ORDER

EDWARD G. SMITH, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 17th sday of March, 2015, after considering the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants (Doc. No. 16), the response in opposition to the motion filed by the plaintiffs (Doc. No. 19), the reply in support of the motion filed by the defendants (Doc. No. 24), and the supplemental memorandum of law filed by the plaintiffs (Doc. No. 34); and after reviewing the complaint and attached exhibits (Doc. Nos. 1-2);

AND AFTER FURTHER REVIEWING the motion for summary judgment and accompanying memorandum of law filed by the plaintiffs (Doc. Nos. 32-33), the responses in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion filed by the defendants and the intervenors (Doc. Nos. 37-38), the motion for summary judgment filed by the intervenors (Doc. No. 35), the response in opposition to the intervenors' motion filed by the plaintiffs (Doc. No. 40), the motion for summary judgment and accompanying materials filed by the defendants (Doc. No. 36), the response in opposition to the defendants' motion filed by the plaintiffs (Doc. No. 39), and the reply in support of the motion filed by the defendants (Doc. No. 41); and after oral argument held before the undersigned on November 12, 2014; accordingly, and for the reasons expressed in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED as follows:

a. The claim arising under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1388, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; and

b. The claim arising under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

2. The outstanding motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 32, 35, 36) are DENIED AS MOOT; and

3. The clerk of court is DIRECTED to mark this matter as CLOSED.