United States.pdf (20)
Winter Springs Sediment Removal: A Major Step ForwardVictoriaColangelo
Our city has identified six locations within five pivotal ponds where sediment has impeded stormwater runoff, reducing the hydraulic capacity of these ponds. To tackle this, we are seeking qualified vendors who will help restore the functionality of our stormwater management infrastructure. This project is essential for maintaining our commitment to environmental stewardship and community safety.
Evolving Visions for the Winter Springs Golf Course Redevelopment: A Retrospe...VictoriaColangelo
This slide deck presents a comprehensive overview of the various redevelopment plans proposed for the old Winter Springs Golf Course site since 2012, culminating in the most recent proposals by Pulte Homes. Despite Pulte Homes' withdrawal due to community feedback, the discussion continues on the future of this significant parcel. Highlighting six different developmental scenarios, we delve into the trade-offs between conservation efforts and urban development, aiming to foster a balanced dialogue within the community. This presentation is designed to inform residents about past proposals, current standings, and the potential implications for local infrastructure, including water plants, and seeks community input on the path forward.
2023 Winter Springs Water and Wastewater Rate Study PresentationVictoriaColangelo
This document presents a comprehensive study on water and wastewater rates for Winter Springs, covering the scope of projects, historical trends, comparisons with surrounding municipalities, and leveraging additional funding sources. It includes detailed forecasts, assumptions, capital improvement program funding, existing and proposed rate adjustments, monthly utility bill projections, revenue sufficiency analysis, and comparisons of local rates. The study concludes with findings and recommendations for rate adjustments over the next five fiscal years to ensure revenue sufficiency and account for capital improvement needs and inflationary impacts.
Central Winds Park Pickleball Instructional Programs AgreementVictoriaColangelo
The agreement document outlines the partnership between the City of Winter Springs, Florida, and The Pickleball Pair LLC for the provision of pickleball instructional programs at Central Winds Park. It details the services to be offered, including clinics, private lessons, youth camps, and tournaments, specifying terms related to program execution, facility usage, compensation, and operational guidelines aimed at enhancing the recreational offerings to the community.
In our continuous journey toward transparency and accountability, it's crucial to address not just our achievements but also the challenges we face. The latest audited financial statements for FY22 have brought to light certain areas where our accounting practices must be improved. These issues, while concerning, provide us with a clear roadmap for enhancing our financial stewardship.
Correcting these practices is my immediate priority. We are implementing rigorous measures to ensure our accounting not only meets but exceeds the standards expected by our community and state auditors. This includes closer oversight, enhanced training for our finance team, and engaging with external experts to guide our improvement efforts.
Transparency is the cornerstone of trust, and as your Commissioner, I am dedicated to earning and maintaining that trust. I invite you to engage with us as we make these necessary adjustments, ensuring a stronger, more financially secure future for Winter Springs.
City of Winter Springs Pickleball Update Presentation February 11, 2024VictoriaColangelo
The document provides an update on the winter springs pickleball courts including approved funding amounts totaling $3.15 million and next steps. A Pro, Glen White from Everything Racket Sports, LLC, was selected in September 2023 and the city is waiting on a final contract. Fees for private/group lessons, clinics, camps and court reservations are outlined for residents and non-residents.
This document contains the independent auditor's report and financial statements for the City of Winter Springs, Florida for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2022. The independent auditor issued unmodified opinions on the financial statements, stating that the financial statements present fairly the financial position of the governmental activities, business activities, major funds, and aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of September 30, 2022. The financial statements include a statement of net position, statement of activities, balance sheet, statement of revenues and expenditures, budget to actual comparisons, notes to the financial statements, and other required supplementary information.
The document, dated January 17, 2024, is an official enforcement notice from the Joint Legislative Auditing Committee, addressed to several Florida municipalities including Winter Springs. It outlines non-compliance with financial reporting requirements and notifies of impending state actions, including withholding of funds. The notice emphasizes the need for the listed municipalities to submit the required financial reports to avoid the withholding of funds starting February 17, 2024.
New Legislation Enhances Flexibility in Mitigation Banking - SB 1646 OverviewVictoriaColangelo
Discover the latest in mitigation banking with SB 1646, filed on January 5, 2024. This pivotal bill introduces new measures for using mitigation credits outside the basin when in-basin credits are unavailable.
2024 Florida Legislative Preview: Key Bills Impacting Local GovernmentsVictoriaColangelo
As Florida's legislative machine ramps up for the 2024 session, local governments are closely watching several pivotal bills that could reshape state support and regulatory landscapes. From the much-discussed residential building permit bill, HB 267, to the debut of SB 280 concerning vacation rentals, the stakes are high for municipal leaders. This week's legislative whirlwind highlights the intricate dance of policy-making, with committees from the House and Senate actively dissecting issues ranging from flood risk management to the pervasive environmental concerns of PFAS. Moreover, a substantial fiscal spotlight shines on the Department of Environmental Protection's proposed budget, signaling a hefty investment in Florida’s environmental fortitude. With the legislature's wheels in motion, our blog delves into the specifics of each bill and committee discussion, unpacking the implications for local governance and statewide environmental strategies. Stay tuned for our detailed analysis and continuous updates on these bills' journeys through the legislative process.
Design and Construction Services for the East & West Wastewater Treatment Fac...VictoriaColangelo
The document is a presentation titled "Design and Construction Services for the East & West Wastewater Treatment Facilities" by the City of Winter Springs, dated December 11, 2023. It outlines the scope of services, which includes detailed design development, permitting assistance, contractor selection, coordination, funding support, public involvement, and various construction-related services. The presentation emphasizes building for current needs while planning for future demands. It also discusses the phased and overlapped approach to the schedule, engineering cost summary, and the importance of efficient and reliable wastewater facilities.
Winter Springs 2023 Water and Wastewater Rate StudyVictoriaColangelo
The City requested a comprehensive review of the sufficiency of water, sewer, and reclaimed water user rates to provide revenue for operations and capital improvements. As the City is engaging in a significant sewer capital upgrade and reinvestment program over the next few years which will require a focus on obtaining funding for the projects and setting the rates to support the capital program and potential new debt service payments. Raftelis Financial Consultants conducted the study with close support and cooperation by the City’s staff and engineering consultants. This presentation will discuss the development of the study, results and recommendations to the City and Commission.
This incident could be the consequence of various factors such as potential design shortcomings, construction defects, or maintenance lapses. The decision to allocate approximately $180,000 to Pegasus Engineering for a comprehensive evaluation of the damages and to discern the essential repairs is a necessary step. We anticipate insightful findings that will clarify the intricacies of the berm's failure and provide guidance on avoiding similar future incidents.
This operational audit of the City of Winter Springs (City) focused on selected City processes and
administrative activities. Our audit disclosed the following:
Finding 1: The City continues to incur fines and penalties for wastewater treatment violations.
Finding 2: The City should improve its water utility contract monitoring processes.
Finding 3: The City’s use of consent agendas to revise the project list provided to the public in advance
of the voter referendum approving the local government infrastructure sales surtax reduced transparency
by depriving the opportunity for public information and discussion. In addition, the City did not provide
for separate accountability of transferred sales surtax moneys.
Finding 4: Contrary to State law, the City did not estimate fees assessed to fulfill public records
requests requiring extensive information technology resources or clerical or supervisory assistance
based on actual costs. In addition, the City did not always promptly respond to public records requests.
Finding 5: Contrary to City ordinances, the City Manager had not established written uniform
purchasing policies and procedures, and the City did not always competitively procure goods and
services in accordance with City ordinances.
Finding 6: Although the City’s cardholder agreement requires purchase card (P-card) expenditures be
pre-approved by supervisory personnel, City records did not demonstrate that pre-approval was obtained.
In addition, the City had not established comprehensive P-card policies and procedures to provide
effective controls over the accountability and use of the cards.
Finding 7: The City experienced significant turnover in key management positions from April 2019
through February 2023.
Finding 8: The City needs to establish policies and procedures for communicating, investigating, and
reporting known or suspected fraud.
Consideration of Lifting a public conservation easement conveyed to the City of Winter Springs in December 1984 (amended November 1998). The public conservation easement covers approximately 133 acres. The subject property is commonly known as the Los Lagos Property (better known as Winter Springs Golf Course) located on the north side of West State Road 434; between Fountaintree Drive to the west and Sheoah Boulevard to the east.
WSHS Community-
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023, we held WSHS Student Grade Level Assemblies for 9th, 10th, 11th. and 12th Grade in our auditorium. We went over the attached presentation.
The students were simply outstanding. They were attentive and very respectful while listening to all the information shared with them.
We reflected on last year, we shared our goals for this year, and celebrated the academic achievement from last school year and promised some fun for 2023-24.
Please let us know if you have any questions! Take a look at the presentation! Here it is attached. Thank you! GO BEARS!
August 2023 Winter Springs Development Projects Summary VictoriaColangelo
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Current Development Projects Summary This summary is updated on the last working day of each month. Pre-Applications and Non-Binding Reviews • Pre-application meetings are required for all projects before a formal submittal is permitted. During these meetings, applicants will outline their proposed project to staff and staff will provide feedback and explain the development review process. • Non-binding reviews are sometimes recommended by staff if a proposed project is potentially controversial. Non-binding reviews undergo a very high-level review by staff with some comments provided to the applicant. The intent is for the applicant to present the project to the City Commission to gauge their receptiveness to the proposed project.
City of Winter Springs Potable Water System Technical Support August 2023VictoriaColangelo
The City of Winter Springs (CITY) owns three drinking water treatment plants (WTPs) which treat
groundwater and distribute to customers: WTP No. 1, WTP No. 2, and WTP No. 3. The CITY’s water system,
public water supply identification number (PWSID) 3590879, includes these three WTPs as well as a single,
interconnected, distribution system.
Presented by The Global Peatlands Assessment: Mapping, Policy, and Action at GLF Peatlands 2024 - The Global Peatlands Assessment: Mapping, Policy, and Action
Evolving Lifecycles with High Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC) and 3-D...Joshua Orris
The incorporation of a 3DCSM and completion of HRSC provided a tool for enhanced, data-driven, decisions to support a change in remediation closure strategies. Currently, an approved pilot study has been obtained to shut-down the remediation systems (ISCO, P&T) and conduct a hydraulic study under non-pumping conditions. A separate micro-biological bench scale treatability study was competed that yielded positive results for an emerging innovative technology. As a result, a field pilot study has commenced with results expected in nine-twelve months. With the results of the hydraulic study, field pilot studies and an updated risk assessment leading site monitoring optimization cost lifecycle savings upwards of $15MM towards an alternatively evolved best available technology remediation closure strategy.
Optimizing Post Remediation Groundwater Performance with Enhanced Microbiolog...Joshua Orris
Results of geophysics and pneumatic injection pilot tests during 2003 – 2007 yielded significant positive results for injection delivery design and contaminant mass treatment, resulting in permanent shut-down of an existing groundwater Pump & Treat system.
Accessible source areas were subsequently removed (2011) by soil excavation and treated with the placement of Emulsified Vegetable Oil EVO and zero-valent iron ZVI to accelerate treatment of impacted groundwater in overburden and weathered fractured bedrock. Post pilot test and post remediation groundwater monitoring has included analyses of CVOCs, organic fatty acids, dissolved gases and QuantArray® -Chlor to quantify key microorganisms (e.g., Dehalococcoides, Dehalobacter, etc.) and functional genes (e.g., vinyl chloride reductase, methane monooxygenase, etc.) to assess potential for reductive dechlorination and aerobic cometabolism of CVOCs.
In 2022, the first commercial application of MetaArray™ was performed at the site. MetaArray™ utilizes statistical analysis, such as principal component analysis and multivariate analysis to provide evidence that reductive dechlorination is active or even that it is slowing. This creates actionable data allowing users to save money by making important site management decisions earlier.
The results of the MetaArray™ analysis’ support vector machine (SVM) identified groundwater monitoring wells with a 80% confidence that were characterized as either Limited for Reductive Decholorination or had a High Reductive Reduction Dechlorination potential. The results of MetaArray™ will be used to further optimize the site’s post remediation monitoring program for monitored natural attenuation.
Improving the viability of probiotics by encapsulation methods for developmen...Open Access Research Paper
The popularity of functional foods among scientists and common people has been increasing day by day. Awareness and modernization make the consumer think better regarding food and nutrition. Now a day’s individual knows very well about the relation between food consumption and disease prevalence. Humans have a diversity of microbes in the gut that together form the gut microflora. Probiotics are the health-promoting live microbial cells improve host health through gut and brain connection and fighting against harmful bacteria. Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus are the two bacterial genera which are considered to be probiotic. These good bacteria are facing challenges of viability. There are so many factors such as sensitivity to heat, pH, acidity, osmotic effect, mechanical shear, chemical components, freezing and storage time as well which affects the viability of probiotics in the dairy food matrix as well as in the gut. Multiple efforts have been done in the past and ongoing in present for these beneficial microbial population stability until their destination in the gut. One of a useful technique known as microencapsulation makes the probiotic effective in the diversified conditions and maintain these microbe’s community to the optimum level for achieving targeted benefits. Dairy products are found to be an ideal vehicle for probiotic incorporation. It has been seen that the encapsulated microbial cells show higher viability than the free cells in different processing and storage conditions as well as against bile salts in the gut. They make the food functional when incorporated, without affecting the product sensory characteristics.
Microbial characterisation and identification, and potability of River Kuywa ...Open Access Research Paper
Water contamination is one of the major causes of water borne diseases worldwide. In Kenya, approximately 43% of people lack access to potable water due to human contamination. River Kuywa water is currently experiencing contamination due to human activities. Its water is widely used for domestic, agricultural, industrial and recreational purposes. This study aimed at characterizing bacteria and fungi in river Kuywa water. Water samples were randomly collected from four sites of the river: site A (Matisi), site B (Ngwelo), site C (Nzoia water pump) and site D (Chalicha), during the dry season (January-March 2018) and wet season (April-July 2018) and were transported to Maseno University Microbiology and plant pathology laboratory for analysis. The characterization and identification of bacteria and fungi were carried out using standard microbiological techniques. Nine bacterial genera and three fungi were identified from Kuywa river water. Clostridium spp., Staphylococcus spp., Enterobacter spp., Streptococcus spp., E. coli, Klebsiella spp., Shigella spp., Proteus spp. and Salmonella spp. Fungi were Fusarium oxysporum, Aspergillus flavus complex and Penicillium species. Wet season recorded highest bacterial and fungal counts (6.61-7.66 and 3.83-6.75cfu/ml) respectively. The results indicated that the river Kuywa water is polluted and therefore unsafe for human consumption before treatment. It is therefore recommended that the communities to ensure that they boil water especially for drinking.
Climate Change All over the World .pptxsairaanwer024
Climate change refers to significant and lasting changes in the average weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. It encompasses both global warming driven by human emissions of greenhouse gases and the resulting large-scale shifts in weather patterns. While climate change is a natural phenomenon, human activities, particularly since the Industrial Revolution, have accelerated its pace and intensity
ENVIRONMENT~ Renewable Energy Sources and their future prospects.tiwarimanvi3129
This presentation is for us to know that how our Environment need Attention for protection of our natural resources which are depleted day by day that's why we need to take time and shift our attention to renewable energy sources instead of non-renewable sources which are better and Eco-friendly for our environment. these renewable energy sources are so helpful for our planet and for every living organism which depends on environment.
Epcon is One of the World's leading Manufacturing Companies.EpconLP
Epcon is One of the World's leading Manufacturing Companies. With over 4000 installations worldwide, EPCON has been pioneering new techniques since 1977 that have become industry standards now. Founded in 1977, Epcon has grown from a one-man operation to a global leader in developing and manufacturing innovative air pollution control technology and industrial heating equipment.
Kinetic studies on malachite green dye adsorption from aqueous solutions by A...Open Access Research Paper
Water polluted by dyestuffs compounds is a global threat to health and the environment; accordingly, we prepared a green novel sorbent chemical and Physical system from an algae, chitosan and chitosan nanoparticle and impregnated with algae with chitosan nanocomposite for the sorption of Malachite green dye from water. The algae with chitosan nanocomposite by a simple method and used as a recyclable and effective adsorbent for the removal of malachite green dye from aqueous solutions. Algae, chitosan, chitosan nanoparticle and algae with chitosan nanocomposite were characterized using different physicochemical methods. The functional groups and chemical compounds found in algae, chitosan, chitosan algae, chitosan nanoparticle, and chitosan nanoparticle with algae were identified using FTIR, SEM, and TGADTA/DTG techniques. The optimal adsorption conditions, different dosages, pH and Temperature the amount of algae with chitosan nanocomposite were determined. At optimized conditions and the batch equilibrium studies more than 99% of the dye was removed. The adsorption process data matched well kinetics showed that the reaction order for dye varied with pseudo-first order and pseudo-second order. Furthermore, the maximum adsorption capacity of the algae with chitosan nanocomposite toward malachite green dye reached as high as 15.5mg/g, respectively. Finally, multiple times reusing of algae with chitosan nanocomposite and removing dye from a real wastewater has made it a promising and attractive option for further practical applications.
Kinetic studies on malachite green dye adsorption from aqueous solutions by A...
Pre-publication Version of the Final Rule - Amendments to the Revised Definition of Waters of the United States.pdf
1. PRE-PUBLICATION NOTICE. The EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, signed the following final rule on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, signed the following final rule on August 25, 2023, and EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). EPA is providing
this document solely for the convenience of interested parties. This document is not disseminated for purposes of EPA's Information Quality Guidelines and does not represent
an Agency determination or policy. While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this Internet version of the rule, it is not the official version of the final rule for
purposes of compliance or effectiveness. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the Government Printing Office's govinfo
website (https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/fr) and on Regulations.gov (https://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0346. Notwithstanding the fact
that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
6560-50-P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
33 CFR Part 328
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 120
[EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0346; FRL-11132-01-OW]
RIN 2040-AG32
Amendments to the “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’”
AGENCY: Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense; and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army
(“the agencies”) are amending the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to conform the definition
of “waters of the United States” to a 2023 Supreme Court decision. This conforming rule amends
the provisions of the agencies’ definition of “waters of the United States” that are invalid under
the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act in the 2023 decision.
DATES: This final rule is effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
ADDRESSES: The agencies have established a docket for this action under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0346. All documents in the docket are listed on the
https://www.regulations.gov/ web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
2. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Whitney Beck, Oceans, Wetlands and
Communities Division, Office of Water (4504T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2281; email
address: CWAwotus@epa.gov, and Stacey Jensen, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works, Department of the Army, 108 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0104;
telephone number: (703) 459-6026; email address: usarmy.pentagon.hqda-asa-cw.mbx.asa-cw-
reporting@army.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Why are the agencies issuing this final rule?
This action amends Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provisions promulgated in
“Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” 88 FR 3004 (January 18, 2023) (“2023
Rule”), to conform to the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. _, 143 S. Ct.
1322 (2023) (“Sackett”). The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that, when an
agency for good cause finds that public notice and comment procedures are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing
notice and an opportunity for public comment. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army (“the agencies”) have determined that
there is good cause under APA section 553(b)(B) to issue this final rule without prior proposal
and opportunity for comment because such notice and opportunity for comment is unnecessary.
Certain provisions of the 2023 Rule are invalid under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the
Page 2 of 20
3. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
Clean Water Act in Sackett. The effect of the Sackett decision was to render these provisions
immediately inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act.
Consistent with the agencies’ previously stated intent regarding the severability of the 2023 Rule
in the event that provisions of that rule were held invalid, see 88 FR 3135, the agencies are
conforming the 2023 Rule’s definition of the term “waters of the United States” to the Supreme
Court’s decision. Specifically, the agencies are revising 40 CFR 120.2(a)(1)(iii), (a)(3) through
(5), and (c)(2) and (6), and 33 CFR 328.3(a)(1)(iii), (a)(3) through (5), and (c)(2) and (6) to
amend aspects of the definition as needed to conform to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of
the Clean Water Act in Sackett. Because the sole purpose of this rule is to amend these specific
provisions of the 2023 Rule to conform with Sackett, and such conforming amendments do not
involve the exercise of the agencies’ discretion, providing advance public notice and seeking
comment is unnecessary. A notice and comment process would neither provide new information
to the public nor inform any agency decision-making regarding the aspects of the regulations
defining “waters of the United States” that are invalid as inconsistent with the Clean Water Act
under Sackett.
For similar reasons, there is good cause under the APA to make this rule immediately
effective, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), because this rule does not impose any burdens on the regulated
community; rather, it merely conforms the 2023 Rule to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett
by amending the provisions of the 2023 Rule that are invalid under the Supreme Court’s
interpretation of the Clean Water Act. Making the rule immediately effective will also provide
more clarity and certainty to the regulated community and the public following the Sackett
decision. Many States and industry groups challenging the 2023 Rule have advocated in
litigation for quick action by the agencies in light of Sackett, citing the need for regulatory
Page 3 of 20
4. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
certainty and less delay in processing approved jurisdictional determinations and certain Clean
Water Act permits. A delayed effective date for amendments to regulations defining “waters of
the United States” to conform to Sackett would prolong confusion and potentially result in
project delays for prospective permittees that seek approved jurisdictional determinations to
evaluate whether their projects will result in discharges to “waters of the United States.” Making
the rule immediately effective also avoids delaying provision of clarity to aid States and
authorized Tribes administering Clean Water Act permitting programs and to members of the
general public who seek to understand which waters are subject to the Clean Water Act’s
requirements. It is thus appropriate for the agencies to revise the affected provisions in 40 CFR
120.2 and 33 CFR 328.3 to conform to Sackett as quickly as possible and to make those revisions
immediately effective.
In 1972, Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, Public Law No. 92–500, 86 Stat. 816, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. (“Clean Water
Act” or “Act”). Central to the framework and protections provided by the Clean Water Act is the
term “navigable waters,” defined in the Act as “the waters of the United States, including the
territorial seas.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(7). On January 18, 2023, the final “Revised Definition of
‘Waters of the United States’” rule was published in the Federal Register, and the rule took
effect on March 20, 2023.1
In 2006, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of “waters of the United States” in
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006) (“Rapanos”). As the Court in Sackett noted, no
position in Rapanos commanded a majority of the Court. Sackett, 143 S. Ct. at 1344. In Rapanos,
1
As a result of litigation, the 2023 Rule is enjoined in 27 States as of the date this final rule was signed. See Texas v.
EPA, Nos. 23-00017 & 23-00020 (S.D. Tex. March 19, 2023); West Virginia v. EPA, No. 23-00032 (D.N.D. April
12, 2023); Commonwealth of Kentucky v. EPA, Nos. 23-5343/5345 (6th Cir. May 10, 2023).
Page 4 of 20
5. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
all nine members of the Court agreed that the term “waters of the United States” encompasses
some waters that are not navigable in the traditional sense. Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 731 (Scalia, J.,
plurality opinion) (“We have twice stated that the meaning of ‘navigable waters’ in the Act is
broader than the traditional understanding of that term, SWANCC, 531 U.S. at 167; Riverside
Bayview, 474 U.S. at 133.”). A four-Justice plurality in Rapanos interpreted the term “waters of
the United States” as covering “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of
water,” id. at 739, that are connected to traditional navigable waters, id. at 742, as well as
wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to such waterbodies, id. (Scalia, J., plurality
opinion). The Rapanos plurality noted that its reference to “relatively permanent” waters did “not
necessarily exclude streams, rivers, or lakes that might dry up in extraordinary circumstances,
such as drought,” or “seasonal rivers, which contain continuous flow during some months of the
year but no flow during dry months.” Id. at 732 n.5 (emphasis in original). Justice Kennedy’s
concurring opinion took a different approach, concluding that “to constitute ‘“navigable waters”’
under the Act, a water or wetland must possess a ‘significant nexus’ to waters that are or were
navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made.” Id. at 759. He concluded that wetlands
possess the requisite significant nexus if the wetlands “either alone or in combination with
similarly situated [wet]lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.’” Id. at 780.
The four dissenting Justices in Rapanos would have deferred to the agencies and also concluded
that waters would be jurisdictional under “either the plurality’s or Justice Kennedy’s test.” Id. at
810 & n.14 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
The 2023 Rule incorporated the two jurisdictional standards from Rapanos into the
definition of the term “waters of the United States.” First, under that rule, the “relatively
Page 5 of 20
6. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
permanent standard” refers to the test to identify: relatively permanent, standing or continuously
flowing tributaries connected to traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, or interstate
waters; relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing additional waters with a
continuous surface connection to such relatively permanent waters or to traditional navigable
waters, the territorial seas, or interstate waters; and, adjacent wetlands and certain impoundments
with a continuous surface connection to such relatively permanent waters or to traditional
navigable waters, the territorial seas, or interstate waters. Second, the “significant nexus
standard” under the 2023 Rule refers to the test to identify waters that, either alone or in
combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical,
physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, or interstate
waters. The regulatory text also defined “significantly affect” for purposes of the significant
nexus standard. 88 FR 3006. Under the 2023 Rule, waters were jurisdictional if they met either
standard.
The 2023 Rule also defined the term “adjacent” with no changes from the agencies’
longstanding regulatory definition. “Adjacent” was defined as “bordering, contiguous, or
neighboring.” 88 FR 3116-17. Wetlands separated from other “waters of the United States” by
man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like were defined as
“adjacent” wetlands. Id.
On May 25, 2023, the Supreme Court decided Sackett v. EPA. While the 2023 Rule was
not directly before the Court, the Court considered the jurisdictional standards set forth in that
rule. The enterprise of the 2023 Rule—to define “waters of the United States”—was the same as
the Supreme Court’s enterprise in Sackett: “to identify with greater clarity what the Act means
by ‘the waters of the United States.’” 143 S. Ct. at 1329; see also id. at 1331 (“The meaning of
Page 6 of 20
7. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
[33 U.S.C. 1362(7)] is the persistent problem that we must address.”). The Supreme Court
recognized the agencies’ definition and utilization of “adjacent” and “significant nexus” “as set
out in [the agencies’] most recent rule,” the 2023 Rule, 143 S. Ct. at 1335, 1341, but concluded
that the significant nexus standard was “inconsistent with the text and structure of the [Clean
Water Act].” Id. at 1341. Instead, the Court “conclude[d] that the Rapanos plurality was correct:
the [Clean Water Act]’s use of ‘waters’ encompasses ‘only those relatively permanent, standing
or continuously flowing bodies of water “forming geographic[al] features” that are described in
ordinary parlance as “streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.”’” Id. at 1336 (quoting Rapanos, 547
U.S. at 739). The Court also “agree[d] with [the plurality’s] formulation of when wetlands are
part of ‘the waters of the United States,’” id. at 1340-41: “when wetlands have ‘a continuous
surface connection to bodies that are “waters of the United States” in their own right, so that
there is no clear demarcation between “waters” and wetlands.’” Id. at 1344 (citing Rapanos, 547
U.S. at 742, 755). Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that “this interpretation”— i.e., the
interpretation of adjacent wetlands as “waters of the United States” set out in the 2023 Rule—“is
inconsistent with the text and structure of the CWA” insofar as it incorporated the “significant
nexus” test and defined “adjacent” other than as the Rapanos plurality defined the term. Id. at
1341.
The agencies are revising the 2023 Rule to remove the significant nexus standard and to
amend its definition of “adjacent” as these provisions are invalid under the Supreme Court’s
interpretation of the Clean Water Act in Sackett. See section II of this preamble for the specific
amendments. Under the decision in Sackett, waters are not jurisdictional under the Clean Water
Act based on the significant nexus standard. In addition, under the decision in Sackett, wetlands
are not defined as “adjacent” or jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act solely because they are
Page 7 of 20
8. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
“bordering, contiguous, or neighboring . . . [or] separated from other ‘waters of the United
States’ by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like.”
Therefore, under this conforming rule, waters cannot be found to be jurisdictional because they
meet the significant nexus standard; nor can wetlands be found to be jurisdictional based on the
definition of “adjacent” codified in the 2023 Rule. Furthermore, as a result of the decision in
Sackett invalidating the significant nexus standard, the provision for assessment of streams and
wetlands under the additional waters provision of paragraph (a)(5) is no longer valid as any
jurisdictional streams and wetlands are covered by paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of the 2023
Rule.2
Finally, the agencies are removing “interstate wetlands” from the 2023 Rule to conform
with the decision in Sackett. The Supreme Court in Sackett examined the Clean Water Act and
its statutory history and found the predecessor statute to the Clean Water Act covered and
defined “interstate waters” as “all rivers, lakes, and other waters that flow across or form a part
of State boundaries.” Sackett at 1337 (citing 33 U.S.C. 1160(a), 1173(e) (1970 ed.) (emphasis in
original)). The Court concluded that the use of the term “waters” refers to such “open waters”
and not wetlands. Id. As a result, under Sackett, the provision authorizing wetlands to be
jurisdictional simply because they are interstate is invalid.
The agencies will continue to interpret the remainder of the definition of “waters of the
United States” in the 2023 Rule consistent with the Sackett decision. And it is both reasonable
and appropriate for the agencies to promulgate this rule in response to a significant decision of
the Supreme Court and, to provide administrative guidance to address other issues that may arise
2
Lakes and ponds, however, may still be jurisdictional under paragraph (a)(5) if they do not fall within paragraphs
(a)(1) through (3) of the 2023 Rule (for example, if they are not tributaries connected to waters identified in
paragraphs (a)(1) or (2)) and they are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a
continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (3).
Page 8 of 20
9. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
outside this limited rule. See County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S. Ct. 1462,
1476 (2020) (“EPA, too, can provide administrative guidance (within statutory boundaries) in
numerous ways, including through, for example, grants of individual permits, promulgation of
general permits, or the development of general rules.”). The agencies have a wide range of
available approaches to address such issues, including: approved jurisdictional determinations
and Clean Water Act permits (both of which are final agency actions subject to judicial review);
guidance; notice and comment rulemaking; and, agency forms and training materials. The
agencies intend to hold stakeholder meetings to ensure the public has an opportunity to provide
the agencies with input on other issues they would like the agencies to address. The agencies are
also committed to taking particular actions that have been requested by stakeholders to improve
implementation of the definition of “waters of the United States.” For example, the agencies are
working to improve coordination among Federal agencies through coordination memoranda and
trainings. The agencies are also developing regionally-specific tools to facilitate implementation
of the definition of “waters of the United States.” The agencies will continue to provide trainings
to Tribes, States, and the public as appropriate to promote clarity and consistency. The agencies
will continue to post materials and outreach opportunities to EPA’s website at
https://www.epa.gov/wotus.
II. Which provisions are amended?
This final rule amends the following provisions in the 2023 Rule: 40 CFR
120.2(a)(1)(iii), (a)(3) through (5), (c)(2) and (6), and 33 CFR 328.3(a)(1)(iii), (a)(3) through (5),
(c)(2) and (6). A list of these revisions is provided below.
• 40 CFR 120.2(a)(1)(iii) and 33 CFR 328.3(a)(1)(iii): Removed the phrase
“including interstate wetlands” from this provision. Made conforming edits to the
Page 9 of 20
10. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
regulatory text so that it reads: “(iii) Interstate waters;”.
• 40 CFR 120.2(a)(3) and 33 CFR 328.3(a)(3): Removed the significant nexus
standard from the tributaries provision. Made conforming edits to the regulatory
text so that it reads: “(3) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2)
of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing
bodies of water.”
• 40 CFR 120.2(a)(4) and 33 CFR 328.3(a)(4): Removed the significant nexus
standard from the adjacent wetlands provision. Made conforming edits to the
regulatory text so that it reads: “(4) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters: (i)
Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or (ii) Relatively permanent,
standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or
(a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters.”
• 40 CFR 120.2(a)(5) and 33 CFR 328.3(a)(5): Removed the significant nexus
standard and streams and wetlands from the provision for intrastate lakes and
ponds, streams, or wetlands not otherwise identified in the definition. Made
conforming edits to the regulatory text so that it reads: “(5) Intrastate lakes and
ponds not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section that are
relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a
continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or
(a)(3) of this section.”
• 40 CFR 120.2(c)(2) and 33 CFR 328.3(c)(2): Revised the definition of “adjacent”
to read: “(2) Adjacent means having a continuous surface connection.” Note that
the agencies recognize that revising the definition of adjacent creates redundancy
Page 10 of 20
11. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
in 40 CFR 120.2(a)(4) and 33 CFR 328.3(a)(4), which already include the
requirement for a “continuous surface connection,” but deleting existing
regulatory text to reduce redundancy is outside the scope of the agencies’
determination in this rule that there is good cause under APA section 553(b)(B) to
issue this final rule without prior proposal and opportunity for comment.
• 40 CFR 120.2(c)(6) and 33 CFR 328.3(c)(6): Removed the term “significantly
affect” and its definition in its entirety.
III. Severability
The purpose of this section is to clarify the agencies’ intent with respect to the
severability of provisions of this rule and the 2023 Rule as amended by this final rule in the event
of litigation. In the event of a stay or invalidation of any part of this rule, the agencies’ intent is
to preserve the remaining portions of the rule to the fullest possible extent. Further, if any part of
the 2023 Rule as amended by this rule is stayed or invalidated, the agencies’ intent is to preserve
its remaining portions to the fullest possible extent. The agencies explained in the 2023 Rule that
it was carefully crafted so that each provision or element of the rule is capable of operating
independently. 88 FR 3135. None of the amendments made in this rule affects the 2023 Rule’s
severability or undermines the ability of each part of this rule or the remaining parts of the 2023
Rule to operate independently.
The exclusive purpose of the 2023 Rule was to define “waters of the United States,” and
this rule simply conforms that definition to Sackett. “Waters of the United States” is defined in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (5), subject to the exclusions in paragraph (b), and using terms defined
in paragraph (c). The categories (a)(1) through (5) are disjunctive, and while they may overlap,
no one category (or subcategory) depends on another. The modifications to the 2023 Rule in this
Page 11 of 20
12. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
rule do not alter those basic features of the regulatory text. Therefore, if any provision or element
of this rule or of the 2023 Rule as amended by this rule is determined by judicial review or
operation of law to be invalid, that partial invalidation will not render the remainder of this rule
or the 2023 Rule, as amended, invalid. Further, if the application of any portion of this rule or the
2023 Rule, as amended by this rule, to a particular circumstance is determined to be invalid, the
agencies intend that this rule and the 2023 Rule, as amended, remain applicable to all other
circumstances.
For example, if paragraph (c)(2), which contains the revised definition of “adjacent,”
were deemed invalid, it would affect implementation of paragraph (a)(4), which addresses
“adjacent wetlands,” but it would not affect any other provision of this rule (or the 2023 Rule, as
amended), all of which would continue to operate. As another example, if paragraph (a)(1)(iii),
which provides that interstate waters (amended by this rule to no longer include interstate
wetlands) are “waters of the United States,” were deemed invalid, every other provision of this
rule (and the 2023 Rule as amended) could continue to operate. References to paragraph (a)(1) in
paragraphs (a)(3) through (5), and (c)(2) would remain in effect, and paragraph (a)(1) would
simply be read to consist of paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii), without (iii) in whole or in part. As a
third example, if one of the exclusions from “waters of the United States” in paragraph (b), or
any part of one of the exclusions, were deemed invalid, the remainder of this rule, and thus, the
2023 Rule as amended, would remain in effect. The rationale for each exclusion in paragraph (b)
is distinct and invalidating one exclusion would not have any practical impact on any other part
of the definition of “waters of the United States.”
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
Page 12 of 20
13. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 14094:
Modernizing Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, the agencies submitted this action to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of
any changes made in response to the Executive Order 12866 review is available in the docket.
This conforming rule amends the provisions of the agencies’ definition of “waters of the
United States” that are invalid under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act
in Sackett. As such, it is the agencies’ view that the rule does not by itself impose cost savings or
forgone benefits.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because it
does not contain any information collection activities. However, this action may change terms
and concepts used by EPA and Army to implement certain programs. The agencies thus may
need to revise some of their collections of information to be consistent with this action and will
do so consistent with the PRA and implementing regulations.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and
comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule
is not subject to notice and comment requirements because the agencies have invoked the APA
“good cause” exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Page 13 of 20
14. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The definition of
“waters of the United States” applies broadly to Clean Water Act programs, and this rule
amending the definition of “waters of the United States” simply conforms to a decision of the
Supreme Court. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any Tribal, State, or local
governments, or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This conforming rule amends the provisions of the agencies’ definition of “waters of the
United States” that are invalid under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act
in Sackett. Because the limited amendments in this rule do not involve the exercise of the
agencies’ discretion, federalism consultation would neither provide new information nor inform
any agency decision-making regarding the aspects of the regulations defining “waters of the
United States” that are invalid under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act
in Sackett. The agencies recognize, however, that changes to the definition of “waters of the
United States” may be of interest to State and local governments. The agencies intend to hold
discussions with State and local governments on implementation of the definition of “waters of
the United States.”
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
This rule amends the provisions of the agencies’ definition of “waters of the United
States” that are invalid under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act in
Page 14 of 20
15. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
Sackett. Because the amendments in this rule do not involve the exercise of the agencies’
discretion, in this instance Tribal consultation and coordination could not inform the decision-
making in this final rule. The agencies recognize, however, that changes to the definition of
“waters of the United States” may be of interest to Tribal governments. The agencies intend to
hold discussions with Tribes on implementation of the definition of “waters of the United
States.”
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety
Risks
EPA and the Army interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the agencies have reason to believe
may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order.
This conforming rule amends the provisions of the agencies’ definition of “waters of the
United States” that are invalid under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act
in Sackett. Because these amendments are necessary to conform to the Supreme Court’s decision
and do not involve the exercise of the agencies’ discretion, the rule does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk and is not subject to Executive Order 13045. Similarly,
this action does not concern human health, and therefore EPA’s Policy on Children’s Health also
does not apply.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or
Use
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Page 15 of 20
16. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This rule does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our
Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies, to the
greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on communities
with environmental justice concerns. Executive Order 14096 (88 FR 25251, April 21, 2023)
supplements the foundational efforts of Executive Order 12898 to address environmental justice.
EPA and the Army believe that it is not necessary to assess whether this action would
result in disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice
concerns, as this is a conforming rule and the targeted amendments made do not reflect an
exercise of agency discretion. In prior analyses of potential distributional impacts of the 2023
Rule (see Economic Analysis for Final “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’”
Rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0602-2489), the agencies examined whether the
change in benefits due to that rule may be differentially distributed among communities with
environmental justice concerns in the affected areas when compared to two baselines—the
primary baseline of the pre-2015 regulatory regime and the secondary baseline of the 2020
Navigable Waters Protection Rule. In that prior analysis, for most of the wetlands and affected
waters impacted at a hydrologic unit code (HUC)3
12 watershed level, there was no evidence of
3
HUC boundaries are established by the U.S. Geological Survey and Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Page 16 of 20
17. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
potential environmental justice impacts from the 2023 Rule warranting further analysis when
compared to both baselines.
The agencies recognize that the burdens of environmental pollution and climate change
often fall disproportionately on communities with environmental justice concerns. Climate
change will exacerbate the existing risks faced by communities with environmental justice
concerns. However, this conforming rule merely amends the provisions of the agencies’
definition of “waters of the United States” that are invalid under the Supreme Court’s
interpretation of the Clean Water Act in Sackett. As noted above, these amendments on their own
do not result in any cost savings or forgone benefits not directed by the operation of law.
Because this rule does not involve the exercise of the agencies’ discretion, the agencies did not
engage with communities with environmental justice concerns in developing this action.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the agencies will submit a rule report to each
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a
“major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise would be provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause
finding that notice and comment public rulemaking procedures are impracticable, unnecessary,
or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The agencies have made a good cause finding
for this rule as discussed in section I of this preamble, including the basis for that finding.
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 328
These boundaries are numbered using nested codes to represent the scale of the watershed size. For example, HUC
12 watersheds are smaller than HUC 4 watersheds.
Page 17 of 20
18. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental protection, Navigation (water),
Water pollution control, Waterways.
40 CFR Part 120
Environmental protection, Water pollution control, Waterways.
Michael L. Connor,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works),
Department of the Army.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency.
Title 33—Navigation and Navigable Waters
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 33 CFR part 328 is amended as follows:
PART 328—DEFINITION OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 328 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
2. Section 328.3 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iii), (a)(3), and (a)(4)(ii);
b. Removing paragraph (a)(4)(iii);
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (c)(2); and
d. Removing paragraph (c)(6).
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
Page 18 of 20
19. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
(1) * * *
(iii) Interstate waters;
* * * * *
(3) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section that
are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water;
(4) * * *
(ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of
water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a
continuous surface connection to those waters;
(5) Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of
this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies
of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in
paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Adjacent means having a continuous surface connection.
* * * * *
Title 40—Protection of Environment
For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 120 is amended as follows:
PART 120—DEFINITION OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
3 The authority citation for part 120 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
4. Section 120.2 is amended by:
Page 19 of 20
20. This document is a pre-publication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, on August 28, 2023, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Michael L. Connor, on August 25, 2023. EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. We have taken steps to ensure the
accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be
promulgated until published in the Federal Register.
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iii), (a)(3), and (a)(4)(ii);
b. Removing paragraph (a)(4)(iii);
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (c)(2); and
d. Removing paragraph (c)(6).
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Interstate waters;
* * * * *
(3) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section that
are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water;
(4) * * *
(ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of
water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a
continuous surface connection to those waters;
(5) Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of
this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies
of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in
paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Adjacent means having a continuous surface connection.
* * * * *
Page 20 of 20