ow -c:.ot1-am • RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2014 July 17, 2014 EPA DOCKET CENTER Water Docket, EPA, Mail Code 2822T Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 ATIN: Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880 My name is Brian Duncan. I am a grain and livestock farmer from Ogle County, Illinois. I would like to comment on the proposed EPA Waters of the US rule . I believe the rule as proposed by the EPA is an end run around Congress and two Supreme Court rulings. Congress, not federal agencies, write the law of the land. Nqw the EPA is significantly expanding the definition of navigable waters subject to the -Clean Water A~t. Now,· on my farm, waterways and low spots that are often dry for years in a row will be considered a navigable water. This is quite simply a regulatory taking of my farmland and my right to farm. I care deeply about my land and have always worked hard to maintain the highest water quality possible. My voluntary practices will now become mandatory and subject to government oversight. This is simply unacceptable. In our rural economy we need lesser regulation, greater economic development and the freedom to do what we know is best on our individual farms. In conclusion the proposed rules should qui~esimply be overturn_ed . .. ' ~ ' Sincerelyi , .•... : ~ ~..} - . Brian Dunca·n " .......~ ... ·.,: ..., ... -\- • •: .. : • ~. .l ; ~J ... r: ... ' ' i -.; 1 ' ' POSTMARKED JUL 1 7 20 14 EPA DOCKET CENTER RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2014 EPA DOCKET CENTER RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2014 DOCKET CENTER EPA JUL 1 '7 2014 EPA DOCKET CENTER Executive Council:  Joan Anzelmo  Linda Canzanelli  Don Field  Maureen Finnerty  Phil Francis  Jim Hammett  Doug Morris  Mike Murray  Cherry Payne  Ernie Quintana  Dick Ring  Kate Stevenson Voices of Experience – Advocating Protection of America’s National Park System June 6, 2014 The Honorable Gina McCarthy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Re: Waters of the United States Proposed Rule, Docket ID # EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880 Dear Administrator McCarthy: I am writing to you on behalf of over 1,000 members of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees (CNPSR) who collectively represent more than 30,000 years of national park management experience. CNPSR studies, educates, speaks, and acts for the preservation and protection of America’s National Park System. Many of our members have served in parks whose local domestic water supply and protected natural resources are dependent upon and often impacted by the quality of surface water flowing into and through the respective park’s designated boundary. For this reason, we write to express our support for the proposed Waters of the United States rule, which reestablishes clean water protections for headwaters streams and wetlands -- benefiting downstream national parks, 279 million annual visitors, and gateway communities. Unfortunately, more than half of America’s national parks currently have waterways deemed “impaired” under the Clean Water Act -- they do not yet meet water quality standards that protect public health. Moreover, judicial loopholes and uncertainties created by multiple Supreme Court decisions have left waterways and wetlands nationwide vulnerable to pollution and degradation. As a result, water pollution from energy and commercial development, agriculture, and other sources within and adjacent to parks poses a risk to the safety of visitors and to wildlife and other natural resources. Drinking water supplies for 1 in 3 Americans, including park visitors, are not adequately protected from pollution. Too many national park areas are affected by preventable water quality issues, resulting in public health risks and negatively impacting park visitors and the parks’ natural resources, as well as tourism-dependent local economies. This common-sense clean water rule provides ecological, recreational and economic benefits to downstream national parks and communities. We encourage the Administration to finalize the Waters of the United States rule, and again serve as a responsible steward of our natural heritage. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Maureen Finnerty Chair, Coalition of National Park Service Retirees Email: Maureen_Finnerty@npsretirees.org Mailing: 5625 North Wilmot Road Tucson, AZ 85750-1216 Web: www.npsretirees.org cc: The Honorable Sally Jewell, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior The Honorable Jonathan Jarvis, Director, National Park Service 2 August 12, 2014 Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880 Subject: Comments on Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880 regarding EPA's Proposed Rule to Define Waters of the United States Dear Sir or Madam: These comments are being submitted by the Illinois Soybean Association (ISA). Representing the interests of more than 45,000 soybean producers in Illinois, ISA and its soybean producers oversee the investments of the soybean checkoff. Checkoff funds are invested in the areas of animal, human and industrial utilization, industry relations, market access and supply. ISA actively supports stewardship programs that promote the production and use of all crops in a manner that ensures the protection of public health and the environment. We also support technologies that offer our producers the tools needed to produce safe and abundant soybeans. Illinois farmers harvested more than 460 million bushels of soybeans in 2013 from 9.4 million acres. The 2013 Illinois soybean crop was the largest state crop in the country. The Clean Water Act (CWA), which has been in place since 1972, limits federal jurisdiction to "navigable" waters in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed those limits twice since 2000. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy even has given her assurances to our organization and to other farm groups on multiple occasions that the majority of farm operations will continue to fall under current agricultural exemptions in the CWA. The EPA's stated objective for this proposed rule is to reduce the confusion and complexity about where the CWA applies, and to preserve existing CWA exemptions and exclusions for agricultural activities. However, it leaves leeway to extend jurisdiction and many decisions to EPA's discretion through case-by-case determinations and a nebulous definition of what constutites a "significant nexus." ISA is concerned the rule does not clarify how all bodies are defined and regulated. In coordination with USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), EPA and the Army Corps will now exempt 56 established NRCS conservation practices implemented in accordance with published standards from Section 404 dredged or fill permitting requirements if they occur in waters covered by the CWA. But, the proposed rule narrows existing exemptions by tying them to mandatory compliance with what used to be voluntary standards. Farmers previously could undertake these practices as part of normal farming activities. The proposed rule could make it easier for the Corps and EPA to make "desktop determinations" that any wetlands across Illinois and other states are categorically jurisdictional. This concerns Illinois soybean farmers, since the Mississippi, Ohio, Illinois and Wabash Rivers and Lake Michigan are all major waterways with very significant ecological and economical importance to our state. Additionally, some 87,000 miles of rivers and streams run through Illinois, along with more than 250,000 acres of lakes. This ruling clearly could have a huge impact on the state, and creates an enormous amount of uncertainty and risk for many of the state's family-operated soybean farms that may fall subject to a wide range of provisions under the CWA. In addition, the Illinois EPA already does a thorough job monitoring total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). There currently are more than 30 implementation projects in TMDL watersheds in Illinois. These plans spell out actions necessary to achieve the goals, including recommending best management practices (BMPs) for non-point sources and a schedule for implementation. We believe Illinois is responsibly addressing reducing pollutant loads and improving water quality. ISA supports a rulemaking process that clearly identifies the limits of federal CWA jurisdiction. Any rule must acknowledge that not all water bodies are subject to CWA jurisdiction and provide concrete examples that can give guidance to the Illinois agricultural community of features not within that scope, including groundwater, ditches, culverts, pipes, desert washes, sheet flow, erosional features, farm and stock ponds and prior converted cropland. We believe federal CWA authority should be limited to navigable streams and waterways that have continuous flow. On behalf of Illinois farmers, we urge EPA to preserves existing CWA exemptions and exclusions for agricultural activities. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Bill Raben Chairman, Illinois Soybean Association ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE   D E D I C AT E D TO E C O S Y S T E M P R OT E C T IO N AND S U S TA I N A B L E L A N D U S E July 1, 2014 Water Docket Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 E N D A N G E R E D H A B I TAT S L E A G U E RE: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW- 2011-0880 The Endangered Habitats League (EHL) appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed rulemaking. For your reference, EHL is Southern California’s only regional conservation group. We are active in habitat and watershed planning efforts and in project permitting under the Clean Water Act. EHL strongly supports the Clean Water Protection Rulemaking jointly instituted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers to clarify which waters are and are not considered Waters of the U.S. for the purposes of CWA programs, such as pollutant permitting (§402), permitting for dredged or fill material (§404), and oil spill prevention (§311). Supreme Court decisions in 2001 (SWANCC) and 2006 (Rapanos) and subsequent agency guidance have created confusion in establishing CWA jurisdiction and in implementing CWA programs. This has resulted in many waters not being sufficiently protected, as well as uncertainty, delay, and wasted resources within the regulated community and among the agencies charged with making jurisdictional determinations and enforcement. Therefore, EHL supports the proposed rulemaking, which seeks to more clearly identify waters protected under the CWA. Rulemaking Necessary to Provide Sufficient Protection for Waters of the U.S. The two Supreme Court cases, SWANCC and Rapanos, have resulted in a lack of clarity when making CWA jurisdictional determinations, as well as a loss of CWA protections. Following SWANCC and the 2003 agency guidance, an estimated 20 million acres of so called “isolated” (non-floodplain) waters have gone unprotected. Rapanos, in particular, confused jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands and small streams. The Rapanos case produced five different opinions with no majority, as well as two different tests for determining CWA jurisdiction: relative permanence and significant nexus standards. The resulting confusion has especially impacted small headwater and intermittently flowing streams and adjacent wetlands. The complexity of making CWA jurisdictional determinations has negatively impacted the timely identification of Waters of the U.S., the appropriate issuance of permits, as well as hampering enforcement activities when violations occur. 8424 S ANTA M ONICA B LVD S UITE A 592 L OS A NGELES CA 90069-4267 WWW. EHLEAGUE . ORG P HONE 213.804.2750     The uncertainty and cost of establishing jurisdiction puts water quality, aquatic life, wildlife habitat, and human health at risk. Headwater streams and wetlands provide most of the flow to downstream waters, many of which are recognized as Great Waters. They supply drinking water to public drinking water systems and clean water supplies crucial to local economies. They store and filter water, protect water quality, reduce flood flows that threaten communities and community infrastructure. Headwater streams and wetlands also provide essential fish and wildlife habitats that support outdoor recreational and tourism industries. When these waters are polluted, dredged, or filled, we lose their important natural benefits. This is an unacceptable outcome for the general public, the regulated community, and the agencies themselves. The AGWC is therefore extremely supportive of the clarifications provided in the Clean Water Protection Rulemaking in order to protect human health and water resources, and improve consistent application of the CWA. Sufficient protection of the nation’s waters and consistent application of the CWA is essential to ensure the integrity of our economy and environment, which is fundamentally dependent on clean, safe water supplies. Clarifications Provided in Clean Water Protection Rulemaking EHL supports the many important clarifications provided by the Clean Water Protection Rulemaking, including defining “tributary” for the first time and affirming once again that Waters of the U.S. categorically include all tributaries to Traditional Navigable Waters (TNW) and interstate waters. Additionally, the included definition for “neighboring” as it relates to “adjacency” for wetlands and other water bodies, such as lakes or ponds, is also a further help in clarifying CWA jurisdiction. Furthermore, application of “adjacency” to both wetlands and other water bodies, will work in concert with the clarification on tributaries to restore protections for headwaters and downstream waters into which tributaries flow. We especially support the recognition by the agencies that adjacency does not require a permanent, unbroken hydrological connection to the TNW, that wetlands physically separated from jurisdictional waters can still be adjacent, and that the wetlands and other water bodies located within the riparian area or floodplain of a jurisdictional water will generally be considered neighboring, and thus adjacent. We urge the agencies to strengthen the proposed rule in one key respect: the failure to categorically define as Waters of the U.S. at least some prairie potholes and other depressional, non-floodplain waters where the scientific evidence demonstrates connectivity to downstream TNW or interstate waters. We expect that the administrative record for this rulemaking will include such scientific evidence, and we urge the agencies to modify the rule to restore protections for these important waters consistent with the science. Clean Water Protection Rulemaking Supported by Most Up-to-Date Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature EHL recognizes and applauds the EPA and Army Corps for simultaneously producing a peer-reviewed scientific synthesis of the latest and most relevant scientific literature to inform the Clean Water Protection Rulemaking process. The draft document     entitled “Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence,” is an exhaustive overview of science which promotes the understanding of the connectivity between tributaries, wetlands and downstream TNW. According to the draft, “all tributary streams, including perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, are physically, chemically, and biologically connected to downstream rivers… Wetlands and open-waters in landscape settings that have bidirectional hydrologic exchanges with streams or rivers (e.g., wetlands and openwaters in riparian areas and floodplains) are physically, chemically, and biologically connected with rivers…”1. Therefore, the Clean Water Protection Rulemaking is integrating both peerreviewed scientific support, the legal direction of the Supreme Court rulings, and the established CWA categorical Waters of the U.S. determinations in order to address the SWANCC and Rapanos Supreme Court decisions, clarify and streamline the process of jurisdictional determinations, and restore consistent and sound protections for the nation’s critical water resources. Conclusion EHL appreciates EPA’s and the Army Corps’ consideration of our comments on the Clean Water Protection Rule. We strongly urge the agencies to move forward expeditiously to clarify the protections under the CWA and ensure consistency and transparency in jurisdictional determinations. Yours truly, Dan Silver, MD Executive Director 1 Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence, page 234. WASMWGTONOFFICE: 1517 LONGWORTN HOUSE C • FFIC6 QUILDING DAVID LOEBSACK 7ND D1STRIf.T, IOWA WASInNGT q N, DC 20516 ARMED SERVICES SUBCOMMIYtEES: (VI q..ITARV PERSONNEL RcAaNess EDUCATIONANDTHEWORKFOFtCE SUBCONIMITTEE9: (202)225re576 - COMMIT"fEES' /11'ong^'Los of t4c ^^•iiLb ^ta ILFJ ^j. K '^Ytttse j^t l ^ epresPntFt^tt^e.^ ^qqtt^^tn^t^n ]p^'J ^W HEAETH, EnnPLOVMENT, LAeOR, ANU PENSiONS HiGNER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE TRAINING G_y^R^1 D15TRICT OFPICE5: 125 SOUTM DUBU(iUE STREET I^i319) 361! 076940 . 209WEST4n+STREET,a1o4 UAVENPORT, IA 52801 1563) 323-5988 1 (866) 914-10WA May 1, 2014 The Honorable Gina McCarthy Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460 The Honorable .lohn M. McHugh Secretary Department of the Army The Pentagon, Room 3E700 Washington, D.C. 20310 Dear Administrator McCarthy and Secretary MeHugh, I write today regarding the proposed rule to clarify protection under the Clean Water Act and revise the definition of waters of the U.S. that was released on March 25, 2014.1 have had many constituents share with me their thoughts and input on the proposal. Mostly, I've heard concerns from mernbers of the agricultural community about what the proposed rule would mean for them and their farming operations. Since the release of the proposed rule, public statements have emphasized the importance of addressing concerns from the agricultural community and continuing to work with them throughout the rulemaking process. While I appreciate your acknowledgement of the important role that the agricultural community must play in in this process and any final rule, significant concerns remain. I understand that the intent of this rule is to add clarity and predictability to the protections under the Clean Water Act, but I fear the proposed rule is no better than the status quo and might only add confusion and jurisdiction. I recognize this proposed rule is still relatively new, but at this point of the rulemaking process I'm specifically concerned with the following: • The Environmental Protection Agency has maintained since the release of the rule that "It [the rule] does not protect any new types of waters that have not historically been covered under the Clean Water Act prograrns." This staternent does not account for what appears to be an expanded definition of tributaries and adjacencies in the rule leading to more waters protected and also that an increase in permits required is likely. • The proposed rule appears to fail in clarifying key terms that will significantly shape the scope of the rule including "uplands," "significant nexus" and "adjacent." Without having a clear and predictable deftnition for these key terms, the entire scope of the rule is called into question. • The "other" category in the proposed rule will be "jurisdictional provided that they are found, on a case-specific basis, to have a significant nexus to waters." Additionally, this section uses "or" in defining significant nexus as "affect the chemical, physical, or PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPFft biological integrity of waters," instead of "and." The broadness of this category, jurisdiction on a case-specific bases, and expansive definition of significant nexus by using "or" appears to leave farmers the same questions as today of what waters are included in the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction and increases the burden in seeking the necessary clarification. • Many of the definitions proposed in this rule are complex and highly technical and will Ieave farmers seeking significant expertise to decipher potentially regulated waters. Knowing the Army Corps and EPA have finite resources for assistance, there is concern that farmers will be left waiting too iong during critical times for answers. These concerns raise the complexity of this rule as a whole, and the potential increased scope of the rule will only create additional burdens to Iowa farmers. While interpretation of this proposed rule continues to unfold, I ask for you to please address the above concerns listed so I'm able to better understand the potential effect this rule could have on Iowa farmers and other industries. Thank you very much for your time and attention to these concerns. I look forward to continuing to be a resource for you in this process and I will continue to share the thoughts and concerns of Iowa farmers with you. Sincerely, 0-4 t- /. 00 ave Loebsack Iowa's Second District ^ LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS M ICH IGAN EDUCATING AND ADVOCATING FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT August 15, 2014 Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 2822 T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 RE: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880 The League of Women Voters of Michigan supports the Army Corps and Environmental Protection Agency’s rulemaking recommendations to define the waters of the United States. This will provide clarity for the regulatory community and is consistent with the intent of the Clean Water Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court. League of Women Voters members were active in the passage of the Clean Water Act in the 1970’s. We worked to protect, expand and strengthen it through the 1990’s. Our Michigan membership belongs to two multi-state basin League groups representing Lake Erie and Lake Michigan. We have studied the issues and work with our communities to educate and advocate for the protection of our water quality, public health and environment. Our organization position states that “water resource policies should reflect the interrelationships of water quality, water quantity, ground water and surface water”. We support policies “to achieve water quality essential for maintaining species populations and diversity, including measures to protect lakes, estuaries, wetlands and in-stream flows”. Further, we support “stringent controls to protect the quality of current and potential drinking water supplies including protection of watersheds for surface supplies and recharge areas for groundwater”. Our statement today is consistent with our comments from 2003. “The Clean Water Act covers all waters, whether large or small, they function as an interconnected system. Excision of parts of the system from regulation will impair health and optimal functioning of the whole.” Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rules for the Clean Water Act. The League of Women Voters of Michigan supports these science-based decisions. Sincerely, Susan K Smith Susan Smith, President League of Women Voters of Michigan 600 W. ST. JOSEPH ST., SUITE 3G, LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933-2288 (517) 484-5383 FAX: (517) 484-3086 office@lwvmi.org www.lwvmi.org VERMILION COUNTY FARM BUREAU 1905-C U.S. Route 150 • Danville, Illinois 61832 • (217) 442-8713 • Fax (217) 442-7364 July 17, 2014 RECEIVED JUL 2 4 2014 Environmental Protection Agency Water Docket Mail Code 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 RE: EPA DOCKET CENTER Comments on the U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps ofEngim::ers Proposed Rule Regarding Definition of"Waters of the U.S." Under the Clean Water Act Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880 To Whom It May Concern: As Vermilion Coupty Farm Bureau ~oard of Directors,\:"~ speak for. the 1,300 farmer-members in om; comity~ And we aref~rmersand landowners o.urselves. Weare writing to submit comments to the United ~tate$.Eiwironmental Prott!ction Agency and the United States Army Corps of :Engineers proposed rule regarding the definition of"Waters of the U.S." under the Clean Water Act. The proposed rule would significantly expand the scope of navigable waters subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction by regulating small and remote waters - many of which are not even wet or considered waters under any common understanding of that word. Farmers in our county have a great track record of implementing conservation practices to preserve the soil and keep the water clean. It's absurd for the U.S. government to say that water in a drainage ditch or road ditch is part of the navigable waters of the U.S. because that water might end up in a navigable river. Expanding the definition of waters of the U.S. will disrupt our business now and affect future generations of farmers. The proposed rule does not provide clarity or certainly as EPA has stated. The only .thing that is dear and. certain is that, unde~ this rule, it will be more difficultto farm, or make changes to the land- even if those changes would benefit the environment. Farmers work to protect water . . ·. . pOSTMARKED ·.· l0\4 VERMiliON COUNTY FARM BUREAU 1905-C U.S. Route 150 • Danville, Illinois 61832 • (217) 442-8713 • Fax (217) 442-7364 Page 2 of2 RE: Comments on the U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers Proposed Rule Regarding Definition of"Waters of the U.S." Under the Clean Water Act Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880 quality regardless of whether it is legally required by EPA. It is one of the values we hold as farmers. Farmers like us producing food will be severely impacted; therefore, we ask you to withdraw the proposed rule. Sincerely, ~wJJJj -':)~ ~~--- ~)\~