Army Corps of Engineers Proposal to Issue and Modift ...Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Proposal To Issue and Modify Nationwide Permits AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

fede

ral r

egiste

r

36039

WednesdayJuly 1, 1998

Part II

Department ofDefenseDepartment of the Army, Corps ofEngineers

Proposal To Issue and Modify NationwidePermits; Notice

36040 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1998 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Corps ofEngineers

Proposal To Issue and ModifyNationwide Permits

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,DoD.ACTION: Notice of intent and request forcomments.

SUMMARY: To improve protection of theenvironment the Army Corps ofEngineers is proposing changes to itsNationwide General Permit Program. OnDecember 13, 1996, the Corpsannounced that it would phase outnationwide permit 26 (NWP 26) whichcovered certain activities in isolatedwaters and waters above the‘‘headwaters’’ point on streams.Specifically, the Corps is proposing toissue 6 new nationwide permits (NWPs)and modify 6 existing NWPs to becomeeffective when NWP 26 expires. Inaddition, the Corps is proposing to addone NWP condition and modify 6existing NWP conditions, which willapply to all existing NWPs as well as thenew and modified NWPs proposed inthis notice. These NWPs are activity-specific, and most are restricted todischarges of dredged or fill materialinto non-tidal waters of the UnitedStates. In addition to improvingprotection of our aquatic resources, aprincipal objective is to ensure thatthose activities with truly minimalimpacts are authorized in an efficientmanner by a general permit. In thisregard, we believe that these new andmodified NWPs will authorize thoseactivities with minimal impacts that arecurrently authorized by NWP 26. Theywill also authorize like activities withminimal impacts that occur below theheadwaters. These NWPs will allow theCorps to improve overall environmentalprotection by allowing the Corps toprioritize its work in non-tidal watersbased on the quality of impacted aquaticsystems and the specific impacts of aproposed project. Although NWP 26was originally scheduled to expire onDecember 13, 1998, the Corps isproposing to change the expiration dateto March 28, 1999, to ensure that theCorps has adequate time to effectivelyinvolve the other agencies and thepublic in a new regional conditioningprocess. When the Corps firstestablished the December 13, 1998,expiration date for NWP 26, we did notcontemplate the extensive processneeded to develop sound regionalconditions. This extension is necessarysince a lapse between the expiration of

NWP 26 and the effective date of thereplacement NWPs is unacceptable andunnecessary.

The Corps is also proposing to modifyits ‘‘single family home’’ NWP (NWP 29)to change the acreage limit to 1⁄4 acre,as discussed at the end of the preambleto this notice. In the interim, the Corpsis suspending NWP 29 for single familyhousing activities that result in the lossof greater than 1⁄4 acre of non-tidalwaters of the United States, includingnon-tidal wetlands. The Corps is alsomaking available a revisedenvironmental assessment for NWP 29.

The public is invited to providecomments on these proposals and isbeing given the opportunity to request apublic hearing on these activity-specificNWPs.DATES: Comments on the proposed newand modified NWPs and the proposedmodification of NWP 29 must bereceived by August 31, 1998. Commentson the proposal to extend the expirationdate of NWP 26 to March 28, 1999, mustbe received by July 31, 1998.ADDRESSES: HQUSACE, CECW–OR,Washington, D.C. 20314–1000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.David Olson or Mr. Sam Collinson,CECW–OR, at (202) 761–0199 or http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg/.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The protection and restoration of theaquatic environment is an integral partof the Army Corps of Engineers mission.In its recent Strategic Plan, the Corpsmade it clear that this part of its missionwas equal to its more traditionalmissions of navigation and flooddamage reduction. Over the past 10years the Corps has made remarkableprogress in improving environmentalprotection through its RegulatoryProgram. An example is the substantialimprovements in the Nationwide Permitprogram. Through each of the last twofive-year reauthorization cycles, theCorps has improved the NWP program.This proposal today takes an additionalimportant step as the Corps phases outNWP 26.

While some may not appreciate fullythe import of today’s proposal onimproving environmental protection,one must only discuss this issue withthose who have implemented the NWPsfor the past 20 years to gain an accurateaccount of the substantial progresstoday’s action reflects. This proposal isa reflection of the Corps unequivocalcommitment to its environmentalmission and to wetlands protection.

The Corps is also committed toreducing regulatory burdens wherepossible. Consistent with the President’s1993 Wetlands Plan, the Corps, alongwith other Federal agencies, has madethe Regulatory Program more fair, moreflexible, and more effective. This NWPproposal also reflects this commitment.

The Corps of Engineers is proposingnew and modified NWPs that willauthorize those activities with minimaladverse effects on the aquaticenvironment that are currentlyauthorized by NWP 26. This will ensurethe NWP program is based on types ofactivities and continues to authorizework that has no more than minimaladverse effects on the aquaticenvironment. The Corps believes thatthe overall protection of the aquaticenvironment will be increased by thesenew and modified NWPs whencompared to the existing NWP program.The proposed NWPs will help the Corpsachieve its goal of managing itsworkload based on impacts to theaquatic environment as a whole, not onimpacts to any particular geographictype of waters, such as isolated watersor headwater streams. The proposednew and modified NWPs, along with theexisting NWPs, will allow the Corps tomanage its workload by efficientlyauthorizing activities with minimaladverse effects and focusing its limitedresources on aquatic areas of highervalue. Higher value waters, includingwetlands, will receive additionalprotection through increased regionalconditioning of NWPs, case-specificspecial conditions, and case-specificdiscretionary authority to require astandard individual permit wherenecessary. These measures will ensurethat impacts to these waters authorizedby NWPs are no more than minimal.The Corps has established permitthresholds that will allow authorizationof most projects that result in no morethan minimal adverse effects on theaquatic environment. At the same time,the Corps has established PCN limits toensure that any project that may havemore than minimal adverse effects onthe aquatic environment will bereviewed. Moreover, since a minimaladverse effect is still an effect on theaquatic environment, we will alsorequire compensatory mitigation, whenappropriate, to ensure that the goal of nonet loss is achieved in the NWP programand that the cumulative adverse effectsof these activities on the aquaticenvironment are minimal. Moreover, theCorps believes that the proposed NWPs,along with regional conditioning andthe ability to place special conditions onNWP authorizations on a case-by-case

36041Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1998 / Notices

basis, will authorize no more thanminimal individual and cumulativeadverse effects to waters of the UnitedStates. Regional conditions will berequired by each district to furtherrestrict the use of the NWPs in highervalue aquatic systems.

In the June 17, 1996, issue of theFederal Register, the Corps proposed toreissue NWP 26 and requestedcomments on several options formodification of this NWP. In responseto this notice, the Corps received morethan 500 comments concerning NWP26. Numerous commenters opposedreissuance of NWP 26. Somecommenters acknowledged thenecessity of NWP 26, but believed thatthe NWP must be modified to addresspotential cumulative adverse effects.Many commenters stated that NWP 26has worked well and that the loss ofNWP 26 would result in increasedregulatory burdens on the public, lessregulatory certainty, unacceptableworkload increases for the Corps,increased processing times, projectdelays, and an overall lessening of theregulatory program’s ability to protectwaters of the United States. As a resultof the Corps review, the Corpsdetermined that NWP 26 should bereplaced with activity-specific NWPs,but in the interim a substantiallymodified NWP 26 was reissued onDecember 13, 1996, for a period of twoyears. This phased approach wasdetermined to be necessary to minimizedisruption and confusion for theregulated public and improveenvironmental protection. For acomplete discussion of the issuesconcerning the reissuance andmodification of NWP 26, please refer tothe December 13, 1996, issue of theFederal Register (61 FR 65874–65922).

The coordination process to developthe new and modified NWPs has takenlonger than the Corps expected.Moreover, the Corps has established avery time intensive process toeffectively engage other agencies andthe public in developing regionalconditions.

Due to the additional amount of timerequired to develop the proposed newand modified NWPs and regionalconditions, the Corps is proposing tochange the expiration date of NWP 26to March 28, 1999. Extending theexpiration date of NWP 26 will ensurefairness to the regulated public bycontinuing to provide an NWP foractivities in headwaters and isolatedwaters that have minimal adverseenvironmental effects until theproposed activity-specific NWPs thatwill replace NWP 26 become effective.If NWP 26 were to expire on the

originally scheduled date of December13, 1998, then most project proponentswould have to apply for authorizationthrough the individual permit process,although some activities may beauthorized by other NWPs or regionalgeneral permits. For many activitieswith minimal adverse environmentaleffects, this would result in unnecessaryburdens on the regulated public withoutadded environmental benefits.

Section 404(e) of the Clean Water Act,which provides the statutory authorityfor the issuance of general permits,states that general permits (includingnationwide permits) can be issued forno more than five years. Therefore,NWP 26 can be in effect for a 5 yearperiod. However, the Corps decided thatNWP 26 should expire whenreplacement NWPs become effective.We established a schedule fordeveloping replacement NWPs byDecember 13, 1998, and announced thatNWP 26 would expire then. The revisedschedule to develop the new andmodified NWPs now indicates that theywill become effective on March 28,1999. Based on this schedule, we areproposing to extend the expiration dateof NWP 26 to March 28, 1999. Thepublic is invited to provide commentson the proposal to extend the expirationdate of NWP 26 within 30 days of thedate of this notice. After the 30 daycomment period, the Corps will make adecision on the proposal to extend theexpiration date of NWP 26, and publishthe decision in the Federal Register.

The replacement of NWP 26 withactivity-specific NWPs will helpimplement the President’s WetlandsPlan, which was issued by the WhiteHouse Office on Environmental Policyon August 24, 1993. A major goal of thisplan is that Federal wetlands protectionprograms be fair, flexible, and effective.To achieve this goal, the Corpsregulatory program must continue toprovide effective protection of wetlandsand other aquatic resources and avoidunnecessary impacts to privateproperty, the regulated public, and theenvironment. These proposed NWPswill more clearly address individualand cumulative impacts to the aquaticenvironment, ensure that those impactsare minimal, address specific applicantgroup needs, and provide morepredictability and consistency to theregulated public. Throughout theprocess of developing the new andmodified NWPs, the Corps recognizedthe concerns of natural resourceagencies and environmental groups forthe potential level of adverse effects onthe aquatic environment resulting fromthese NWPs and the regulated public’s

need for the certainty and flexibility inthe NWP program.

The activity-specific NWPs proposedin this notice were developed based oninformation from several sources: (1)comments submitted in response to theDecember 13, 1996, Federal Registernotice to issue, reissue, and modify theNWPs; (2) Corps internalrecommendations; (3) data concerningthe types of activities currentlyauthorized by NWP 26; (4) discussionswith other Federal agencies; and (5)discussions with both developmentaland environmental stakeholders.

Since NWP 26 was modified andreissued, the Corps collected additionaldata on the types of activities authorizedby NWP 26 to develop these new NWPs.From May 1, 1997, through December31, 1997, 83% of the total activitiesauthorized by NWP 26 fell into 10categories. Residential developmentcomprised approximately 24% of theactivities authorized by NWP 26.Transportation activities accounted for19% of the NWP 26 authorizations. Sixpercent to 8% of NWP 26 authorizationswere for each the following activities:agricultural activities, retaildevelopments, industrial developments,stormwater facilities, andimpoundments. Institutional facilities,mining activities, and channelmodification activities each comprised2% to 5% of the NWP 26 authorizationsduring this time period.

In response to the December 13, 1996,Federal Register notice, severalcommenters recommended NWPs foractivities that were specificallyauthorized by NWP 26. We alsoreceived comments that recommendedmodifications to existing NWPs toauthorize additional activities. Weconsidered all recommendationsreceived and, where appropriate,developed a proposed new NWP orproposed modification of an existingNWP to authorize that activity. Someproposals involved activities that didnot require a permit or were exemptfrom Section 404 or Section 10 permitrequirements. Where we believed that itwas not appropriate to develop an NWPfor a particular recommended activity,our reasons are provided elsewhere inthis notice.

In contrast to NWP 26, none of theproposed new NWPs and the proposedmodifications of existing NWPs arerestricted solely to activities inheadwaters and isolated wetlands.However, most are limited to work innon-tidal waters of the United States,and do not authorize work in tidalwaters (i.e., waters subject to the ebband flow of the tide) or in non-tidalwetlands contiguous (i.e., connected by


surface waters) to tidal waters. Some ofthe proposed new and modified NWPsare applicable only in non-Section 10waters and do not authorize work intidal waters or in non-tidal navigablewaters of the United States. The removalof the headwaters restriction will helpimprove consistency and reduceconfusion by eliminating the need todetermine where the median flow of awaterbody, on an annual basis, is lessthan 5 cubic feet per second. In thisproposal, we have clarified that for allNWPs, the acreage of loss of waters ofthe United States, which is thethreshold measurement of the grossimpacts to existing waters fordetermining whether a project mightqualify for an NWP, includes the filledarea plus any waters of the UnitedStates that are adversely affected byflooding, excavation, or drainage as aresult of the project. Furthermore, inmost cases compensatory mitigationwill be required for these losses.

Many of the proposed new andmodified NWPs have preconstructionnotification (PCN) requirements, whichallow the Corps to review proposedactivities on a case-by-case basis to: (1)place special conditions on specificprojects to ensure that the authorizedimpacts will have minimal individualand cumulative adverse effects on theaquatic system; or (2) assertdiscretionary authority to require astandard individual permit. Theseprovisions will ensure that the impactsauthorized by the NWPs will beminimal. The PCN requirements differfor each NWP. The PCN threshold isbased on a level of effects on theexisting aquatic ecosystem that requiresreview by the District Engineer toensure that those effects are minimal.Each district will identify any areas ofhigh value waters that require lowerPCN levels to ensure minimal adverseeffects on the aquatic environment.With the national and district-addedPCN thresholds, any activity belowthese limits will have minimal adverseeffects on the aquatic environment.Many of the proposed NWPs have PCNrequirements for activities that result inthe loss, by filling or excavation, ofgreater than 500 linear feet of streambed. The term ‘‘stream bed’’ is defined,for the purpose of the proposed newNWPs, as a water of the United Stateswith flowing water (i.e., perennial andintermittent streams). Ephemeral streambeds are not subject to this 500 linearfoot PCN requirement. However, Corpsdistricts may regionally conditioncertain NWPs to require notification foractivities that adversely affectephemeral streams. District engineers

are responsible for determining if aparticular stream bed is perennial,intermittent, or ephemeral, based on thedefinitions provided below. Districtengineers can assert discretionaryauthority and require an individualpermit for those activities that theydetermine will have more than minimalindividual or cumulative adverse effectson the aquatic environment. As with allNWPs, Corps districts will continue torequire that applicants avoid andminimize impacts on-site.

Section 404(e) of the Clean Water Actrequires that only activities withminimal adverse environmental effects,both individually and cumulatively, canbe authorized by general permits.Activities with more than minimaladverse impacts are subject to theindividual permit process and theassociated alternatives analysis,individual public notice procedures,and other aspects of individual reviewthat help ensure that potential adverseeffects are fully avoided and minimizedto the maximum extent practicablebefore an activity is authorized. On anational basis, the Corps prescribesterms and conditions for nationwidepermits to ensure that the NWPs onlyauthorize activities that have minimalindividual and cumulative adverseeffects on the aquatic environment.Furthermore, in certain situations toensure that activities authorized byNWPs have minimal adverse effects, theCorps: (1) requires a specific review(i.e., a preconstruction notification) sothat activity-specific conditions can beimposed where necessary; (2) addsregional conditions on a regional orgeographic basis, to ensure thatactivities authorized by the NWPs haveminimal adverse effects; or (3) exercisesdiscretionary authority to requireindividual permits for those activitiesthat would have more than minimaladverse effects on the aquaticenvironment.

District engineers will normallyrequire compensatory mitigation tooffset adverse environmental effects tothe aquatic environment that result fromactivities authorized by these NWPs,thus ensuring no more than minimalcumulative adverse environmentaleffects and supporting the goal of no netloss of aquatic resource functions andvalues. Compensatory mitigation can beaccomplished through individualmitigation projects, through mitigationbanks and through in lieu fee programs.A focus of all mitigation for NWPimpacts in and around flowing andother open waters will be to normallyrequire vegetated buffers, includingupland areas adjacent to open waters.

These buffer areas are vital forprotecting and enhancing water quality.

Compensatory mitigation is necessaryto offset losses of functions and valuesof aquatic systems caused by permittedactivities. In 1997, the Corps required28,631 acres of compensatory mitigationfor 15,989 acres of impacts authorizedby standard permits (which includesindividual permits and letters ofpermission). During this same timeperiod, the Corps required 24,819 acresof compensatory mitigation for 21,409acres of impacts authorized by generalpermits, including nationwide permitsand regional general permits.Restoration, enhancement, and creationcomprise the bulk of compensatorymitigation efforts. Less than 5% of thiscompensatory mitigation isaccomplished through preservation ofaquatic resources. In some Corpsdistricts, such as Savannah District,preservation of aquatic habitats is usedto augment restoration, enhancement,and creation efforts. In the SavannahDistrict, permittees are typicallyrequired to provide restoration,enhancement, and creation at a 1:1 ratioof impacts to mitigation, and provideadditional preservation of aquaticresources, to ensure that there is no netloss of functions and values as a resultof authorized activities.

Permittees who received an NWP 26authorization before NWP 26 expireswill have up to 12 months to completethe authorized activity, provided theyhave commenced construction, or areunder contract to commenceconstruction, prior to the date NWP 26expires (see 33 CFR 330.6(b)). Thisprovision applies to all NWPauthorizations unless discretionaryauthority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend, orrevoke the authorization in accordancewith 33 CFR 330.4(e) and 33 CFR330.5(c) or (d).

The existing NWPs, with theexception of NWP 26, will remain ineffect until they expire on February 11,2002, unless otherwise modified,reissued, or revoked. Some of theproposed NWPs can be used withexisting NWPs to authorize projectswith minimal individual or cumulativeadverse effects on the aquaticenvironment. Any prohibitions orlimitations regarding stacking of theproposed new or modified NWPs withexisting NWPs or each other will beaddressed in the proposed NWPs.

The Corps believes that substantialadditional protection of the overallaquatic environment will result frommodification of two NWP conditions.We are proposing to modify GeneralCondition 9, previously entitled ‘‘Water


Quality Certification’’, to require thatpost-project conditions do not result inmore than minimal degradation ofdownstream water quality. For certainNWPs, this General Condition willrequire the implementation of a waterquality management plan to protect andenhance aquatic resources. The waterquality management plan may consist ofstorm water management techniquesand/or the establishment of vegetatedbuffer zones. In many cases, the Corpswill be able to rely on State or localwater quality plans. We are alsoproposing to modify former Section 404Only Condition 6 by changing its titlefrom ‘‘Obstruction of High Flows’’ to‘‘Management of Water Flows’’ andmodifying it to require that neitherupstream nor downstream areas aremore than minimally flooded ordewatered after the project iscompleted. This requirement will helpensure that post-construction effects onthe aquatic environment and populatedareas are further minimized. We are alsomodifying other conditions andconsolidating the general and Section404 only NWP conditions to a singlelist, as discussed below.

Ensuring the protection of threatenedand endangered species is a highpriority of the Department of the ArmyRegulatory Program, including thegeneral permit program. Because ofprogrammatic safeguards and individualproject review, the Corps continues tobelieve the NWP program results in noeffect on endangered species.Notwithstanding this position, we haverequested formal programmaticconsultation with the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (FWS) and NationalMarine Fisheries Service (NMFS) toensure that the NWP program, includingthe proposed new and modified NWPs,has a formal process to develop anynecessary additional procedures at thedistrict level. This will ensure that theprogram will not jeopardize thecontinued existence of any Federallylisted endangered species. The formalconsultation will be initiated as soon aspossible and completed by December13, 1998.

In addition to the standard NWPcondition for endangered species, theCorps has required regional conditionsand activity-specific conditions toaddress specific endangered species. Tofurther ensure compliance with therequirements of ESA, Corps districtshave developed, and will continue todevelop, local operating procedures(referred to as Standard Local OperatingProcedures for Endangered Species, orSLOPES) to ensure that districts willcontinue to reach a project specific‘‘may affect’’ determination when

necessary, and thus consult with FWSand NMFS, where appropriate.Furthermore, programmatic formalconsultation has been initiated on NWP29. We expect this consultation will becompleted this summer. Corps districtswill develop additional regionalconditions and SLOPES this summer forthe new and modified NWPs, to ensurethat we fully comply with theEndangered Species Act.

Overall, the Corps believes that theproposed changes to the NWP programwill substantially enhance protection ofthe aquatic environment while allowingactivities with minimal individual andcumulative adverse effects on theaquatic environment to proceed with aminimum of delay. For example, wherewe have proposed higher acreage limitsfor mitigated losses, such as NWP B formaster planned development activities,the applicant must fully protect allremaining waters in the project area andoffset all losses of aquatic functions andvalues within the community. In thisway, the overall aquatic environmentwill be maintained, and in many casesenhanced, by planning for treatment ofstormwater, establishing and/ormaintaining buffers around all aquaticareas, and placing deed restrictions onall unimpacted aquatic environmentsand associated buffer areas. In addition,some of these NWPs will authorize allsecondary activities associated with theprimary activity, such as infrastructureand recreational amenities, with theimpacts for a residential development.This will discourage piecemealing byencouraging applicants to present thetotal project.

General IssuesIn addition to seeking comments on

the proposed new and modified NWPs,the Corps is soliciting comments on thefollowing general issues related to theproposed NWPs: the scope of the newNWPs, acreage limitations and PCNthresholds on the proposed NWPs,assessing cumulative impacts on awatershed basis, and regionalconditioning of the NWPs. The Corps isalso seeking comments on other issuesrelated to the NWPs, such asmaintenance of landfill surfaces,maintenance and filling of ditchesadjacent to roads and railways,maintenance of water treatmentfacilities, the use of mitigation banks inthe NWP program, and expansion ofNWP 31, which are discussed below inthe section entitled ‘‘Other SuggestedNWPs’’.

NEPA ComplianceThe Corps recognizes that there has

been, and continues to be, substantial

interest among the public regarding thepotential environmental effectsassociated with the implementation ofthe Nationwide Permit program. Withthe last reissuance of the NWPs inDecember 1996, we reemphasized ourcommitment to improve data collectionand monitoring efforts associated withthe NWP program, and NWP 26 inparticular. In many instances, theseefforts have already provided criticalinformation on the use of the NWPs,overall acreage impacts, affectedresource types, the geographic locationof the activities, and the type ofmitigation provided. This information iscritical in our efforts to make well-informed permitting and policydecisions regarding the continued roleof the NWP program and to ensure thatthe program continues to authorize onlythose activities with minimal individualand cumulative effects.

We also recognize that this currentprocess to develop replacement permitsfor NWP 26 provides an importantopportunity to further expand thecurrent tools available for evaluatingand monitoring the environmentaleffects associated with this program. Weare committed to ensuring anddemonstrating that the NWP program asa whole, including the new NWPsproposed today, authorizes only thoseactivities with minimal individual andcumulative environmental effects.Consistent with this commitment, theCorps will prepare a programmaticenvironmental impact statement (PEIS)for the entire NWP program. While aPEIS is not required for the reasonsnoted below, the PEIS will provide theCorps with a comprehensive mechanismto review the effects of the NWPprogram on the environment, with fullparticipation of other Federal agencies,States, Tribes, and the public. The Corpswill initiate the PEIS by mid-1999 andcomplete it by December 2000. TheCorps plans to complete the PEIS priorto the next scheduled reissuance of theNWPs in December 2001.

The National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) requires Federal agencies toprepare an Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) for major Federalactions that have a significant impact onthe quality of the human environment.Notwithstanding our commitment tocomplete a PEIS, we have determinedthat the NWP program does notconstitute a major Federal actionsignificantly affecting the humanenvironment and therefore thepreparation of an EIS is not required byNEPA. The basis for this determinationis that the NWP program authorizesonly those activities that have minimaladverse environmental effects on the


aquatic environment, both individuallyand cumulatively, which is a muchlower threshold than the threshold forrequiring an EIS. We have prepared aFinding of No Significant Impact(FONSI) for the NWP program. Copies ofthe FONSI are available at the office ofthe Chief of Engineers, at each Districtoffice, and on the Corps home page athttp://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg/.

Similar to our determination for theoverall NWP program, we have made apreliminary determination that theproposed new and modified NWPs donot constitute a major Federal actionsignificantly affecting the quality of thehuman environment, because the NWPsauthorize only those activities that haveminimal adverse effects on the aquaticenvironment, both individually andcumulatively. In compliance withNEPA, preliminary environmentaldocumentation has been prepared foreach proposed NWP and each proposedmodification of an existing NWP. Thisdocumentation includes a preliminaryenvironmental assessment (EA), apreliminary FONSI, and, whererelevant, a preliminary Section 404(b)(1)Guidelines compliance review for eachproposed new and modified NWP.Copies of these documents are availablefor inspection at the office of the Chiefof Engineers, at each Corps districtoffice, and on the Corps Home Page athttp://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg/. Based onthese documents the Corps hasprovisionally determined that theproposed new and modified NWPscomply with the requirements forissuance under general permit authority.

Scope of the New NWPsThe applicable waters of the United

States for the proposed and existingNWPs can be categorized in five ways:(1) all waters of the United States; (2)non-tidal waters; (3) non-tidal waters,excluding non-tidal wetlandscontiguous to tidal waters; (4) non-Section 10 waters; and (5) non-Section10 waters, excluding wetlandscontiguous to Section 10 waters. Theterm ‘‘all waters of the United States’’includes both Section 10 and Section404 waters. ‘‘Non-tidal waters’’ arewaters of the United States that are notsubject to the ebb and flow of the tide(i.e., are located landward of the normalspring high tides), and may includenon-tidal wetlands contiguous to tidalwaters. ‘‘Non-tidal waters, excludingnon-tidal wetlands contiguous to tidalwaters’’ are limited to non-tidal watersand wetlands that are not connected bysurface waters to tidal waters or are notpart of a linear aquatic system with a

defined channel to the otherwisecontiguous wetland (see the proposeddefinitions of ‘‘contiguous wetland’’ and‘‘noncontiguous wetland’’, below).Where non-tidal waters and wetlandsare contiguous to tidal waters, there areno uplands or other non-jurisdictionalareas separating those non-tidal watersfrom the tidal waters. ‘‘Non-Section 10waters’’ are limited to waters of theUnited States, including wetlands,located above the ordinary high watermark of Section 10 waters. Wetlandslocated below the ordinary high watermark in Section 10 waters are Section10 waters. ‘‘Non-Section 10 waters,excluding wetlands contiguous toSection 10 waters’’ are limited to watersand wetlands that are not connected bysurface waters to Section 10 waters;there may be uplands or other non-jurisdictional areas separating thosewaters. Wetlands contiguous to Section10 waters may be either tidal or non-tidal.

Many of the proposed new NWPs(e.g., NWPs A, B, D, and E) areapplicable only to discharges of dredgedor fill material into non-tidal waters ofthe United States, excluding wetlandsthat are contiguous to tidal waters. Adefinition of ‘‘contiguous wetland’’ hasbeen proposed in the definition sectionof this notice. Proposed NWPs C and Fare applicable only to non-Section 10waters of the United States. For theproposed modification to NWP 12, theconstruction of substations and accessroads is authorized only in non-Section10 waters, but the construction of utilitylines and foundations for overheadutility lines may be authorized inSection 10 waters. The proposedmodifications to NWP 27 allow wetlandand riparian restoration in non-tidalwaters of the United States, whilelimiting stream enhancement projects tonon-Section 10 waters. The proposedmodification to NWP 7 may authorizework in navigable waters of the UnitedStates (i.e., Section 10 waters). Crushedand broken stone and hard rock/mineralmining activities authorized byproposed NWP E can occur only in non-tidal waters of the United States that arenot contiguous to tidal waters. Theactivities authorized by the proposedmodification to NWP 40 are limited tonon-tidal waters, including activities innon-tidal wetlands contiguous to tidalwaters.

Acreage Limitations and PCNThresholds

The Corps is seeking comments on theacreage limitations and PCN thresholdsfor the proposed new NWPs and theproposed modifications to existingNWPs. The Corps will review and

consider acreage limits that are smalleror greater than those proposed. If theCorps believes that an acreage limitsubstantially higher than proposed maybe appropriate, then a new proposalwith an opportunity to comment wouldbe published in the Federal Register.

For the new NWPs, the acreagelimitations range from 1 acre for NWPD to 10 acres for NWP B. NWP F islimited to the minimum necessary toreconfigure the drainage ditch. Theupper limits for the proposedmodifications to existing NWPs arehighly variable. NWP 27 will continueto have no acreage limit, since itauthorizes projects that restore orenhance the aquatic environment. Theacreage limits for the other proposedmodifications range from 1⁄3 acre forprivate roads under NWP 14 to 3 acresfor NWP 40. The proposed modificationto NWP 7 will not have an acreagelimitation, but will restrict the work tothe minimum necessary to restore thefacility to its original configuration.

The PCN threshold for many of theproposed new NWPs and modificationsto existing NWPs will be the loss ofgreater than 1⁄3 acre of waters of theUnited States. In addition, there arePCN requirements for impacts to openwaters and streams for some of theseNWPs. NWP A requires a PCN for anyimpacts to open waters below theordinary high water mark. NWP Brequires a PCN for all activities. NWPsC and D and the proposed modificationof NWP 40 require a PCN if greater than500 linear feet of stream bed is filled orexcavated. NWP E and the proposedmodification to NWP 7 will requirenotification for all activities. NWP Fwill require notification for any ditchreconfiguration that involves sidecastingexcavated material into waters of theUnited States. The proposedmodifications to NWP 3 will requirenotification for the removal ofaccumulated sediments and debris inthe vicinity of existing structures andfor restoration of upland areas damagedby storms, floods, or other discreteevents that affect greater than 1⁄3 acre ofwaters of the United States. The repair,rehabilitation, or replacement ofcurrently serviceable structures or fillswill not require notification under theproposed modification of NWP 3.

MitigationA requirement of the NWPs is that

project proponents must avoid andminimize impacts to waters of theUnited States at the project site to themaximum extent practicable. (SeeGeneral Condition 20.) For thoseunavoidable impacts to waters of theUnited States, including wetlands,


compensatory mitigation may berequired, either through regionalconditioning or on a case-by-case basis.Compensatory mitigation will normallybe required by district engineers forthose projects which require notification(i.e., impacts to more than 1⁄3 acre ofwaters of the United States for most ofthe proposed NWPs). Compensatorymitigation will be required by Corpsdistricts to offset the adverseenvironmental effects to the aquaticecosystem of the proposed work to alevel that ensures no more than minimalcumulative adverse environmentaleffects.

There are several ways that apermittee can provide compensatorymitigation for a project that isauthorized by NWPs. The permittee canrestore, create, enhance, or preservewetlands or other aquatic habitats toreplace the functions and values of thewetlands and other waters of the UnitedStates that are lost as a result of theproject. In most situations, establishingor maintaining a vegetated buffer,including uplands adjacent to openwaters, will be an important part of amitigation plan. Another method ofcompensatory mitigation is mitigationbanks. A mitigation bank is a site wherewetlands or other aquatic resources arerestored, created, enhanced, orpreserved to provide compensatorymitigation in advance of the authorizedimpacts. The entity that developed themitigation bank provides these aquaticresources in return for payment from thepermittee. Federal guidance for theestablishment, use, and operation ofmitigation banks was published in theFederal Register on November 28, 1995(60 FR 58605–58614). A third method ofcompensatory mitigation is in lieu feeprograms, which may be used to offsetlosses of waters of the United States. Inlieu fee programs are typically operatedby States, counties, and private andpublic organizations who protect,restore, and enhance open space,including waters of the United States.Permittees may use in lieu fee programsthat protect, enhance, or restorewetlands, riparian corridors, and openwater areas, including upland bufferswhich protect water quality. Thepermittee pays a fee to the operator ofthe in lieu fee program in exchange forthe protection, enhancement, andrestoration of these areas. In lieu feeprograms should be watershed basedand focused in areas where restoring,enhancing, and preserving the aquaticsystem and associated uplands willprovide the greatest overall protection ofthat particular watershed. Regardless ofthe method used to provide

compensatory mitigation, districtengineers have the discretionaryauthority to determine the type andquantity of compensatory mitigationthat is appropriate to replace lostaquatic functions and values.

Cumulative ImpactsCumulative adverse effects on the

aquatic environment caused byactivities authorized by NWPs, regionalgeneral permits, and individual permitsmust be monitored by the districts on awatershed basis. Assessment ofcumulative impacts on a watershedbasis is the only technically soundapproach and must focus on essentialaquatic functions and values. Nodetermination of minimal individualand cumulative adverse effects can bemade on a national basis, because thefunctions and values of aquaticresources vary considerably across thenation and cannot be monitored orassessed by Corps headquarters.Individual districts are better suited toassess cumulative impacts because theyhave a better understanding of the localconditions and processes used toevaluate whether cumulative impacts tothe aquatic environment in a particularwatershed will be more than minimal asa result of work authorized by theCorps. In some watersheds, a largeacreage of loss of waters offset withappropriate compensatory mitigationcould occur and result in no more thanminimal cumulative adverse effects onthat watershed. Similar wetland lossesin other watersheds could exceed theminimal impact threshold, if thewetlands in that watershed were of highvalue, or if historic wetland losses inthat watershed were extensive, makingthe remaining wetlands especiallyvaluable due to the scarcity of thathabitat type. Therefore, each districtgenerally monitors the losses of watersof the United States in each watershed,as well as the gains through restoration,enhancement, creation, andpreservation of aquatic resources, todetermine whether the effects of theseactions result in more than minimalcumulative adverse effects on theaquatic environment. Regionalconditions can be used by districts toallow the continued use of these NWPswhile making certain that the individualand cumulative adverse environmentaleffects to the aquatic ecosystem are notmore than minimal. The Corps hasestablished a process on a nationwidebasis (regional conditioning), arequirement that each districtcompensate for impacts throughmitigation, as well as nationwide PCNlimits, all of which will ensure no morethan minimal adverse effects will occur

on a cumulative basis. The Corps willcontinue to work towards the goal of nonet loss of functions and values of theNation’s aquatic resources.

Division engineers can revoke any ofthe proposed NWPs in aquaticenvironments of particularly high valueor in specific geographic areas (e.g.,watersheds), if they believe that use ofparticular NWPs in these areas willresult in more than minimal individualand cumulative adverse environmentaleffects to the aquatic ecosystem. Theproposed NWPs may be revoked wheredistricts have implementedprogrammatic general permits (PGPs) forsimilar activities, as long as the PGPprovides at least the level of protectionof the aquatic environment that theCorps does through its NWP program.

Data Collection by Corps DistrictsCorps districts use databases to collect

information concerning permitapplications, issued standard permits,issued general permit authorizations,denied permit applications, andenforcement activities. Most districtsutilize the Regulatory Analysis andManagement System (RAMS andRAMSII). The Corps has beencontinuously improving its datacollection efforts, especially for theNWP Program. Districts have beencollecting the following information forall permit actions, including NWPauthorizations:

• The name of the permit applicant.• The description and location of the

work.• The amount of requested impacts to

non-tidal and/or tidal wetlands, inacres.

• The amount of authorized impactsto non-tidal and/or tidal wetlands, inacres.

• The amount of compensatorymitigation provided by the permittee, inacres of non-tidal and/or tidal wetlandsrestored, enhanced, created, orpreserved.

• The amount of non-tidal and/ortidal wetlands impacted as a result of anunauthorized activity, in acres.

• The amount of non-tidal and/ortidal wetlands restored as a result of anenforcement action, in acres.

Since May 1, 1997, districts have beenrequired to collect additionalinformation on the environmentalimpacts of the NWPs. Wetland impactsare entered in the database as acres ofwetlands permitted to be filled,excavated, drained, and flooded. Streamimpacts are quantified in linear feet ofstream bed that are permitted to beimpacted by an activity that involvesfilling or excavation within a stream.The Corps is also collecting data on the


types of waters impacted (i.e., estuarine,lacustrine, marine, palustrine, orriverine), based on the Cowardinclassification system. As resourcespermit, Corps districts may use theremainder of the Cowardinclassification system to better define thetypes of aquatic habitats beingimpacted. The United States GeologicalSurvey (U.S.G.S.) hydrological unit codein which the affected waterbody islocated is also entered into the database.The U.S.G.S. hydrological unit codesystem identifies over 2,000 watershedsnationwide. Wetland mitigation isentered in the database as acres ofwetlands that are required to berestored, created, enhanced, andpreserved. Mitigation for impactsauthorized by NWPs is also tracked bythe method of mitigation (i.e., mitigationprovided by permittee, mitigation bank,or some other method, such as an in lieufee program) and acreage ofcompensatory mitigation.

For the NWP program, the Corps ismonitoring: (1) the number of verifiedauthorizations; (2) the number ofrequests where discretionary authoritywas exercised because the activitywould have resulted in more thanminimal adverse effects; (3) the numberof NWP authorization requests that weredenied and an individual permit reviewwas required; (4) the number of NWPauthorization requests that werewithdrawn because no permit wasrequired; (5) the number of NWPauthorization requests that werewithdrawn based on the applicant’sdecision; and (6) the number of NWPauthorization requests that werewithdrawn because the Corps receivedmore than one request for the sameproject (i.e., an accounting erroroccurred).

In addition, the Corps is collectingdata on the impact of the NWPs onFederally-listed endangered andthreatened species and their criticalhabitat. The Corps is monitoringwhether or not a particular activity isproposed in critical habitat for a

Federally-listed endangered orthreatened species. The Corps is alsocollecting data on which endangered orthreatened species are involved inverified NWP activities, as well as theESA determination for that activity (i.e.,no effect, not likely to adversely affect,no jeopardy/no adverse modification, orjeopardy/adverse modification).

As part of its effort to develop NWPsto replace NWP 26, the Corps has beencollecting more data on the types ofactivities authorized by NWP 26. Forthis data collection effort, these types ofactivities are classified as follows:institutional, agricultural, silvicultural,mining aggregates, mining other, retailindividual, retail multiple, residentialmultiple, industrial, transportation,storm water management,impoundment, treatment facility, or‘‘other’’. The Corps is also classifyingthese activities into the followingcategories: commercial, non-commercial, and governmental. Forevery NWP action, the location of theimpact area within the watershed isrecorded as either: (1) above headwatersor in isolated waters, or (2) belowheadwaters and not in isolated waters.When NWP 26 expires, the Corps willno longer collect the data mentioned inthis paragraph.

Data collection requires a balancebetween the amount of work required toevaluate permit applications and theusefulness of the data to monitor theimpacts of the authorized activities onthe aquatic environment. The amountand types of collected informationshould be limited to the data that isneeded for cumulative impactassessment while allowing districts thetime and personnel resources toeffectively evaluate permit applicationsand conduct enforcement activities.Corps districts will continue to monitorregulated activities on a watershed basisto ensure that the activities authorizedby NWPs do not result in more thanminimal cumulative adverse effects onthe aquatic environment in a particularwatershed. In addition, data collection

helps the Corps monitor the effects ofauthorized activities on endangered andthreatened species. In the future, theCorps will evaluate our current overalldata collection efforts on standard andgeneral permits, including NWPs, tobetter and more consistently assess theeffects of these actions on the aquaticenvironment.

Process for Issuing the New andModified NWPs

The process for issuing the proposednew and modified NWPs is illustratedin Figure 1. The regional conditioningand 401/CZM certification processes arealso illustrated in Figure 1. Theproposal in this Federal Register is thebeginning of this process. During the 60-day comment period, there will be apublic hearing in Washington, DC tosolicit comments on the proposed newand modified NWPs. We will initiallyreview the comments received inresponse to this Federal Register noticewith a task force staffed by Corpsregulatory field personnel. Uponcompletion of our initial review of thecomments, we will complete an initialdraft of the final NWPs and beginagency coordination; this process willlast approximately 2 months. Afteragency coordination is finished, we willcomplete the final version of the NWPsfor publication in the Federal Registerby December 28, 1998. The State 401/CZM agencies will have 60 days tocomplete their certification decisions.The Corps will then finalize its regionalconditions and then certify that theNWPs, with any regional conditions orgeographic revocations, will onlyauthorize activities with minimaladverse environmental effects, bothindividually and cumulatively. TheNWPs will become effective 90 dayslater, as NWP 26 expires. The Corpsregional conditioning and 401/CZMcertification processes are discussedelsewhere in this notice.

BILLING CODE 3710–92–p


BILLING CODE 3710–92–C


Regional Conditioning of NationwidePermits

As previously discussed in thisnotice, the Corps is committed todeveloping a package of replacementpermits with demonstrably lessenvironmental impact than the permitthey replace. An important element inachieving this goal is the successfulimplementation of a significantlyimproved regionalization process. Thecoordinated involvement of States,Tribes, the public, and others, at theDistrict level, will assist the Corps inidentifying appropriate conditions andin developing permits that ensureeffective protection at the local level ofwetlands and other water resources.Moreover, effective regionalconditioning of the NWPs by the CorpsDistricts will ensure compliance withthe statutory requirement that the NWPsresult in no more than minimal adverseeffects on the aquatic environment andwill support the Administration’s goalof no net loss of aquatic functions andvalues on a watershed andprogrammatic basis.

Although a regionalization processhas been required during pastreissuances of the NWPs, we recognizethat those efforts were not always themost effective in ensuring thedevelopment of appropriate conditionsin each Corps District. We are confident,however, that the process proposed intoday’s notice is fundamentally differentfrom those past approaches and willyield an improved environmental resultthat makes sense for local watershedsthroughout the country. In generalterms, the new approach provides thepublic, as well as other Federal andState/Tribal agencies, with twoopportunities to comment on proposedCorps regional conditions before theyare finalized, involves a more active andcoordinated role for the Federalresource agencies throughout theprocess, and results in final decisiondocuments that include certifications byeach Division Engineer that each NWP,as conditioned, will authorize onlyminimal adverse environmental effects.The regionalization process is outlinedin greater detail below.

There are two types of regionalconditions: conditions added as part ofthe Section 401 water qualitycertification/Coastal Zone ManagementAct (401/CZM) process and conditionsadded by the Corps Divisions afterconsultation with Corps Districts, otheragencies, and the public. The 401/CZMregional conditions for the proposedNWPs automatically become regionalconditions on those NWPs. However, ifthe division engineer determines that

those conditions do not meet theprovisions of 33 CFR 325.4, the 401certification and/or CZM concurrencewill be treated as a denial withoutprejudice. The 401/CZM regionalconditions must be announced by thefinal Corps public notice concerning thefinal NWPs. Corps regional conditionsshould generally not, but may, duplicate401/CZM regional conditions. Corpsregional conditions are added to NWPsby division engineers after a publicnotice comment period. Corps regionalconditions cannot increase the terms orlimits of the NWPs, delete or modifyNWP conditions, change or beinconsistent with Corps regulations, beunenforceable, require an individual401 water quality certification or CZMconcurrence, or require another agencydecision, review, or approval.

When each Corps district issues itsinitial public notice for the proposedNWPs, approximately concurrent withthis Federal Register notice, the publicnotice will include: (1) Corps regionalconditions for NWP 26, if any, that areapplicable to any of the proposedNWPs; (2) the existing Corps regionalconditions, if any, for the NWPs that areproposed to be modified (i.e., NWPs 3,7, 12, 14, 27, and 40); and (3) anyadditional Corps regional conditionsthat the district is proposing at thattime. This initial public notice will alsorequest comments or suggestions foradditional Corps regional conditions forthe NWPs. The initial public notice mayalso include, for informational purposesonly, any State/tribal 401/CZM regionalconditions for NWP 26 and for theNWPs that are proposed to be modified.The public does not have theopportunity to comment on the State/tribal 401/CZM regional conditionsthrough the Corps. There is a separateState/tribal process that involves thepublic regarding State/tribal 401/CZMcertifications. Each district willannounce the final State/tribal 401/CZMregional conditions in the final NWPpublic notice. Each district may alsopropose Corps regional conditions forany existing NWP in this initial publicnotice.

The initial public notice will requestthat the general public and otheragencies submit comments on the NWPsand any regional conditions proposedby the Corps, to suggest additionalCorps regional conditions, or to suggestspecific watersheds or waterbodieswhere Corps regional conditions shouldbe implemented, or geographic areas orspecific watersheds or waterbodieswhere certain NWPs should besuspended or revoked. After the close ofthe comment period for the initialpublic notice, each district will

coordinate with the Federal and Stateresource agencies to develop additionalCorps regional conditions. In addition,each district will hold a public meetingto discuss regional conditioning of theNWPs with the public andrepresentatives of Federal, State, tribal,and local agencies. Based on the initialinput, the Corps will develop proposedregional conditions and each districtwill issue a second public notice tosolicit comments on those proposedCorps regional conditions. After theclose of the comment period for thesecond public notice, each district willcoordinate with the Federal and Stateresource agencies to develop final Corpsregional conditions. Prior to thepublication of the final NWPs in theFederal Register, the District Engineerwill meet with the RegionalAdministrator of EPA and the RegionalDirectors of FWS and NMFS to discussthe proposed regional conditions andresolve any disputes concerning Corpsregional conditions.

Prior to the date the NWPs becomeeffective, each Division Engineer willprepare supplemental decisiondocuments addressing the regionalconditions for each NWP. Each decisiondocument will include a statement, bythe Division Engineer, certifying that theCorps regional conditions imposed onthe NWPs will ensure that those NWPswill authorize only activities withminimal adverse effects. After theDivision Engineer establishes the Corpsregional conditions, each district willissue final public notices announcingthe final 401/CZM regional conditionsand Corps regional conditions. Eachdistrict may propose additional Corpsregional conditions in future publicnotices.

Corps regional conditions will betailored to the issues related to theaquatic environment within eachdistrict, and will be used to ensure thatthe effects of the NWP program on theaquatic environment are minimal, bothindividually and cumulatively. Corpsregional conditions can cover a largegeographic area (e.g., a State or county),a particular waterbody or watershed, ora specific type of water of the UnitedStates (e.g., trout streams). Examples ofCorps regional conditions that may beused by districts to restrict the use of theNWPs include:

• Restricting the types of waters ofthe United States where the NWPs maybe used (e.g., fens, hemi-marshes,prairie potholes, bottomlandhardwoods, etc.) or prohibiting the useof some or all of the NWPs in thosetypes of waters or in specificwatersheds;


• Restricting or prohibiting the use ofNWPs in areas covered by a SpecialArea Management Plan, or an AdvancedIdentification study with associatedregional general permits;

• Adding ‘‘Notification’’requirements to NWPs to require PCNsfor all work in certain watersheds orcertain types of waters of the UnitedStates, or lowering the PCN threshold;

• Reducing the acreage thresholds incertain types of waters of the UnitedStates;

• Revoking certain NWPs on ageographic or watershed basis;

• Restricting activities authorized byNWPs to certain times of the year incertain waters of the United States, tominimize the adverse effects of thoseactivities on areas used by fish orshellfish for spawning, nesting wildlife,or other ecologically cyclical events.

The Corps regional conditionsimplemented by each district do notsupersede the general conditions of thenationwide permit program. The generalconditions address the EndangeredSpecies Act, the National HistoricPreservation Act of 1966, the Wild andScenic Rivers Act, Section 401 waterquality certification, Coastal ZoneManagement, navigation, etc. Given theextent of the coordination alreadymandated by Federal law, the additionof regional conditions at the State,Tribal, watershed, or geographic levelwill help ensure that important publicinterest factors are considered whenevaluating projects for NWPauthorization.

Comments on regional issues andregional conditions must be sent to theappropriate District Engineer, asindicated below:Alabama

Mobile District Engineer, ATTN:CESAM–OP–S, 109 St. JosephStreet, Mobile, AL 36602–3630

AlaskaAlaska District Engineer, ATTN:

CEPOA–CO–R, P.O. Box 898,Anchorage, AK 99506–0898

ArizonaLos Angeles District Engineer, ATTN:

CESPL–CO–R, P.O. Box 2711, LosAngeles, CA 90053–2325Arkansas

Little Rock District Engineer, ATTN:CESWL–CO–P, P.O. Box 867, LittleRock, AR 72203–0867

CaliforniaSacramento District Engineer, ATTN:

CESPK–CO–O, 1325 J Street,Sacramento, CA 95814–4794

ColoradoAlbuquerque District Engineer,

ATTN: CESPA–CO–R, 4101Jefferson Plaza NE, Rm 313,Albuquerque, NM 87109

ConnecticutNew England District Engineer,

ATTN: CENAE–OD–R, 696 VirginiaRoad, Concord, MA 01742–2751

DelawarePhiladelphia District Engineer, ATTN:

CENAP–OP–R, WannamakerBuilding, 100 Penn Square EastPhiladelphia, PA 19107–3390

FloridaJacksonville District Engineer, ATTN:

CESAJ–CO–R, P.O. Box 4970,Jacksonville, FL 32202–4412

GeorgiaSavannah District Engineer, ATTN:

CESAS–OP–F, P.O. Box 889,Savannah, GA 31402–0889

HawaiiHonolulu District Engineer, ATTN:

CEPOH–ET–PO, Building 230, FortShafter, Honolulu, HI 96858–5440

IdahoWalla Walla District Engineer, ATTN:

CENWW–OP–RF, 210 N. ThirdStreet, City-County Airport, WallaWalla, WA 99362–1876

IllinoisRock Island District Engineer, ATTN:

CEMVR–RD, P.O. Box 004, RockIsland, IL 61204–2004

IndianaLouisville District Engineer, ATTN:

CELRL–OR–F, P.O. Box 59,Louisville, KY 40201–0059

IowaRock Island District Engineer, ATTN:

CEMVR–RD, P.O. Box 2004, RockIsland, IL 61204–2004

KansasKansas City District Engineer, ATTN:

CENWK–OD–P, 700 FederalBuilding, 601 E. 12th Street, KansasCity, MO 64106–2896

KentuckyLouisville District Engineer, ATTN:

CELRL–OR–F, P.O. Box 59,Louisville, KY 40201–0059

LouisianaNew Orleans District Engineer, ATTN:

CEMVN–OD–S, P.O. Box 60267,New Orleans, LA 70160–0267

MaineNew England District Engineer,


MarylandBaltimore District Engineer, ATTN:

CENAB–OP–R, P.O. Box 1715,Baltimore, MD 21203–1715

MassachusettsNew England District Engineer,


MichiganDetroit District Engineer, ATTN:

CELRE–CO–L, P.O. Box 1027,Detroit, MI 48231–1027

MinnesotaSt. Paul District Engineer, ATTN:

CEMVP–CO–R, 190 Fifth StreetEast, St. Paul, MN 55101–1638

MississippiVicksburg District Engineer, ATTN:

CEMVK–CO–0, 201 N. FrontageRoad, Vicksburg, MS 39180–5191

MissouriKansas City District Engineer, ATTN:

CENWK–OD–P, 700 FederalBuilding, 601 E. 12th Street, KansasCity, MO 64106–2896

MontanaOmaha District Engineer, ATTN:

CENWO–OP–R, 215 N. 17th Street,Omaha, NE 68102–4978

NebraskaOmaha District Engineer, ATTN:

CENWO–OP–R, 215 N. 17th Street,Omaha, NE 68102–4978

NevadaSacramento District Engineer, ATTN:

CESPK–CO–O, 1325 J Street,Sacramento, CA 95814–2922

New HampshireNew England District Engineer,


New JerseyPhiladelphia District Engineer, ATTN:

CENAP–OP–R, WannamakerBuilding, 100 Penn Square East,Philadelphia, PA 19107–3390

New MexicoAlbuquerque District Engineer,

ATTN: CESWA–CO–R, 4101Jefferson Plaza NE, Rm 313,Albuquerque, NM 87109

New YorkNew York District Engineer, ATTN:

CENAN–OP–R, 26 Federal Plaza,New York, NY 10278–9998

North CarolinaWilmington District Engineer, ATTN:

CESAW–CO–R, P.O. Box 1890,Wilmington, NC 28402–1890

North DakotaOmaha District Engineer, ATTN:

CENWO–OP–R, 215 North 17thStreet, Omaha, NE 68102–4978

OhioHuntington District Engineer, ATTN:

CELRH–OR–F, 502 8th Street,Huntington, WV 25701–2070

OklahomaTulsa District Engineer, ATTN:

CESWT–OD–R, P.O. Box 61, Tulsa,OK 74121–0061

OregonPortland District Engineer, ATTN:

CENWP–PE–G, P.O. Box 2946,Portland, OR 97208–2946

PennsylvaniaBaltimore District Engineer, ATTN:


Rhode IslandNew England District Engineer,



South CarolinaCharleston District Engineer, ATTN:

CESAC–CO–P, P.O. Box 919,Charleston, SC 29402–0919

South DakotaOmaha District Engineer, ATTN:

CENWO–OP–R, 215 North 17thStreet, Omaha, NE 68102–4978

TennesseeNashville District Engineer, ATTN:

CELRN–OR–F, P.O. Box 1070,Nashville, TN 37202–1070

TexasFt. Worth District Engineer, ATTN:

CESWF–OD–R, P.O. Box 17300, Ft.Worth, TX 76102–0300

UtahSacramento District Engineer, ATTN:

CESPK–CO–O, 1325 J Street, CA95814–2922

VermontNew England District Engineer,


VirginiaNorfolk District Engineer, ATTN:

CENAO–OP–R, 803 Front Street,Norfolk, VA 23510–1096

WashingtonSeattle District Engineer, ATTN:

CENWS–OP–RG, P.O. Box 3755,Seattle, WA 98124–2255

West VirginiaHuntington District Engineer, ATTN:

CELRH–OR–F, 502 8th Street,Huntington, WV 25701–2070

WisconsinSt. Paul District Engineer, ATTN:

CEMVP–CO–R, 190 Fifth StreetEast, St. Paul, MN 55101–1638

WyomingOmaha District Engineer, ATTN:

CENWO–OP–R, 215 North 17thStreet, NE 68102–4978

District of ColumbiaBaltimore District Engineer, ATTN:


Pacific TerritoriesHonolulu District Engineer, ATTN:

CEPOH–ET–PO, Building 230, FortShafter, Honolulu, HI 96858–5440

Puerto Rico & Virgin IslandsJacksonville District Engineer, ATTN:

CESAJ–CO–R, P.O. Box 4970,Jacksonville, FL 32202–4412

State (or Tribal) Certification ofNationwide Permits

State or tribal water qualitycertification pursuant to Section 401 ofthe Clean Water Act, or waiver thereof,is required for activities authorized byNWPs which may result in a dischargeinto waters of the United States. Inaddition, any State with a Federallyapproved Coastal Zone Management(CZM) Plan must agree with the Corpsdetermination that activities authorized

by NWPs which are within, or willaffect any land or water uses or naturalresources of the State’s coastal zone, areconsistent with the CZM plan. Section401 water quality certifications and/orCZM consistency determinations maybe conditioned, denied, or authorizedfor parts of the NWPs.

The Corps believes that, in general,the activities authorized by the NWPswill not violate State or tribal waterquality standards and will be consistentwith State CZM Plans. The NWPs areconditioned to ensure that adverseenvironmental effects will be minimaland are the types of activities thatwould be routinely authorized, ifevaluated under the individual permitprocess. The Corps recognizes that insome States or tribes there will be aneed to add regional conditions orindividual State or tribal review forsome activities to ensure compliancewith State or tribal water qualitystandards or consistency with StateCZM Plans. The Corps goal is to developsuch conditions so that the States ortribes can issue 401 water qualitycertifications or CZM consistencyagreements. Therefore, each Corpsdistrict will initiate discussions withtheir respective States or tribes, asappropriate, following publication ofthis proposal to discuss issues ofconcern and identify regionalmodification and other approaches tothe scope of waters, activities,discharges, and notification, asappropriate, to resolve these issues.Note that there will be some Stateswhere an SPGP has been adopted andthe NWPs have been wholly or partiallyrevoked. Concurrent with today’sproposal, Corps districts may beproposing modification or revocation ofthe NWPs in States where SPGPs will beused in place of some or all of the NWPprogram.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act:This Federal Register notice of theseNWPs serves as the Corps application tothe States, tribes, or EPA, whereappropriate, for 401 water qualitycertification of the activities authorizedby these NWPs. The States, tribes, andEPA, where appropriate, are requestedto issue, deny, or waive certificationpursuant to 33 CFR 330.4(c) for theseNWPs.

Proposed NWPs A, B, C, D, E, and F,and the proposed modifications toNWPs 12, 14, 27, and 40 involveactivities which would result indischarges and therefore 401 waterquality certification is required.

The proposed modifications to NWPs3 and 7 involve various activities, someof which may result in a discharge andrequire 401 water quality certification

and others of which do not. State denialof 401 water quality certification for anyspecific NWP affects only thoseactivities which may result in adischarge. For those activities notinvolving discharges, the NWP remainsin effect.

If a State denies a 401 water qualitycertification for certain activities withinthat State, then the Corps will denyNWP authorization for those activitieswithout prejudice. Corps districts willissue provisional NWP verificationletters upon receipt of a PCN for suchprojects. The provisional verificationletter will contain all general andregional conditions as well as anyproject specific conditions the Corpsdetermines are necessary, and willnotify the applicant that they mustobtain a project specific Section 401water quality certification, or waiverthereof, prior to starting work in watersof the United States. Anyone wanting toperform such activities where a PCN isnot required must first obtain a projectspecific 401 water quality certificationor waiver thereof from the State beforeproceeding under the NWP. Thisrequirement is provided at 33 CFR330.4(c).

Section 307 of the Coastal ZoneManagement Act (CZMA): This FederalRegister notice serves as the Corpsdetermination that the activitiesauthorized by these NWPs areconsistent with States’ CZM programs,where applicable. This determination iscontingent upon the addition of StateCZM conditions and/or regionalconditions or the issuance by the Stateof an individual consistencyconcurrence, where necessary. TheStates are requested to agree or disagreewith the consistency determinationpursuant to 33 CFR 330.4(d) for theseNWPs.

The Corps CZMA consistencydetermination only applies to NWPauthorizations for activities that arewithin, or affect any land or water usesor natural resources of a State’s coastalzone. NWP authorizations for activitiesthat are not within or would not affecta State’s coastal zone are not contingenton such State’s agreement ordisagreement with the Corpsconsistency determinations.

If a State disagrees with the Corpsconsistency determination for certainactivities, then the Corps will denyauthorization for those activitieswithout prejudice. Corps districts willissue provisional NWP verificationletters upon receipt of a PCN for suchprojects. The provisional verificationletter will contain all general andregional conditions as well as anyproject specific conditions the Corps


determines are necessary, and willnotify the applicant that they mustobtain a project specific CZMAconsistency determination prior tostarting work in waters of the UnitedStates. Anyone wanting to perform suchactivities where a PCN is not requiredmust present a consistency certificationto the appropriate State agency forconcurrence. Upon concurrence withsuch consistency certifications by theState, the activity would be authorizedby the NWP. This requirement isprovided at 33 CFR 330.4(d).

Discussion of Proposed NationwidePermits

The following is a discussion of thenew NWPs we are proposing to issue.We have identified these NWPs byletters received in response to theDecember 13, 1996, Federal Register,Final Notice of Issuance, Reissuance,and Modification of Nationwide Permits(61 FR 65874) and as a result of aworkshop at the Corps 1997 BiennialNational Regulatory ProgramConference. If issued, they would beplaced at a reserved NWP number orgiven a new number. The proposedmodification to NWP 29 is discussed atthe end of the preamble.

A. Residential, Commercial, andInstitutional Activities

One commenter recommended anNWP to authorize the construction ofresidential developments and associatedactivities, including roads, stormwatermanagement facilities, and amenities forrecreation, such as golf courses,swimming pools, playing fields, andhiking and biking trails.

Similar comments were receivedrecommending that the Corps developan NWP for the construction ofindustrial and office developments,including retail and recreationalfacilities. Another commenterrecommended an NWP for thedevelopment and modification ofcommercial real estate projects, withdifferent thresholds for site plandevelopment and the construction ofroads and utilities. A third commenterrecommended an NWP for commercialand industrial activities. An NWP forcommercial development activities wasalso recommended by the participants atthe 1997 Biennial National RegulatoryProgram Conference workshop.

Comments were also receivedrecommending an NWP for theconstruction of Federal, State, Tribaland local government buildings andinstitutional buildings, including, butnot limited to, schools, fire stations,public works buildings, libraries,hospitals and places of worship, and

their attendant features (septic systems,parking lots, loading docks,playgrounds, etc.).

From May 1, 1997, through December31, 1997, NWP 26 was used to authorize1,581 residential, commercial orinstitutional developments, impactingapproximately 835 acres of wetlandsand 42,190 linear feet of stream bed.Approximately 2,634 acres ofcompensatory mitigation were providedto offset the adverse environmentaleffects of these projects.

The Corps is proposing an NWP toauthorize discharges of dredged or fillmaterial into non-tidal waters of theUnited States, excluding wetlandscontiguous to tidal waters, forresidential, commercial, andinstitutional development activities, andassociated infrastructure, includingutilities, roads, driveways, andsidewalks. Infrastructure is integral toresidential, commercial, andinstitutional development activities, andshould be included as a part of thesingle and complete project for NWPauthorization, unless the road or utilityline is a component of a separate linearproject that will provide service to otherresidential subdivisions, commercialsites, or other areas.

This NWP is intended to authorize theconstruction of residentialdevelopments (particularlysubdivisions), commercialdevelopments, and institutionaldevelopments with minimal impactsthat comply with the terms andconditions of the permit. These types ofactivities are currently authorized byNWP 26. This NWP is not intended toreplace NWP 29, which authorizes theconstruction of a single family residenceto be used only by the person who willuse the house as a personal residence.Contractors and commercial developerscannot use NWP 29 to construct aresidence which would subsequently beoffered for sale upon completion.Furthermore, NWP 29 authorizesdischarges into all non-tidal waters ofthe United States, whereas NWP Aauthorizes discharges into non-tidalwaters of the United States, excludingnon-tidal wetlands contiguous to tidalwaters.

The Corps is also considering andseeking comments on options toestablish acreage limits for this NWP.One option would be to establish asimple acreage limit, such as 3 acres, fora single and complete project. Anotheroption would be to establish a slidingscale or indexing of impact acreagelimits for this NWP, based on parcelsize, percentage of wetlands on theparcel, or other criteria. An example of

such a sliding scale, based on parcelsize, is shown in the table below:

Parcel Size

Maximumacreage

loss author-ized

Less than 5 acres ..................... 1⁄4 acre.5–10 acres ................................ 1⁄2 acre.10–15 acres .............................. 1 acre.15–100 acres ............................ 2 acres.Greater than 100 acres ............ 3 acres.

Such a scheme helps ensure minimaladverse impacts by authorizing smallerimpacts for smaller projects andencouraging planning of developmentsthat reduces impacts to aquaticresources. For example, under a slidingscale, a 25-acre development couldresult in the loss of only 2 acres ofwaters of the United States, whereasunder a simple acreage limit thepermittee could impact up to 3 acres.For NWP A, the Corps is solicitingcomments on the use of a sliding scale,as well as acreage for parcel sizes andimpacts to waters of the United Statesthat would be used for the sliding scale.The Corps is also seeking comments onthe benefits and drawbacks of such asliding scale. The Corps is also seekingcomments on the PCN threshold(s) thatwould be used in conjunction with thesliding scale of acreage limitation.

The Corps is proposing to require aPCN for losses of greater than 1⁄3 acre ofnon-tidal waters of the United States, orfor any project that would result in theloss of any open waters, such asperennial or intermittent stream beds orlakes. The PCN will be subject to Corps-only review where the project wouldresult in the loss of 1 acre or less ofwaters of the United States, and toreview by the Corps and coordinatingagencies where the loss of waters of theUnited States would exceed 1 acre. Aspart of the PCN, applicants must submita written statement to the DistrictEngineer explaining why discharges inwaters of the United States must occur,what measures were taken to avoid andminimize impacts, and how thepermittee will provide compensatorymitigation for those impacts. We haveconditioned this NWP to requirecompensatory mitigation for projectsresulting in the loss of greater than 1⁄3acre of waters of the United States. Ingeneral, compensatory mitigation forlosses below 1 acre will be providedmost effectively through mitigationbanks and in lieu fee programs. Thecompensatory mitigation proposalrequired for the PCN does not have toinclude detailed plans andimplementation schedules, but mustadequately describe the proposal so that


the District Engineer can determine ifthe proposed compensatory mitigationis appropriate. If the project involvesstreams or other open water, thenbuffers, including upland areas adjacentto the open waters, to these areas maybe required as a part of thecompensatory mitigation proposal. Thepermittee may be required to submitdetailed compensatory mitigation plansat a later date as a special condition ofthe NWP authorization unless amitigation bank or in lieu fee programis used to provide the compensatorymitigation. For many of these types ofprojects, the Corps believes thatcompensatory mitigation is necessary tooffset adverse impacts to waters of theUnited States.

The PCN requirement will allowdistrict engineers to assert discretionaryauthority when they have determinedthat the adverse effects of the proposedwork will be more than minimal. TheCorps believes that the issuance of thisNWP, along with its terms, limitations,and general conditions, as well as anyregional or case-specific conditions, willensure that the authorized work willhave no more than minimal adverseeffects, both individually andcumulatively, on the aquaticenvironment on a watershed basis.Projects authorized by this NWP mustbe designed to avoid and minimizeimpacts to waters of the United Statesto the extent practicable on the projectsite. In addition, the project design mustreduce adverse effects to water qualityby maintaining off-site upstream anddownstream baseflow conditions,providing for stormwater management,and normally maintaining a vegetatedbuffer zone if the project occurs in thevicinity of open water. Through regionalconditions, district engineers mayrequire additional watershed protectiontechniques, if appropriate.

This NWP cannot be used to authorizerecreational facilities that are not anintegrated component of a residential,commercial, or institutionaldevelopment. The development of amaster planned community thatincludes residential, recreation, andcommercial activities may be authorizedby NWP B. The issuance of this NWP,as with any NWP, provides for the useof discretionary authority whenvaluable or unique aquatic areas may beaffected by this activity.

B. Master Planned DevelopmentActivities

One commenter proposed an NWP toauthorize discharges of dredged or fillmaterial to construct residential,commercial, and industrialdevelopments that are planned or

designed for the long term protection ofaquatic resources and are owned andmanaged by a single owner. Suchdevelopments are designed forresidential, industrial, and/orcommercial uses, as well as recreationaluses. Master planned developments canprovide long term protection of valuableaquatic resources by carefullyintegrating the development into thelandscape and protecting the remainingwetlands, open waters, and associatedbuffers. These developments typicallyset aside wetlands, riparian corridors,and valuable upland habitats forrestoration, enhancement, orpreservation as part of the plan for thearea.

Increasingly, counties and localcommunities across the country areencouraging mixed-use developmentand encouraging land use planning thatincorporates consideration of theenvironment. Such initiatives providecommunities with an opportunity toaddress a variety of concerns includingprotecting sensitive natural areas,consolidating infrastructure, andmaximizing the delivery of urbanservices. Through local zoning and landuse programs, governments are workingto achieve these goals by encouragingthe development of environmentallyresponsible, multiple-use communities.The Corps is committed to ensuring thatthe NWP program is consistent withthese goals and objectives and isproposing this NWP to build on theincentives currently provided by Stateand local governments.

The Corps is proposing an NWP formaster planned development activitiesthat are designed, constructed, andmanaged to conserve and enhance thefunctions and values of waters of theUnited States on the project site. TheCorps has designed NWP B to authorizeonly those master planned developmentactivities that are designed, constructed,and managed to integrate multiple usesin a manner that conserves andenhances the functions and values ofthe water resources on the project site.Specifically, activities authorized bythis permit often would incorporateseveral land use categories, includingresidential uses (e.g., single familyhomes, apartments), commercial uses(e.g., stores, hotels, office buildings),industrial uses (e.g., water treatmentfacilities), transportation uses (e.g., lightrail, roads), and open space uses (e.g.,parks, trails).

This NWP authorizes discharges ofdredged or fill material into non-tidalwaters of the United States, excludingnon-tidal wetlands contiguous to tidalwaters, for the construction orexpansion of master planned

developments. The Corps is seekingcomments on the definition of masterplanned development to use for thisNWP. A PCN will be required for allactivities authorized by this NWP. ThePCN must include a wetland assessmentthat utilizes a functional assessmentmethod approved by the DistrictEngineer. Permittees will be required toavoid and minimize impacts to watersof the United States to the maximumextent practicable and must include awritten statement detailing compliancewith this condition. The PCN must alsoindicate on the site plans all aquaticareas and adjacent buffer zones thatwould be protected by conservationeasements or other measures. Allpreserved wetland areas, streams,mitigation areas, and buffer zonesadjacent to waters of the United Stateson the site must be protected by a deedrestriction, conservation easement, orother method of conservation andpreservation as a condition of thepermit. The District Engineer willreview the proposed master planneddevelopment activities to ensure thatthese features are designed to ensureresource conservation and protection,and to protect aquatic resources.

The Corps is also considering andseeking comments on options toestablish acreage limits for this NWP.One option would be to establish asimple acreage limit, such as 10 acres,for a single and complete project.Another option would be to establishacreage limits for master planneddevelopments that are determined byindexing the upper limit of adversewetland impact to the size of the parcel,to the amount of wetlands on the parcel,or to a percentage of the jurisdictionalwaters of the United States on a projectsite. The following table is an exampleof such a sliding scale, which indexesthe acreage limit to parcel size:

Parcel size

Maximumacreage

loss author-ized

100–200 acres .......................... 3 acres.200–300 acres .......................... 5 acres.300–500 acres .......................... 7 acres.Greater than 500 acres ............ 10 acres.

In this example, master planneddevelopments constructed on parcelsless than 100 acres in size could not beauthorized by this NWP. Instead, NWPA or another NWP may be used toauthorize the development, ifappropriate.

Examination of the above table showsthat, in general, smaller project siteswould be allowed a relatively higherwetland impact limit, as a percentage of


parcel size, than would larger sites,although the ratio does not decreaseproportionately as the parcel sizeincreases. (This same relationshipalready occurs under the existing NWPprogram, due to the Corps requirementsfor on-site minimization and avoidance,and the use of regional conditions). Theuse of a sliding scale can be justified bythe limited flexibility that a smallerproject site affords an applicant,whereas a larger project site affords anapplicant more options in developingthe property, and consequently, moreopportunities to minimize wetlandimpacts. Such a method would differfrom most NWPs, in that most NWPshave acreage limits that do not varywith the size of the project site. Anindexed or varying scale for themaximum threshold would encouragethe master planning of larger sites anddiscourage fragmenting projects to getmore acres of impact to waters of theUnited States.

Other methods of determining acreagelimits that we are considering wouldallow the applicant to adversely impacta certain percentage of the jurisdictionalwaters of the United States on theproject site (e.g., 2% to 10% of thejurisdictional areas), or an amount ofjurisdictional waters equal to apercentage of the parcel size. Forexample, at 1% of the total parcel size,a project on a 200 acre parcel couldimpact up to 2 acres of waters of theUnited States, and at 2% of the parcelsize, a project on a 200 acre parcel couldimpact up to 4 acres of waters of theUnited States, etc.

These are just a few examples of anindexed or varying maximum thresholdconcept that the Corps is considering.Any such concept, if adopted, wouldstill be subject to on-site avoidance andminimization requirements, as well asregional conditions and/or otherrestrictions. Any such permits wouldhave to be carefully conditioned, andthe respective acreage limits (andimplied incentives) studied closely inorder for these proposals to lead to a netreduction in the theoretical acreage ofimpacted waters of the United States.The Corps is seeking comments on thepracticability of such concepts, theconditions that should be attached toany such concepts, and the advantagesor disadvantages of implementing suchconcepts.

District engineers will consider theuse of discretionary authority whensensitive and/or unique areas or areaswith significant social or ecologicalfunctions and values may be adverselyaffected by the work. Although we haveproposed a high acreage limit for thisNWP, impacts must be avoided and

minimized to the maximum extentpracticable, with appropriatecompensatory mitigation to offset losses.Moreover, the comprehensive approachto the watershed area to be developedand the fact that all remaining waters ofthe United States and buffers will beprotected will benefit the overall aquaticsystem. The compensatory mitigationshould, in most cases, be on site and beincorporated into the development.District engineers can impose specialconditions on a case-by-case basis toensure the impacts are minimal.Regional conditions can also be used tolimit the use of this NWP in high valueaquatic ecosystems.

C. Stormwater Management FacilitiesThe Corps is proposing an NWP to

authorize the discharge of dredged orfill material into non-Section 10 watersof the United States, includingwetlands, for the construction andmaintenance of stormwater managementfacilities. This permit may be used toauthorize the construction of newstormwater management facilitiesincluding: the excavation for stormwaterponds/facilities, detention, andretention basins; installation andmaintenance of water control structures,outfall structures, and emergencyspillways; and the maintenanceexcavation of existing stormwatermanagement ponds/facilities, detention,and retention basins. This permit maynot be used to authorize any activitiesfor the construction of ponds for otherpurposes.

The proposed acreage limit is 2 acresfor the construction of new stormwatermanagement facilities in order toauthorize the construction ofconsolidated regional stormwatermanagement facilities. There is noacreage limit proposed for themaintenance of stormwater managementfacilities because maintenance of thesefacilities is necessary to ensure thedesigned capacity is maintained forwater quality improvements andreduction of downstream erosion andflooding. Notification will be requiredfor the loss of greater than 1⁄3 acre ofwaters of the United States, includingwetlands, the loss of greater than 500linear feet of stream bed, or themaintenance

Documents

Army Corps of Engineers Proposal to Issue and Modift ...Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Proposal To Issue and Modify Nationwide Permits AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,