ML25260A011

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Clinch River Nuclear Site Usace Jurisdictional Determination
ML25260A011
Person / Time
Site: Clinch River
Issue date: 04/09/2025
From: Ehorn C
US Dept of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Nashville District
To: Hunnewell S
Tennessee Valley Authority
References
LRN-2014-00155
Download: ML25260A011 (1)
v • d • e


Text

v20230331 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NASHVILLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGULATORY DIVISION 3701 BELL ROAD NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37214 April 9, 2025

SUBJECT:

File No. LRN-2014-00155, TVA; Jurisdictional Determination, Clinch River Nuclear Site, Oak Ridge, Roane County, Tennessee Tennessee Valley Authority Attn: Scott Hunnewell 1101 Market Street, LP 4A-C Chattanooga, TN 37402

Dear Mr. Hunnewell:

This letter is regarding your report entitled Tennessee Valley Authority, Clinch River Nuclear Site, May 23, 2023 (JD Report), which documented potential waters of the United States on a review area of approximately 900 acres. The JD Report, associated with Clinch River Nuclear Site in Oak Ridge, Roane County, Tennessee, indicated your preference for potential waters of the U.S. on the review area to be reviewed as a preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) and non-jurisdictional features to be reviewed as an approved jurisdictional determination (AJD). This project has been assigned File No. LRN-2014-00155, please refer to this number in any future correspondence.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has regulatory responsibilities pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). Under Section 10, the USACE regulates any work in, or affecting, navigable waters of the U.S. It appears the review area does not include navigable waters of the U.S. and would not be subject to the provisions of Section 10. Under Section 404, the USACE regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands.

a. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination: Based on a field reviews on October 17, 2023, and October 24, 2023, 14 reaches of stream and 36 wetlands were documented within the review area. This office has determined these features may be jurisdictional waters of the U.S. in accordance with 33 C.F.R. 331.2 and a PJD has been prepared. The PJD is non-binding, cannot be appealed and only provides a written indication that waters of the U.S, including wetlands, may be present on-site. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will treat

all waters that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This determination is only valid for the review area shown on the attached map entitled LRN-2014-00155, TVA Clinch River Nuclear Site, JD Map, Sheets 1-11, attached to this letter.

Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the PJD. If you agree with the findings of this PJD and understand your options regarding the same, please sign and date the form and return it to this office within 30 days of receipt of this letter. You should submit the signed copy to the following address:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nashville District 3701 Bell Rd.

Nashville, TN 37214 Attn: Cara Beverly

b. Approved Jurisdictional Determination: Also enclosed is an approved jurisdictional determination for aquatic resources identified as EPH01, EPH02, EPH03, EPH04, EPH05, EPH06, EPH07, EPH08, EPH10, EPH11, EPH12, EPH13, EPH14, EPH18, EPH19a, EPH19b, EPH19c, P01, P02, W007, SW03, P04, W002, W003, W004, W008, W009, W018, W031 and W032. The rationale for this determination is provided in the attached Approved Jurisdictional Determination form. The approved jurisdictional determination expires five years from the date of this letter, unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date, or the District Engineer identifies specific geographic areas with rapidly changing environmental conditions that merit re-verification on a more frequent basis. This approved jurisdictional determination is only valid for the review area as shown on the maps labeled LRN-2014-00155, TVA Clinch River Nuclear Site, JD Map, Sheets 1-11.

If you object to this decision, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeals Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this decision you must submit a completed RFA form to the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division, Division Office at the following address:

Regulatory Appeal Review Officer ATTN: Ms. Katie McCafferty Army Engineer Division 550 Main Street, Room 10-780 Cincinnati, OH 45202-3222 TEL (513) 684-2699

In order for an RFA to be accepted by the USACE, the USACE must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR Part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date listed on the RFA form. Should you decide to submit an RF A form, it must be received at the above address by June 9, 2025. It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the decision in this letter.

The delineation included herein has been conducted to identify the location and extent of the aquatic resources for purposes of the Clean Water Act for the particular site identified in this request. This delineation may not be valid for the Wetland Conservation Provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended. If you or your tenant are USDA program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should discuss the applicability of an NRCS Certified Wetland Determination with the local USDA service center, prior to starting work.

We appreciate your awareness of the USACE regulatory program. If you have any questions, you may contact me or Cara Beverly at (865) 304-1413 or by e-mail at cara.c.beverly@usace.army.mil.

Sincerely, Casey H. Ehorn Deputy Division Chief Regulatory Division Enclosures Electronic Copies Furnished:

Ms. Britta Lees (TVA)

Ms. Madelyn Nagel (NRC)

Tennessee Valley Authority: Clinch River Nuclear Site File No. LRN-2014-00155 Preliminary Jurisdicon Waters List April 9, 2025 Page 1 of 2 Site Number Latitude (decimal degrees)

Longitude (decimal degrees)

Estimated amount of aquatic resource in review area (acreage and linear feet, if applicable)

Type of aquatic resource (i.e., wetland vs. non-wetland waters)

Geographic authority to which the aquatic resource "may be" subject (i.e.,

Section 404 or Section 10/404)

STR01 35.91465990 -84.39555930 335 linear feet Non-wetland Secon 404 STR03 (Clinch River) 35.90634490 -84.35587120 39,024 linear feet Non-wetland Secon 10/

Secon 404 STR04 35.88571000 -84.38003500 165 linear feet Non-wetland Secon 404 STR05 35.88716000 -84.37907050 299 linear feet Non-wetland Secon 404 STR06 35.89382130 -84.37793760 123 linear feet Non-wetland Secon 404 STR07 35.89342600 -84.37788530 779 linear feet Non-wetland Secon 404 STR08 35.91893270 -84.37570230 2,045 linear feet Non-wetland Secon 404 STR09 35.91516330 -84.37244430 4,705 linear feet Non-wetland Secon 404 STR10 35.90755730 -84.36716910 291 linear feet Non-wetland Secon 404 STR11 35.90537340 -84.36686950 2,128 linear feet Non-wetland Secon 404 STR12 35.90471160 -84.36681500 61 linear feet Non-wetland Secon 404 STR16 35.88369300 -84.37798600 307 linear feet Non-wetland Secon 404 STR17 35.91660790 -84.37554970 120 linear feet Non-wetland Secon 404 EPH20 35.884009

-84.377882 168 linear feet Non-wetland Secon 404 W001 35.90163510 -84.38638400 7.77 acre Wetland Secon 404 W005 35.88693520 -84.38599680 0.26 acre Wetland Secon 404 W006 35.88670210 -84.38543650 0.29 acre Wetland Secon 404 W010 35.88574680 -84.37991780 0.36 acre Wetland Secon 404 W016 35.88273930 -84.37671160 7.88 acre Wetland Secon 404 W017 35.89386280 -84.37647100 0.23 acre Wetland Secon 404 W019 35.90331230 -84.36610240 5.7 acre Wetland Secon 404 W020a 35.90641490 -84.36676040 2.48 acre Wetland Secon 404 W022 35.91512930 -84.37280430 0.47 acre Wetland Secon 404 W023 35.91549020 -84.37355210 0.02 acre Wetland Secon 404 W023x 35.91549020 -84.37355210 0.02 acre Wetland Secon 404 W024 35.91571060 -84.37351140 0.09 acre Wetland Secon 404 W024x 35.91598260 -84.37310630 0.02 acre Wetland Secon 404 W025 35.91644460 -84.37398420 1.0 acre Wetland Secon 404 W025x 35.91732530 -84.37417890 0.14 acre Wetland Secon 404 W026 35.91670770 -84.37548480 1.39 acre Wetland Secon 404 W027a 35.91825310 -84.37545430 0.55 acre Wetland Secon 404 W027b 35.91875190 -84.37561220 0.23 acre Wetland Secon 404 W028 35.90704280 -84.39097530 0.15 acre Wetland Secon 404 W029 35.90767330 -84.38897790 0.1 acre Wetland Secon 404

Tennessee Valley Authority: Clinch River Site File No. LRN-2014-00155 Preliminary Jurisdicon Waters List Page 2 of 2 W030 35.90804230 -84.38759220 0.13 acre Wetland Secon 404 W033 35.91053950 -84.39244340 0.13 acre Wetland Secon 404 W034 35.91006700 -84.39248000 0.03 acre Wetland Secon 404 W035a 35.91045930 -84.39275980 0.13 acre Wetland Secon 404 W035b 35.91172380 -84.39468350 0.22 acre Wetland Secon 404 W035c 35.91148600 -84.39491200 0.01 acre Wetland Secon 404 W035d 35.91128840 -84.39509620 0.07 acre Wetland Secon 404 W036a (W100) 35.91151750 -84.39528850 2.62 acre Wetland Secon 404 W036b (W100) 35.91233490 -84.39511590 0.01 acre Wetland Secon 404 W036c (W100) 35.91274720 -84.39583150 2.07 acre Wetland Secon 404 W036d (W100) 35.91185100 -84.39525100 0.09 acre Wetland Secon 404 W036e (W100) 35.91222000 -84.39668200 0.45 acre Wetland Secon 404 W037 35.91462440 -84.39859300 0.14 acre Wetland Secon 404 W038 35.91535750 -84.39922410 0.08 acre Wetland Secon 404 W039 35.91564270 -84.39780500 0.2 acre Wetland Secon 404 W040 35.91510950 -84.39638070 0.11 acre Wetland Secon 404

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NASHVILLE DISTRICT 3701 BELL ROAD NASHVILLE TENNESSEE 37214 CELRN-RD April 9, 2025 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT:

US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023),1 LRN-2014-00155, (MFR 1 of 1)2 BACKGROUND. An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a Corps document stating the presence or absence of waters of the United States on a parcel or a written statement and map identifying the limits of waters of the United States on a parcel.

AJDs are clearly designated appealable actions and will include a basis of JD with the document.3 AJDs are case-specific and are typically made in response to a request.

AJDs are valid for a period of five years unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date or a District Engineer has identified, after public notice and comment, that specific geographic areas with rapidly changing environmental conditions merit re-verification on a more frequent basis.4 For the purposes of this AJD, we have relied on section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA),5 the Clean Water Act (CWA) implementing regulations published by the Department of the Army in 1986 and amended in 1993 (references 2.a. and 2.b.

respectively), the 2008 Rapanos-Carabell guidance (reference 2.c.), and other applicable guidance, relevant case law and longstanding practice, (collectively the pre-2015 regulatory regime), and the Sackett decision (reference 2.d.) in evaluating jurisdiction.

This Memorandum for Record (MFR) constitutes the basis of jurisdiction for a Corps AJD as defined in 33 CFR §331.2. The features addressed in this AJD were evaluated consistent with the definition of waters of the United States found in the pre-2015 regulatory regime and consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett. This AJD did not rely on the 2023 Revised Definition of Waters of the United States, as 1 While the Supreme Courts decision in Sackett had no effect on some categories of waters covered under the CWA, and no effect on any waters covered under RHA, all categories are included in this Memorandum for Record for efficiency.

2 When documenting aquatic resources within the review area that are jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act (CWA), use an additional MFR and group the aquatic resources on each MFR based on the TNW, interstate water, or territorial seas that they are connected to. Be sure to provide an identifier to indicate when there are multiple MFRs associated with a single AJD request (i.e., number them 1, 2, 3, etc.).

3 33 CFR 331.2.

4 Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-02.

5 USACE has authority under both Section 9 and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 but for convenience, in this MFR, jurisdiction under RHA will be referred to as Section 10.

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 2

amended on 8 September 2023 (Amended 2023 Rule) because, as of the date of this decision, the Amended 2023 Rule is not applicable in Tennessee due to litigation.

1.

SUMMARY

OF CONCLUSIONS.

a. Provide a list of each individual feature within the review area and the jurisdictional status of each one (i.e., identify whether each feature is/is not a water of the United States and/or a navigable water of the United States).

Resource Measurement (linear feet or acre)

Jurisdictional Status Authority(ies)

EPH01 553 linear feet Non-jurisdictional N/A EPH02 555 linear feet Non-jurisdictional N/A EPH03 139 linear feet Non-jurisdictional N/A EPH04 55 linear feet Non-jurisdictional N/A EPH05 25 linear feet Non-jurisdictional N/A EPH06 118 linear feet Non-jurisdictional N/A EPH07 124 linear feet Non-jurisdictional N/A EPH08 124 linear feet Non-jurisdictional N/A EPH10 679 linear feet Non-jurisdictional N/A EPH11 1,052 linear feet Non-jurisdictional N/A EPH12 1,083 linear feet Non-jurisdictional N/A EPH13 1,213 linear feet Non-jurisdictional N/A EPH14 1,173 linear feet Non-jurisdictional N/A EPH18 421 linear feet Non-jurisdictional N/A EPH19a 147 linear feet Non-jurisdictional N/A EPH19b 384 linear feet Non-jurisdictional N/A EPH19c 26 linear feet Non-jurisdictional N/A P01 0.31 acre Non-jurisdictional N/A P02 0.18 acre Non-jurisdictional N/A W007 0.23 acre Non-jurisdictional N/A SW03 0.75 acre Non-jurisdictional N/A P04 0.16 acre Non-jurisdictional N/A W002 0.11 acre Non-jurisdictional N/A W003 1.71 acre Non-jurisdictional N/A W004 0.1 acre Non-jurisdictional N/A W008 0.94 acre Non-jurisdictional N/A W009 0.17 acre Non-jurisdictional N/A W018 1.16 acre Non-jurisdictional N/A W031 0.02 acre Non-jurisdictional N/A W032 0.02 acre Non-jurisdictional N/A

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 3

2. REFERENCES.
a. Final Rule for Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers, 51 FR 41206 (November 13, 1986).
b. Clean Water Act Regulatory Programs, 58 FR 45008 (August 25, 1993).
c. U.S. EPA & U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Courts Decision in Rapanos v. United States &

Carabell v. United States (December 2, 2008)

d. Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023)
3. REVIEW AREA. The AJD review area is limited to the specified review area depicted on the attached figure and is located near Oak Ridge, Roane County, Tennessee, (35.8954, -84.3806). The site has been used historically set aside for energy production.
4. NEAREST TRADITIONAL NAVIGABLE WATER (TNW), INTERSTATE WATER, OR THE TERRITORIAL SEAS TO WHICH THE AQUATIC RESOURCE IS CONNECTED. Clinch River is the nearest TNW.
5. FLOWPATH FROM THE SUBJECT AQUATIC RESOURCES TO A TNW, INTERSTATE WATER, OR THE TERRITORIAL SEAS Resource Name Flows Into Section 10 EPH01 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A EPH02 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A EPH03 Flows directly into STR03 (Clinch River)

Clinch River EPH04 Flows into EPH03 then STR03 (Clinch River)

Clinch River EPH05 Flows into EPH06 then STR03 (Clinch River)

Clinch River EPH06 Flows into STR03(Clinch River)

Clinch River EPH07 Flows directly into STR03 (Clinch River)

Clinch River

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 4

EPH08 Flows into P02/W007 but does not have continuous connection/

flowpath to TNW N/A EPH10 Flows directly into STR07 then STR03 (Clinch River)

Clinch River EPH11 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A EPH12 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A EPH13 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A EPH14 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A EPH18 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A EPH19a Flows into W021 but does not have continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A EPH19b Flows into W020b but does not have continuous connection/

flowpath to TNW N/A EPH19c Flows into W020a but does not have continuous connection/

flowpath to TNW N/A P01 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A P02 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A W007 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A SW03 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A P04 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A W002 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A W003 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A W004 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 5

W008 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A W009 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A W015 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A W018 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A W020b No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A W021 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A W031 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A W032 No continuous connection/ flowpath to TNW N/A

6. SECTION 10 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS6: Describe aquatic resources or other features within the review area determined to be jurisdictional in accordance with Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Include the size of each aquatic resource or other feature within the review area and how it was determined to be jurisdictional in accordance with Section 10.7 N/A
7. SECTION 404 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS: Describe the aquatic resources within the review area that were found to meet the definition of waters of the United States in accordance with the pre-2015 regulatory regime and consistent with the Supreme Courts decision in Sackett. List each aquatic resource separately, by name, consistent with the naming convention used in section 1, above. Include a rationale for each aquatic resource, supporting that the aquatic resource meets the relevant category of waters of the United States in the pre-2015 regulatory regime. The rationale should also include a written description of, or reference to a map in the administrative record that shows, the lateral limits of jurisdiction for each aquatic resource, including how that limit was determined, and incorporate relevant 6 33 CFR 329.9(a) A waterbody which was navigable in its natural or improved state, or which was susceptible of reasonable improvement (as discussed in § 329.8(b) of this part) retains its character as navigable in law even though it is not presently used for commerce, or is presently incapable of such use because of changed conditions or the presence of obstructions.

7 This MFR is not to be used to make a report of findings to support a determination that the water is a navigable water of the United States. The district must follow the procedures outlined in 33 CFR part 329.14 to make a determination that water is a navigable water of the United States subject to Section 10 of the RHA.

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 6

references used. Include the size of each aquatic resource in acres or linear feet and attach and reference related figures as needed.

a. TNWs (a)(1): N/A
b. Interstate Waters (a)(2): N/A
c. Other Waters (a)(3): N/A
d. Impoundments (a)(4): N/A
e. Tributaries (a)(5): N/A
f. The territorial seas (a)(6): N/A
g. Adjacent wetlands (a)(7): N/A
8. NON-JURISDICTIONAL AQUATIC RESOURCES AND FEATURES
a. Describe aquatic resources and other features within the review area identified as generally non-jurisdictional in the preamble to the 1986 regulations (referred to as preamble waters).8 Include size of the aquatic resource or feature within the review area and describe how it was determined to be non-jurisdictional under the CWA as a preamble water.

Resource Name Size Criteria Rationale P01 0.31 acre Artificial lakes and ponds created by the excavation and/or diking of dry land to collect and retain water which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins or rice growing.

P01 is a previously constructed stormwater basin associated with prior grading and construction at the site.

The basin was constructed in an area that was entirely comprised of uplands. W004 is connected and located upgradient form the feature but there is no outflow from the basin as it was constructed to retain water.

Historic aerial photos dated 1987 give clear visual of the constructed retention pond.

8 51 FR 41217, November 13, 1986.

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 7

P01 is consistent with a generally non-jurisdictional pond per the preamble to the 1986 regulations because it is an Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. 51 FR 41217 Based on the information above, we have determined that this resource does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

P02 0.18 acre Artificial lakes and ponds created by the excavation and/or diking of dry land to collect and retain water which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins or rice growing P02 is a previously constructed stormwater basin associated with prior grading and construction at the site.

The basin was constructed in an area that was entirely comprised of uplands. The feature is a basin that collects rainwater and has developed fringe wetland characteristics (W007).

There is no direct or indirect connection to any other features or waters. There is no outflow from the basin as it was constructed to retain water. Historic aerial photos dated 1987 give clear visual of the constructed retention pond.

P02 is consistent with a generally non-jurisdictional pond per the preamble to the 1986 regulations because it is an Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering,

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 8

irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. 51 FR 41217 Based on the information above, we have determined that this resource does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

W007 0.23 acre Artificial lakes and ponds created by the excavation and/or diking of dry land to collect and retain water which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins or rice growing W007 is a previously constructed stormwater basin associated with prior grading and construction at the site.

The basin was constructed in an area that was entirely comprised of uplands. The feature is located with a basin that collects rainwater and has developed fringe wetland characteristics associated with P02.

There is no direct or indirect connection to any other features or waters. There is no outflow from the basin as it was constructed to retain water. Historic aerial photos dated 1987 give clear visual of the constructed retention pond.

W007 is consistent with a generally non-jurisdictional pond per the preamble to the 1986 regulations because it is an Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. 51 FR 41217 Based on the information above, we have determined that this resource does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 9

SW03 0.75 acre Artificial lakes and ponds created by the excavation and/or diking of dry land to collect and retain water which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins or rice growing SW03 is a previously constructed stormwater basin associated with prior grading and construction at the site.

The basin was constructed in an area that was entirely comprised of uplands. There is no direct or indirect connection to any other features or waters. There is no outflow from the basin as it was constructed to retain water. Historic aerial photos dated 1987 give clear visual of the constructed retention pond.

SW03 is consistent with a generally non-jurisdictional pond per the preamble to the 1986 regulations because it is an Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. 51 FR 41217 Based on the information above, we have determined that this resource does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

P04 0.16 acre Artificial lakes and ponds created by the excavation and/or diking of dry land to collect and retain water which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins or rice growing P04 is a previously constructed stormwater basin associated with prior grading and construction at the site.

The basin was constructed in an area that was entirely comprised of uplands. There is no direct or indirect connection to any other features or waters. There is no outflow from the basin as it was constructed to retain water. Historic aerial photos dated 1987 give clear visual of the constructed retention pond.

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 10 P04 is consistent with a generally non-jurisdictional pond per the preamble to the 1986 regulations because it is an Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. 51 FR 41217 Based on the information above, we have determined that this resource does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

b. Describe aquatic resources and features within the review area identified as generally not jurisdictional in the Rapanos guidance. Include size of the aquatic resource or feature within the review area and describe how it was determined to be non-jurisdictional under the CWA based on the criteria listed in the guidance.

Resource Name Size Criteria Rationale EPH01 553 linear feet Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)

The supporting information and photos provided with TVAs Jurisdictional Determination request indicates that EPH01 lacked a defined bed and bank or any other indicators of OHWM. The lack of strong indicators of the OHWM supports our determination that the feature does not flow with enough frequency and duration to be considered a relatively permanent water.

During the site visits on October 17 and 24, 2023, it was noted that EPH01 lacked a defined bed and bank. Leaf litter was present within the footprint.

It was also noted that the feature did

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 11 not have any hydrological connection to any other features.

Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

EPH02 555 linear feet Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)

The supporting information and photos provided with TVAs Jurisdictional Determination request indicates that EPH02 lacked a defined bed and bank or any other indicators that the feature repeatedly flows in relation to rainfall events. The lack of strong indicators of the OHWM supports our determination that the feature does not flow with enough frequency and duration to be considered a relatively permanent water.

During the site visits on October 17 and 24, 2023, it was noted that EPH02 lacked a defined bed and bank. Leaf litter was present within the footprint.

The down gradient portion of the feature ends at the toe of a perimeter security road and there is no culvert present. Additionally, no drainage feature was observed on the opposite side of the road that would indicate that the feature has any hydrological connection to any other features Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 12 the definition of waters of the United States.

EPH03 139 linear feet Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)

EPH03 had a weakly defined bed and bank only in portions of the feature.

The feature lacked any other indicators that the feature repeatedly flows in relation to rainfall events. Leaf litter was present within the footprint.

The lack of strong indicators of the OHWM supports our determination that the feature does not flow with enough frequency and duration to be considered a relatively permanent water.

Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

EPH04 55 linear feet Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)

The supporting information and photos provided with TVAs Jurisdictional Determination request indicates that EPH04 lacked a defined bed and bank or any other indicators that the feature repeatedly flows in relation to rainfall events.

EPH04 lacked a defined bed and bank. Leaf litter was present within the footprint. EPH04 discharges into EPH03.

The lack of strong indicators of the OHWM supports our determination that the feature does not flow with enough frequency and duration to be considered a relatively permanent water.

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 13 Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

EPH05 25 linear feet Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)

The supporting information and photos provided with TVAs Jurisdictional Determination request indicates that EPH05 lacked a defined bed and bank or any other indicators that the feature repeatedly flows in relation to rainfall events. The lack of strong indicators of the OHWM supports our determination that the feature does not flow with enough frequency and duration to be considered a relatively permanent water.

Leaf litter was present within the footprint. The down gradient portion of the feature dissipates into W001.

Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

EPH06 118 linear feet Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)

The supporting information and photos provided with TVAs Jurisdictional Determination request indicates that EPH02 lacked a defined bed and bank or any other indicators that the feature repeatedly flows in relation to rainfall events. The lack of strong indicators of the OHWM supports our determination that the feature does not flow with enough frequency and

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 14 duration to be considered a relatively permanent water.

During the site visits on October 17 and 24, 2023, it was noted that EPH02 lacked a defined bed and bank. Leaf litter was present within the footprint.

The down gradient portion of the feature ends at the toe of a perimeter security road and there is no culvert present. Additionally, no drainage feature was observed on the opposite side of the road that would indicate that the feature has any hydrological connection to any other features Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

EPH07 124 linear feet Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)

EPH07 lacked a defined bed and bank or any other indicators that the feature repeatedly flows in relation to rainfall events. The feature did not have water present during TVAs 2023 site visit.

During the site visits on October 17 and 24, 2023, it was noted that EPH07 lacked a defined bed and bank. Leaf litter was present within the footprint.

The down gradient portion of the feature drains directly into a small embayment area of Clinch River.

The lack of strong indicators of the OHWM supports our determination that the feature does not flow with enough frequency and duration to be

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 15 considered a relatively permanent water.

Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

EPH08 124 linear feet Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)

EPH08 appears to be an erosional feature that was created as part of the creation of P02. The reach is relatively short and ends directly into P02. There is not outflow from P02.

Bed and bank was weakly defined.

During the site visits on October 17 and 24, 2023, it was noted that EPH08 appears to be feature that was created during the construction of P02 that was excavated in uplands as a settling basin. There is no hydrological connection to any other features beyond P02.

The lack of strong indicators of the OHWM supports our determination that the feature does not flow with enough frequency and duration to be considered a relatively permanent water.

Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

EPH10 679 linear feet Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small EPH10 drains along the perimeter access road and lacked a defined bed

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 16 washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow) and bank or any other indicators that the feature repeatedly flows in relation to rainfall events. The feature discharges into W017 then STR07.

During the site visits on October 17 and 24, 2023, it was noted that EPH10 lacked a defined bed and bank or any indicator of ordinary high water mark.

Leaf litter and sparse vegetation was present within the footprint. The down gradient portion of the feature flows into W017 then STR07.

The lack of strong indicators of the OHWM supports our determination that the feature does not flow with enough frequency and duration to be considered a relatively permanent water.

Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

EPH11 1,052 linear feet Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)

EPH11 lacked a defined bed and bank or any other indicators that the feature repeatedly flows in relation to rainfall events.

During the site visits on October 17 and 24, 2023, it was noted that EPH11 lacked a defined bed and bank. Leaf litter and vegetation was present within the footprint. The feature is topographically located between ridges forming the upland drainage way. The feature has no hydrological connection to any other feature.

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 17 The lack of strong indicators of the OHWM supports our determination that the feature does not flow with enough frequency and duration to be considered a relatively permanent water.

Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

EPH12 1,083 linear feet Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)

EPH12 lacked a defined bed and bank or any other indicators that the feature repeatedly flows in relation to rainfall events.

During the site visits on October 17 and 24, 2023, it was noted that EPH12 lacked a defined bed and bank. Leaf litter and vegetation was present within the footprint. The feature is topographically located between ridges forming the upland drainage way. The feature has no hydrological connection to any other feature.

The lack of strong indicators of the OHWM supports our determination that the feature does not flow with enough frequency and duration to be considered a relatively permanent water.

Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 18 the definition of waters of the United States.

EPH13 1,213 linear feet Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)

EPH13 lacked a defined bed and bank or any other indicators that the feature repeatedly flows in relation to rainfall events.

During the site visits on October 17 and 24, 2023, it was noted that EPH13 lacked a defined bed and bank. Leaf litter and vegetation was present within the footprint. The feature is topographically located between ridges forming the upland drainage way. The feature has no hydrological connection to any other feature.

The lack of strong indicators of the OHWM supports our determination that the feature does not flow with enough frequency and duration to be considered a relatively permanent water.

Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

EPH14 1,173 linear feet Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)

EPH14 lacked a defined bed and bank or any other indicators that the feature repeatedly flows in relation to rainfall events.

During the site visits on October 17 and 24, 2023, it was noted that EPH14 lacked a defined bed and bank. Leaf litter and vegetation was present within the footprint. The feature is topographically located between

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 19 ridges forming the upland drainage way. The feature has no hydrological connection to any other feature.

The lack of strong indicators of the OHWM supports our determination that the feature does not flow with enough frequency and duration to be considered a relatively permanent water.

Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

EPH18 421 linear feet Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)

EPH18 lacked a defined bed and bank or any other indicators that the feature repeatedly flows in relation to rainfall events.

During the site visits on October 17 and 24, 2023,, it was noted that EPH18 lacked a defined bed and bank. Leaf litter was present within the footprint. The down gradient portion of the feature ends abruptly and there is no hydrological connection to any other features or features in the vicinity of EPH18.

The lack of strong indicators of the OHWM supports our determination that the feature does not flow with enough frequency and duration to be considered a relatively permanent water.

Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 20 considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

EPH19a 147 linear feet Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)

EPH19a is a small (< 1 foot wide) wash located upgradient from W021 the dissipates into W021. There was leaf litter present in the feature, and it lacked a defined bed and bank. The feature lacked any other OHWM indicators. The feature ends within W021.

The lack of strong indicators of the OHWM supports our determination that the feature does not flow with enough frequency and duration to be considered a relatively permanent water.

Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

EPH19b 384 linear feet Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)

EPH19b is a small (< 1 foot wide) wash the connects W021 and W020b.

There was leaf litter present in the feature, and it lacked a defined bed and bank. The feature lacked any other OHWM indicators. The feature ends at the boundary of W020b.

The lack of strong indicators of the OHWM supports our determination that the feature does not flow with enough frequency and duration to be considered a relatively permanent water.

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 21 Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

EPH19c 26 linear feet Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)

EPH19c is a small (< 1 foot wide) wash the connects W020band W020a.

There was leaf litter present in the feature, and it lacked a defined bed and bank. The feature lacked any other OHWM indicators. The feature ends at the boundary of W020a.

The lack of strong indicators of the OHWM supports our determination that the feature does not flow with enough frequency and duration to be considered a relatively permanent water.

Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

W031 0.02 acre Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water W031 is adjacent to W Bear Creek and does not have a connection to any other aquatic features. The feature does not have any OHWM indicators as water collects from roadway runoff and does not drain resulting in the roadside linear wetland. W031 was excavated fully in uplands based on review of NRCS web soil survey map accessed in NRV on January 7, 2024.

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 22 Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

W031 0.13 acre Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water W032 is adjacent to W Bear Creek and does not have a connection to any other aquatic features. The feature does not have any OHWM indicators as water collects from roadway runoff and does not drain resulting in the roadside linear wetland. W032 was excavated fully in uplands based on review of NRCS web soil survey map accessed in NRV on January 7, 2024.

Based on the information above, we have determined that this feature is considered generally not jurisdictional under the Rapanos guidance and therefore does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

c. Describe aquatic resources and features identified within the review area as waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA. Include the size of the waste treatment system within the review area and describe how it was determined to be a waste treatment system. N/A
d. Describe aquatic resources and features within the review area determined to be prior converted cropland in accordance with the 1993 regulations (reference 2.b.). Include the size of the aquatic resource or feature within the review area and describe how it was determined to be prior converted cropland. N/A
e. Describe aquatic resources (i.e. lakes and ponds) within the review area, which do not have a nexus to interstate or foreign commerce, and prior to the January 2001 Supreme Court decision in SWANCC, would have been jurisdictional based solely on the Migratory Bird Rule. Include the size of the aquatic

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 23 resource or feature, and how it was determined to be an isolated water in accordance with SWANCC. N/A

f. Describe aquatic resources and features within the review area that were determined to be non-jurisdictional because they do not meet one or more categories of waters of the United States under the pre-2015 regulatory regime consistent with the Supreme Courts decision in Sackett (e.g., tributaries that are non-relatively permanent waters; non-tidal wetlands that do not have a continuous surface connection to a jurisdictional water).

Non-linear features:

Wetlands:

The features in the below table were delineated as a wetland per the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the appropriate supplement. These wetland features do not have a continuous surface connection to a jurisdictional water.

Resource Name Size Rationale W002 0.11 acre This determination is supported by the lack of discrete feature such as a non-jurisdictional ditch, swale, or culvert connecting the wetland to a jurisdictional water. W002 is not directly abutting a jurisdictional water. This was verified in the field during the October 17 2023, and October 24, 2023, site visits as well as reviewing LiDAR/DEM maps in the NRV on January 7, 2024.

Based on the information above we have determined that the subject resource does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

W003 1.71 acre This determination is supported by the lack of discrete feature such as a non-jurisdictional ditch, swale, or culvert connecting the wetland to a jurisdictional water. W003 is not directly abutting a jurisdictional water. This was verified in the field during the October 17, 2023, and October 24, 2023, site visit as well as reviewing LiDAR/DEM maps in the NRV on January 7, 2024.

Based on the information above we have determined that the subject resource does not meet the definition of waters of the United States W004 0.10 acre This determination is supported by the lack of discrete feature such as a non-jurisdictional ditch, swale, or culvert connecting the wetland to a jurisdictional water. W004 is not directly abutting a jurisdictional

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 24 water. The feature is upgradient of the constructed basin P01. This was verified in the field during the October 17, 2023, and October 24, 2023, site visit, as well as reviewing LiDAR/DEM maps in the NRV on January 7, 2024.

Based on the information above we have determined that the subject resource does not meet the definition of waters of the United States.

W008 0.94 acre This determination is supported by the lack of discrete feature such as a non-jurisdictional ditch, swale, or culvert connecting the wetland to a jurisdictional water. W008 is not directly abutting a jurisdictional water. This was verified in the field during October 17, 2023, and October 24, 2023, site visit as well as reviewing LiDAR/DEM maps in the NRV on January 7, 2024.

W009 0.17 acre This determination is supported by the lack of discrete feature such as a non-jurisdictional ditch, swale, or culvert connecting the wetland to a jurisdictional water. W009 is not directly abutting a jurisdictional water. This was verified in the field during October 17, 2023, and October 24, 2023, site visit as well as reviewing LiDAR/DEM maps in the NRV on January 7, 2024.

W015 0.35 acre This determination is supported by the lack of discrete feature such as a non-jurisdictional ditch, swale, or culvert connecting the wetland to a jurisdictional water. W015 is not directly abutting a jurisdictional water. This was verified in the field during October 17, 2023, and October 24, 2023, site visit as well as reviewing LiDAR/DEM maps in the NRV on January 7, 2024.

W018 1.16 acre This determination is supported by the lack of discrete feature such as a non-jurisdictional ditch, swale, or culvert connecting the wetland to a jurisdictional water. W018 is not directly abutting a jurisdictional water. This was verified in the field during October 17, 2023, and October 24, 2023, site visit as well as reviewing LiDAR/DEM maps in the NRV on January 7, 2024.

W020b 0.18 acre The only hydrological connection from W020b to any feature is EPH19c which was determined to be an erosional swale. As noted in Section 8(b.) EPH19c is a small (< 1 foot wide) wash the connects W020band W020a. There was leaf litter present in the feature, and it lacked a defined bed and bank. The feature lacked any other OHWM indicators. The feature ends at the boundary of W020a. Given updated March 12, 2025, guidance regarding continuous surface connection, it has been determined that W021 is not abutting a

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 25 jurisdictional water. This was verified in the field during October 17, 2023, and October 24, 2023, site visit as well as reviewing LiDAR/DEM maps in the NRV on January 7, 2024.

W021 0.68 acre The only hydrological connection from W021 to any feature is EPH19b which was determined to be an erosional swale. As noted in Section 8(b.), EPH19b is a small (< 1 foot wide) wash the connects W021 and W020b. There was leaf litter present in the feature, and it lacked a defined bed and bank. The feature lacked any other OHWM indicators. The feature ends at the boundary of W020b. Given updated March 12, 2025, guidance regarding continuous surface connection, it has been determined that W021 is not abutting a jurisdictional water. This was verified in the field during October 17, 2023, and October 24, 2023, site visit as well as reviewing LiDAR/DEM maps in the NRV on January 7, 2024.

9. DATA SOURCES. List sources of data/information used in making determination.

Include titles and dates of sources used and ensure that information referenced is available in the administrative record.

a. Consultant report dated May 23, 2023 I.

Field photos (consultant field visit conducted March 30, 2023)

II.

Hydrologic Determination Field Data Sheets III.

Wetland Delineation Sheets IV.

Feature Description Narratives V.

USGS Topo Map VI.

Watershed Map VII.

Soils Map

b. USACE field visit conducted October 24, 2023 I.

Field Verification Photos II.

Site Visit Notes III.

AgACIS NRCS Precipitation Data

c. National Regulatory Viewer Layers accessed January 7, 2025 I.

National Wetland Inventory II.

National Hydrography Dataset III.

USA Soils Map Units IV.

3DEP Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

V.

3DEP Hill Shade

d. Historicaerials.com accessed January 8, 2025

CELRN-RD

SUBJECT:

Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRN-2014-00155 26 I.

Historic Aerial Imagery

10. OTHER SUPPORTING INFORMATION.
11. NOTE: The structure and format of this MFR were developed in coordination with the EPA and Department of the Army. The MFRs structure and format may be subject to future modification or may be rescinded as needed to implement additional guidance from the agencies; however, the approved jurisdictional determination described herein is a final agency action.

Features documented in AJD dated 28 OCT 2024 Features documented in PJD and/or AJD dated 19 MAR 2025 LRN-2014-00155 TVA-Clinch River Nuclear Site JD Map Sheet 1 of 11

  • Features outlined and highlighted in ORANGE are documented in AJD dated 19 MAR 2025
  • All other features are documented in PJD dated 19 MAR 2025 LRN-2014-00155 TVA-Clinch River Nuclear Site JD Map Sheet 2 of 11
  • Features outlined and highlighted in ORANGE are documented in AJD dated 19 MAR 2025 All other features are documented in PJD dated 19 MAR 2025 LRN-2014-00155 TVA-Clinch River Nuclear Site JD Map Sheet 3 of 11
  • Features outlined and highlighted in ORANGE are documented in AJD dated 19 MAR 2025 All other features are documented in PJD dated 19 MAR 2025 LRN-2014-00155 TVA-Clinch River Nuclear Site JD Map Sheet 4 of 11
  • Features outlined and highlighted in ORANGE are documented in AJD dated 19 MAR 2025 All other features are documented in PJD dated 19 MAR 2025 LRN-2014-00155 TVA-Clinch River Nuclear Site JD Map Sheet 5 of 11
  • Features outlined and highlighted in ORANGE are documented in AJD dated 19 MAR 2025 All other features are documented in PJD dated 19 MAR 2025 LRN-2014-00155 TVA-Clinch River Nuclear Site JD Map Sheet 6 of 11

Features documented in AJD dated 28 OCT 2024

  • Features outlined and highlighted in ORANGE are documented in AJD dated 19 MAR 2025 All other features are documented in PJD dated 19 MAR 2025 LRN-2014-00155 TVA-Clinch River Nuclear Site JD Map Sheet 7 of 11
  • Features outlined and highlighted in ORANGE are documented in AJD dated 19 MAR 2025 All other features are documented in PJD dated 19 MAR 2025 LRN-2014-00155 TVA-Clinch River Nuclear Site JD Map Sheet 8 of 11
  • Features outlined and highlighted in ORANGE are documented in AJD dated 19 MAR 2025 All other features are documented in PJD dated 19 MAR 2025 LRN-2014-00155 TVA-Clinch River Nuclear Site JD Map Sheet 9 of 11
  • Features outlined and highlighted in ORANGE are documented in AJD dated 19 MAR 2025 All other features are documented in PJD dated 19 MAR 2025 LRN-2014-00155 TVA-Clinch River Nuclear Site JD Map Sheet 10 of 11

EPH19a EPH19b EP EP EP EPP EP EP EPP EP EP EP EP EP EPP EP EP EP EPP EP EPP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EPP EP EP EP EPP EP EPP EP EP EP EP EPP EP EP EPP EP EPP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EPH1 H1 H1 H1 H11 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H11 H11 H1 H11 H1 H11 H11 H11 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H11 H1 H1 H1 H19b 9b 9b 9b 9b 9b 9b 9b 9bb 9bb 9b 9b 9bb 9bb 9b 9bb 9b 9b 9bb 9bb 9b 9b 9b 9bb 9b 9b 9b 9bb 9b 9b 9bb 9b 9bb 9bb 9b 9b 9b 9b 9b EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EPP EP EP EP EPP EP EP EPP EP EP EP EP EPP EP EPP EP EP EPP EP EP EP EPH1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H11 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H11 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H19a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9a 9aa 9aa 9a 9a 9aa 9a 9aa W021 W020b EPH19a EPH19b EPH19c

  • Features outlined and highlighted in ORANGE are documented in AJD dated 19 MAR 2025 All other features are documented in PJD dated 19 MAR 2025 W021 EPH19a EPH19b EPH19c W020b LRN-2014-00155 TVA-Clinch River Nuclear Site JD Map Sheet 11 of 11 NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND REQUEST FOR APPEAL Applicant: Tennessee Valley Authority File Number: LRN-2014-00155 Date: April 9, 2025 Attached is:

See Section below INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)

B PERMIT DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE C

PERMIT DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE D

x APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E

x PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION F

SECTION I The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision. Additional information may be found at https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/appeals/ or Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.

A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.

OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.

B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.

APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

C. PERMIT DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE: Not appealable You received a permit denial without prejudice because a required Federal, state, and/or local authorization and/or certification has been denied for activities which also require a Department of the Army permit before final action has been taken on the Army permit application. The permit denial without prejudice is not appealable. There is no prejudice to the right of the applicant to reinstate processing of the Army permit application if subsequent approval is received from the appropriate Federal, state, and/or local agency on a previously denied authorization and/or certification.

D: PERMIT DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE: You may appeal the permit denial You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information for reconsideration ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.

APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

RECONSIDERATION: You may request that the district engineer reconsider the approved JD by submitting new information or data to the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

The district will determine whether the information submitted qualifies as new information or data that justifies reconsideration of the approved JD. A reconsideration request does not initiate the appeal process. You may submit a request for appeal to the division engineer to preserve your appeal rights while the district is determining whether the submitted information qualifies for a reconsideration.

F: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: Not appealable You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.

POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:

If you have questions regarding this decision you may contact:

Nashville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division ATTN: Ms. Cara Beverly 3701 Bell Road Nashville, Tennessee 37214 (865) 304-1413; cara.c.beverly@usace.army.mil If you have questions regarding the appeal process, or to submit your request for appeal, you may contact:

Regulatory Appeals Review Officer ATTN: Ms. Katie McCafferty Army Engineers Division 550 Main Street, Room 10-780 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3222 Phone: (513) 684-2699 SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. Use additional pages as necessary. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record.

Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record.

RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day notice of any site investigation and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.

Signature of appellant or agent.

Date:

Email address of appellant and/or agent:

Telephone number:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML25260A011&oldid=5534231"