The district engineer will establish and maintain a program to assure that potential applicants for permits are informed of the requirements of this regulation and of the steps required to obtain permits for activities in waters of the United States or ocean waters. Whenever the district engineer becomes aware of plans being developed by either private or public entities which might require permits for implementation, he should advise the potential applicant in writing of the statutory requirements and the provisions of this regulation. Whenever the district engineer is aware of changes in Corps of Engineers regulatory jurisdiction, he will issue appropriate public notices.
Sec. Appendix A to Part 325--Permit Form and Special Conditions
A. Permit Form
Department of the Army Permit Permittee_______________________________________________________________Permit No.______________________________________________________________Issuing Office__________________________________________________________
Note: The term ``you'' and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term ``this office'' refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer.
You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below.
Project Description: (Describe the permitted activity and its intended use with references to any attached plans or drawings that are considered to be a part of the project description. Include a description of the types and quantities of dredged or fill materials to be discharged in jurisdictional waters.)
Project Location: (Where appropriate, provide the names of and the locations on the waters where the permitted activity and any off-site disposals will take place. Also, using name, distance, and direction, locate the permitted activity in reference to a nearby landmark such as a town or city.)
Permit Conditions:
General Conditions:
1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on ------------. If you find that you need more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached.
2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area.
3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization.
5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions specified in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is attached if it contains such conditions.
6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit.
Special Conditions: (Add special conditions as required in this space with reference to a continuation sheet if necessary.)
Further Information:
1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to:
( ) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403).
( ) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
( ) Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413).
2. Limits of this authorization.
a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law.
b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.
c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.
d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project.
3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following:
a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest.
c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit.
d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work.
e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit.
4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided.
5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate (See 4 above).
c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision.
Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost.
6. Extensions. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit.
Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.________________________________________________________________________
(Permittee) ________________________________________________________________________
(Date)
This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below. ________________________________________________________________________
(District Engineer) ________________________________________________________________________
(Date)
When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. ________________________________________________________________________
(Transferee) ________________________________________________________________________
(Date)
B. Special Conditions. No special conditions will be preprinted on the permit form. The following and other special conditions should be added, as appropriate, in the space provided after the general conditions or on a referenced continuation sheet:
1. Your use of the permitted activity must not interfere with the public's right to free navigation on all navigable waters of the United States.
2. You must have a copy of this permit available on the vessel used for the authorized transportation and disposal of dredged material.
3. You must advise this office in writing, at least two weeks before you start maintenance dredging activities under the authority of this permit.
4. You must install and maintain, at your expense, any safety lights and signals prescribed by the United States Coast Guard (USCG), through regulations or otherwise, on your authorized facilities. The USCG may be reached at the following address and telephone number: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. The condition below will be used when a Corps permit authorizes an artificial reef, an aerial transmission line, a submerged cable or pipeline, or a structure on the outer continental shelf.
National Ocean Service (NOS) has been notified of this authorization. You must notify NOS and this office in writing, at least two weeks before you begin work and upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Your notification of completion must include a drawing which certifies the location and configuration of the completed activity (a certified permit drawing may be used). Notifications to NOS will be sent to the following address: National Ocean Service, Office of Coast Survey, N/CS261, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3282.
6. The following condition should be used for every permit where legal recordation of the permit would be reasonably practicable and recordation could put a subsequent purchaser or owner of property on notice of permit conditions.
You must take the actions required to record this permit with the Registrar of Deeds or other appropriate official charged with the responsibility for maintaining records of title to or interest in real property. [51 FR 41236, Nov. 13, 1986, as amended at 62 FR 26230, May 13, 1997]
Sec. Appendix B to Part 325--NEPA Implementation Procedures for the
Regulatory Program 1. Introduction2. General3. Development of Information and Data4. Elimination of Duplication with State and Local Procedures5. Public Involvement6. Categorical Exclusions 7. EA/FONSI Document8. Environmental Impact Statement--General9. Organization and Content of Draft EISs10. Notice of Intent11. Public Hearing12. Organization and Content of Final EIS13. Comments Received on the Final EIS14. EIS Supplement15. Filing Requirements16. Timing17. Expedited Filing18. Record of Decision19. Predecision Referrals by Other Agencies20. Review of Other Agencies' EISs21. Monitoring
1. Introduction. In keeping with Executive Order 12291 and 40 CFR 1500.2, where interpretive problems arise in implementing this regulation, and consideration of all other factors do not give a clear indication of a reasonable interpretation, the interpretation (consistent with the spirit and intent of NEPA) which results in the least paperwork and delay will be used. Specific examples of ways to reduce paperwork in the NEPA process are found at 40 CFR 1500.4. Maximum advantage of these recommendations should be taken.
2. General. This Appendix sets forth implementing procedures for the Corps regulatory program. For additional guidance, see the Corps NEPA regulation 33 CFR part 230 and for general policy guidance, see the CEQ regulations 40 CFR 1500-1508.
3. Development of Information and Data. See 40 CFR 1506.5. The district engineer may require the applicant to furnish appropriate information that the district engineer considers necessary for the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). See also 40 CFR 1502.22 regarding incomplete or unavailable information.
4. Elimination of Duplication with State and Local Procedures. See 40 CFR 1506.2.
5. Public Involvement. Several paragraphs of this appendix (paragraphs 7, 8, 11, 13, and 19) provide information on the requirements for district engineers to make available to the public certain environmental documents in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.6.
6. Categorical Exclusions--a. General. Even though an EA or EIS is not legally mandated for any Federal action falling within one of the ``categorical exclusions,'' that fact does not exempt any Federal action from procedural or substantive compliance with any other Federal law. For example, compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, etc., is always mandatory, even for actions not requiring an EA or EIS. The following activities are not considered to be major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and are therefore categorically excluded from NEPA documentation:
(1) Fixed or floating small private piers, small docks, boat hoists and boathouses.
(2) Minor utility distribution and collection lines including irrigation;
(3) Minor maintenance dredging using existing disposal sites;
(4) Boat launching ramps;
(5) All applications which qualify as letters of permission (as described at 33 CFR 325.5(b)(2)).
b. Extraordinary Circumstances. District engineers should be alert for extraordinary circumstances where normally excluded actions could have substantial environmental effects and thus require an EA or EIS. For a period of one year from the effective data of these regulations, district engineers should maintain an information list on the type and number of categorical exclusion actions which, due to extraordinary circumstances, triggered the need for an EA/FONSI or EIS. If a district engineer determines that a categorical exclusion should be modified, the information will be furnished to the division engineer who will review and analyze the actions and circumstances to determine if there is a basis for recommending a modification to the list of categorical exclusions. HQUSACE (CECW-OR) will review recommended changes for Corps-wide consistency and revise the list accordingly.
7. EA/FONSI Document. (See 40 CFR 1508.9 and 1508.13 for definitions)--a. Environmental Assessment (EA) and Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The EA should normally be combined with other required documents (EA/404(b)(1)/SOF/FONSI). ``EA'' as used throughout this Appendix normally refers to this combined document. The district engineer should complete an EA as soon as practicable after all relevant information is available (i.e., after the comment period for the public notice of the permit application has expired) and when the EA is a separate document it must be completed prior to completion of the statement of finding (SOF). When the EA confirms that the impact of the applicant's proposal is not significant and there are no ``unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources * * *'' (section 102(2)(E) of NEPA), and the proposed activity is a ``water dependent'' activity as defined in 40 CFR 230.10(a)(3), the EA need not include a discussion on alternatives. In all other cases where the district engineer determines that there are unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources, the EA shall include a discussion of the reasonable alternatives which are to be considered by the ultimate decision-maker. The decision options available to the Corps, which embrace all of the applicant's alternatives, are issue the permit, issue with modifications or deny the permit. Modifications are limited to those project modifications within the scope of established permit conditioning policy (See 33 CFR 325.4). The decision option to deny the permit results in the ``no action'' alternative (i.e., no activity requiring a Corps permit). The combined document normally should not exceed 15 pages and shall conclude with a FONSI (See 40 CFR 1508.13) or a determination that an EIS is required. The district engineer may delegate the signing of the NEPA document. Should the EA demonstrate that an EIS is necessary, the district engineer shall follow the procedures outlined in paragraph 8 of this Appendix. In those cases where it is obvious an EIS is required, an EA is not required. However, the district engineer should document his reasons for requiring an EIS.
(1) In some situations, a permit applicant may propose to conduct a specific activity requiring a Department of the Army (DA) permit (e.g., construction of a pier in a navigable water of the United States) which is merely one component of a larger project (e.g., construction of an oil refinery on an upland area). The district engineer should establish the scope of the NEPA document (e.g., the EA or EIS) to address the impacts of the specific activity requiring a DA permit and those portions of the entire project over which the district engineer has sufficient control and responsibility to warrant Federal review.
(2) The district engineer is considered to have control and responsibility for portions of the project beyond the limits of Corps jurisdiction where the Federal involvement is sufficient to turn an essentially private action into a Federal action. These are cases where the environmental consequences of the larger project are essentially products of the Corps permit action.
Typical factors to be considered in determining whether sufficient ``control and responsibility'' exists include:
(i) Whether or not the regulated activity comprises ``merely a link'' in a corridor type project (e.g., a transportation or utility transmission project).
(ii) Whether there are aspects of the upland facility in the immediate vicinity of the regulated activity which affect the location and configuration of the regulated activity.
(iii) The extent to which the entire project will be within Corps jurisdiction.
(iv) The extent of cumulative Federal control and responsibility.
A. Federal control and responsibility will include the portions of the project beyond the limits of Corps jurisdiction where the cumulative Federal involvement of the Corps and other Federal agencies is sufficient to grant legal control over such additional portions of the project. These are cases where the environmental consequences of the additional portions of the projects are essentially products of Federal financing, assistance, direction, regulation, or approval (not including funding assistance solely in the form of general revenue sharing funds, with no Federal agency control over the subsequent use of such funds, and not including judicial or administrative civil or criminal enforcement actions).
B. In determining whether sufficient cumulative Federal involvement exists to expand the scope of Federal action the district engineer should consider whether other Federal agencies are required to take Federal action under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, (42 U.S.C. 4321 91977), and other environmental review laws and executive orders.
C. The district engineer should also refer to paragraphs 8(b) and 8(c) of this appendix for guidance on determining whether it should be the lead or a cooperating agency in these situations.
These factors will be added to or modified through guidance as additional field experience develops.
(3) Examples: If a non-Federal oil refinery, electric generating plant, or industrial facility is proposed to be built on an upland site and the only DA permit requirement relates to a connecting pipeline, supply loading terminal or fill road, that pipeline, terminal or fill road permit, in and of itself, normally would not constitute sufficient overall Federal involvement with the project to justify expanding the scope of a Corps NEPA document to cover upland portions of the facility beyond the structures in the immediate vicinity of the regulated activity that would effect the location and configuration of the regulated activity.
Similarly, if an applicant seeks a DA permit to fill waters or wetlands on which other construction or work is proposed, the control and responsibility of the Corps, as well as its overall Federal involvement would extend to the portions of the project to be located on the permitted fill. However, the NEPA review would be extended to the entire project, including portions outside waters of the United States, only if sufficient Federal control and responsibility over the entire project is determined to exist; that is, if the regulated activities, and those activities involving regulation, funding, etc. by other Federal agencies, comprise a substantial portion of the overall project. In any case, once the scope of analysis has been defined, the NEPA analysis for that action should include direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on all Federal interests within the purview of the NEPA statute. The district engineer should, whenever practicable, incorporate by reference and rely upon the reviews of other Federal and State agencies.
For those regulated activities that comprise merely a link in a transportation or utility transmission project, the scope of analysis should address the Federal action, i.e., the specific activity requiring a DA permit and any other portion of the project that is within the control or responsibility of the Corps of Engineers (or other Federal agencies).
For example, a 50-mile electrical transmission cable crossing a 1\1/4\ mile wide river that is a navigable water of the United States requires a DA permit. Neither the origin and destination of the cable nor its route to and from the navigable water, except as the route applies to the location and configuration of the crossing, are within the control or responsibility of the Corps of Engineers. Those matters would not be included in the scope of analysis which, in this case, would address the impacts of the specific cable crossing.
Conversely, for those activities that require a DA permit for a major portion of a transportation or utility transmission project, so that the Corps permit bears upon the origin and destination as well as the route of the project outside the Corps regulatory boundaries, the scope of analysis should include those portions of the project outside the boundaries of the Corps section 10/404 regulatory jurisdiction. To use the same example, if 30 miles of the 50-mile transmission line crossed wetlands or other ``waters of the United States,'' the scope of analysis should reflect impacts of the whole 50-mile transmission line.
For those activities that require a DA permit for a major portion of a shoreside facility, the scope of analysis should extend to upland portions of the facility. For example, a shipping terminal normally requires dredging, wharves, bulkheads, berthing areas and disposal of dredged material in order to function. Permits for such activities are normally considered sufficient Federal control and responsibility to warrant extending the scope of analysis to include the upland portions of the facility.
In all cases, the scope of analysis used for analyzing both impacts and alternatives should be the same scope of analysis used for analyzing the benefits of a proposal.
8. Environmental Impact Statement--General--a. Determination of Lead and Cooperating Agencies. When the district engineer determines that an EIS is required, he will contact all appropriate Federal agencies to determine their respective role(s), i.e., that of lead agency or cooperating agency.
b. Corps as Lead Agency. When the Corps is lead agency, it will be responsible for managing the EIS process, including those portions which come under the jurisdiction of other Federal agencies. The district engineer is authorized to require the applicant to furnish appropriate information as discussed in paragraph 3 of this appendix. It is permissable for the Corps to reimburse, under agreement, staff support from other Federal agencies beyond the immediate jurisdiction of those agencies.
c. Corps as Cooperating Agency. If another agency is the lead agency as set forth by the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.5 and 1501.6(a) and 1508.16), the district engineer will coordinate with that agency as a cooperating agency under 40 CFR 1501.6(b) and 1508.5 to insure that agency's resulting EIS may be adopted by the Corps for purposes of exercising its regulatory authority. As a cooperating agency the Corps will be responsible to the lead agency for providing environmental information which is directly related to the regulatory matter involved and which is required for the preparation of an EIS. This in no way shall be construed as lessening the district engineer's ability to request the applicant to furnish appropriate information as discussed in paragraph 3 of this appendix.
When the Corps is a cooperating agency because of a regulatory responsibility, the district engineer should, in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.6(b)(4), ``make available staff support at the lead agency's request'' to enhance the latter's interdisciplinary capability provided the request pertains to the Corps regulatory action covered by the EIS, to the extent this is practicable. Beyond this, Corps staff support will generally be made available to the lead agency to the extent practicable within its own responsibility and available resources. Any assistance to a lead agency beyond this will normally be by written agreement with the lead agency providing for the Corps expenses on a cost reimbursable basis. If the district engineer believes a public hearing should be held and another agency is lead agency, the district engineer should request such a hearing and provide his reasoning for the request. The district engineer should suggest a joint hearing and offer to take an active part in the hearing and ensure coverage of the Corps concerns.
d. Scope of Analysis. See paragraph 7b.
e. Scoping Process. Refer to 40 CFR 1501.7 and 33 CFR 230.12.
f. Contracting. See 40 CFR 1506.5.
(1) The district engineer may prepare an EIS, or may obtain information needed to prepare an EIS, either with his own staff or by contract. In choosing a contractor who reports directly to the district engineer, the procedures of 40 CFR 1506.5(c) will be followed.
(2) Information required for an EIS also may be furnished by the applicant or a consultant employed by the applicant. Where this approach is followed, the district engineer will (i) advise the applicant and/or his consultant of the Corps information requirements, and (ii) meet with the applicant and/ or his consultant from time to time and provide him with the district engineer's views regarding adequacy of the data that are being developed (including how the district engineer will view such data in light of any possible conflicts of interest).
The applicant and/or his consultant may accept or reject the district engineer's guidance. The district engineer, however, may after specifying the information in contention, require the applicant to resubmit any previously submitted data which the district engineer considers inadequate or inaccurate. In all cases, the district engineer should document in the record the Corps independent evaluation of the information and its accuracy, as required by 40 CFR 1506.5(a).
g. Change in EIS Determination. If it is determined that an EIS is not required after a notice of intent has been published, the district engineer shall terminate the EIS preparation and withdraw the notice of intent. The district engineer shall notify in writing the appropriate division engineer; HQUSACE (CECW-OR); the appropriate EPA regional administrator, the Director, Office of Federal Activities (A-104), EPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460 and the public of the determination.
h. Time Limits. For regulatory actions, the district engineer will follow 33 CFR 230.17(a) unless unusual delays caused by applicant inaction or compliance with other statutes require longer time frames for EIS preparation. At the outset of the EIS effort, schedule milestones will be developed and made available to the applicant and the public. If the milestone dates are not met the district engineer will notify the applicant and explain the reason for delay.
9. Organization and Content of Draft EISs--a. General. This section gives detailed information for preparing draft EISs. When the Corps is the lead agency, this draft EIS format and these procedures will be followed. When the Corps is one of the joint lead agencies, the joint lead agencies will mutually decide which agency's format and procedures will be followed.
(1) Cover Sheet. (a) Ref. 40 CFR 1502.11.
(a) Ref. 40 CFR 1502.11.
(b) The ``person at the agency who can supply further information'' (40 CFR 1502.11(c) is the project manager handling that permit application.
(c) The cover sheet should identify the EIS as a Corps permit action and state the authorities (sections 9, 10, 404, 103, etc.) under which the Corps is exerting its jurisdiction.
(2) Summary. In addition to the requirements of 40 CFR 1502.12, this section should identify the proposed action as a Corps permit action stating the authorities (sections 9, 10, 404, 103, etc.) under which the Corps is exerting its jurisdiction. It shall also summarize the purpose and need for the proposed action and shall briefly state the beneficial/adverse impacts of the proposed action.
(3) Table of Contents.
(4) Purpose and Need. See 40 CFR 1502.13. If the scope of analysis for the NEPA document (see paragraph 7b) covers only the proposed specific activity requiring a Department of the Army permit, then the underlying purpose and need for that specific activity should be stated. (For example, ``The purpose and need for the pipe is to obtain cooling water from the river for the electric generating plant.'') If the scope of analysis covers a more extensive project, only part of which may require a DA permit, then the underlying purpose and need for the entire project should be stated. (For example, ``The purpose and need for the electric generating plant is to provide increased supplies of electricity to the (named) geographic area.'') Normally, the applicant should be encouraged to provide a statement of his proposed activity's purpose and need from his perspective (for example, ``to construct an electric generating plant''). However, whenever the NEPA document's scope of analysis renders it appropriate, the Corps also should consider and express that activity's underlying purpose and need from a public interest perspective (to use that same example, ``to meet the public's need for electric energy''). Also, while generally focusing on the applicant's statement, the Corps, will in all cases, exercise independent judgment in defining the purpose and need for the project from both the applicant's and the public's perspective.
(5) Alternatives. See 40 CFR 1502.14. The Corps is neither an opponent nor a proponent of the applicant's proposal; therefore, the applicant's final proposal will be identified as the ``applicant's preferred alternative'' in the final EIS. Decision options available to the district engineer, which embrace all of the applicant's alternatives, are issue the permit, issue with modifications or conditions or deny the permit.
(a) Only reasonable alternatives need be considered in detail, as specified in 40 CFR 1502.14(a). Reasonable alternatives must be those that are feasible and such feasibility must focus on the accomplishment of the underlying purpose and need (of the applicant or the public) that would be satisfied by the proposed Federal action (permit issuance). The alternatives analysis should be thorough enough to use for both the public interest review and the 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR part 230) where applicable. Those alternatives that are unavailable to the applicant, whether or not they require Federal action (permits), should normally be included in the analysis of the no-Federal-action (denial) alternative. Such alternatives should be evaluated only to the extent necessary to allow a complete and objective evaluation of the public interest and a fully informed decision regarding the permit application.
(b) The ``no-action'' alternative is one which results in no construction requiring a Corps permit. It may be brought by (1) the applicant electing to modify his proposal to eliminate work under the jurisdiction of the Corps or (2) by the denial of the permit. District engineers, when evaluating this alternative, should discuss, when appropriate, the consequences of other likely uses of a project site, should the permit be denied.
(c) The EIS should discuss geographic alternatives, e.g., changes in location and other site specific variables, and functional alternatives, e.g., project substitutes and design modifications.
(d) The Corps shall not prepare a cost-benefit analysis for projects requiring a Corps permit. 40 CFR 1502.23 states that the weighing of the various alternatives need not be displayed in a cost-benefit analysis and ``* * * should not be when there are important qualitative considerations.'' The EIS should, however, indicate any cost considerations that are likely to be relevant to a decision.
(e) Mitigation is defined in 40 CFR 1508.20, and Federal action agencies are directed in 40 CFR 1502.14 to include appropriate mitigation measures. Guidance on the conditioning of permits to require mitigation is in 33 CFR 320.4(r) and 325.4. The nature and extent of mitigation conditions are dependent on the results of the public interest review in 33 CFR 320.4.
(6) Affected Environment. See Ref. 40 CFR 1502.15.
(7) Environmental Consequences. See Ref. 40 CFR 1502.16.
(8) List of Preparers. See Ref. 40 CFR 1502.17.
(9) Public Involvement. This section should list the dates and nature of all public notices, scoping meetings and public hearings and include a list of all parties notified.
(10) Appendices. See 40 CFR 1502.18. Appendices should be used to the maximum extent practicable to minimize the length of the main text of the EIS. Appendices normally should not be circulated with every copy of the EIS, but appropriate appendices should be provided routinely to parties with special interest and expertise in the particular subject.
(11) Index. The Index of an EIS, at the end of the document, should be designed to provide for easy reference to items discussed in the main text of the EIS.
10. Notice of Intent. The district engineer shall follow the guidance in 33 CFR part 230, Appendix C in preparing a notice of intent to prepare a draft EIS for publication in the Federal Register.
11. Public Hearing. If a public hearing is to be held pursuant to 33 CFR part 327 for a permit application requiring an EIS, the actions analyzed by the draft EIS should be considered at the public hearing. The district engineer should make the draft EIS available to the public at least 15 days in advance of the hearing. If a hearing request is received from another agency having jurisdiction as provided in 40 CFR 1506.6(c)(2), the district engineer should coordinate a joint hearing with that agency whenever appropriate.
12. Organization and Content of Final EIS. The organization and content of the final EIS including the abbreviated final EIS procedures shall follow the guidance in 33 CFR 230.14(a).
13. Comments Received on the Final EIS. For permit cases to be decided at the district level, the district engineer should consider all incoming comments and provide responses when substantive issues are raised which have not been addressed in the final EIS. For permit cases decided at higher authority, the district engineer shall forward the final EIS comment letters together with appropriate responses to higher authority along with the case. In the case of a letter recommending a referral under 40 CFR part 1504, the district engineer will follow the guidance in paragraph 19 of this appendix.
14. EIS Supplement. See 33 CFR 230.13(b).
15. Filing Requirements. See 40 CFR 1506.9. Five (5) copies of EISs shall be sent to Director, Office of Federal Activities (A-104), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The official review periods commence with EPA's publication of a notice of availability of the draft or final EISs in the Federal Register. Generally, this notice appears on Friday of each week. At the same time they are mailed to EPA for filing, one copy of each draft or final EIS, or EIS supplement should be mailed to HQUSACE (CECW-OR) WASH DC 20314-1000.
16. Timing. 40 CFR 1506.10 describes the timing of an agency action when an EIS is involved.
17. Expedited Filing. 40 CFR 1506.10 provides information on allowable time reductions and time extensions associated with the EIS process. The district engineer will provide the necessary information and facts to HQUSACE (CECW-RE) WASH DC 20314-1000 (with copy to CECW-OR) for consultation with EPA for a reduction in the prescribed review periods.
18. Record of Decision. In those cases involving an EIS, the statement of findings will be called the record of decision and shall incorporate the requirements of 40 CFR 1505.2. The record of decision is not to be included when filing a final EIS and may not be signed until 30 days after the notice of availability of the final EIS is published in the Federal Register. To avoid duplication, the record of decision may reference the EIS.
19. Predecision Referrals by Other Agencies. See 40 CFR part 1504. The decisionmaker should notify any potential referring Federal agency and CEQ of a final decision if it is contrary to the announced position of a potential referring agency. (This pertains to a NEPA referral, not a 404(q) referral under the Clean Water Act. The procedures for a 404(q) referral are outlined in the 404(q) Memoranda of Agreement. The potential referring agency will then have 25 calendar days to refer the case to CEQ under 40 CFR part 1504. Referrals will be transmitted through division to CECW-RE for further guidance with an information copy to CECW-OR.
20. Review of Other Agencies' EISs. District engineers should provide comments directly to the requesting agency specifically related to the Corps jurisdiction by law or special expertise as defined in 40 CFR 1508.15 and 1508.26 and identified in Appendix II of CEQ regulations (49 FR 49750, December 21, 1984). If the district engineer determines that another agency's draft EIS which involves a Corps permit action is inadequate with respect to the Corps permit action, the district engineer should attempt to resolve the differences concerning the Corps permit action prior to the filing of the final EIS by the other agency. If the district engineer finds that the final EIS is inadequate with respect to the Corps permit action, the district engineer should incorporate the other agency's final EIS or a portion thereof and prepare an appropriate and adequate NEPA document to address the Corps involvement with the proposed action. See 33 CFR 230.21 for guidance. The agency which prepared the original EIS should be given the opportunity to provide additional information to that contained in the EIS in order for the Corps to have all relevant information available for a sound decision on the permit.
21. Monitoring. Monitoring compliance with permit requirements should be carried out in accordance with 33 CFR 230.15 and with 33 CFR part 325. [53 FR 3134, Feb. 3, 1988]
Sec. Appendix C to Part 325--Procedures for the Protection of Historic
Properties
1. Definitions
2. General Policy
3. Initial Review
4. Public Notice
5. Investigations
6. Eligibility Determinations
7. Assessing Effects
8. Consultation
9. ACHP Review and Comment10. District Engineer Decision11. Historic Properties Discovered During Construction12. Regional General Permits13. Nationwide General Permits14. Emergency Procedures15. Criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect
1. Definitions
a. Designated historic property is a historic property listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or which has been determined eligible for listing in the National Register pursuant to 36 CFR part 63. A historic property that, in both the opinion of the SHPO and the district engineer, appears to meet the criteria for inclusion in the National Register will be treated as a ``designated historic property.''
b. Historic property is a property which has historical importance to any person or group. This term includes the types of districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects eligible for inclusion, but not necessarily listed, on the National Register.
c. Certified local government is a local government certified in accordance with section 101(c)(1) of the NHPA (See 36 CFR part 61).
d. The term ``criteria for inclusion in the National Register'' refers to the criteria published by the Department of Interior at 36 CFR 60.4.
e. An ``effect'' on a ``designated historic property'' occurs when the undertaking may alter the characteristics of the property that qualified the property for inclusion in the National Register. Consideration of effects on ``designated historic properties'' includes indirect effects of the undertaking. The criteria for effect and adverse effect are described in Paragraph 15 of this appendix.
f. The term ``undertaking'' as used in this appendix means the work, structure or discharge that requires a Department of the Army permit pursuant to the Corps regulations at 33 CFR 320-334.
g. Permit area.
(1) The term ``permit area'' as used in this appendix means those areas comprising the waters of the United States that will be directly affected by the proposed work or structures and uplands directly affected as a result of authorizing the work or structures. The following three tests must all be satisfied for an activity undertaken outside the waters of the United States to be included within the ``permit area'':
(i) Such activity would not occur but for the authorization of the work or structures within the waters of the United States;
(ii) Such activity must be integrally related to the work or structures to be authorized within waters of the United States. Or, conversely, the work or structures to be authorized must be essential to the completeness of the overall project or program; and
(iii) Such activity must be directly associated (first order impact) with the work or structures to be authorized.
(2) For example, consider an application for a permit to construct a pier and dredge an access channel so that an industry may be established and operated on an upland area.
(i) Assume that the industry requires the access channel and the pier and that without such channel and pier the project would not be feasible. Clearly then, the industrial site, even though upland, would be within the ``permit area.'' It would not be established ``but for'' the access channel and pier; it also is integrally related to the work and structure to be authorized; and finally it is directly associated with the work and structure to be authorized. Similarly, all three tests are satisfied for the dredged material disposal site and it too is in the ``permit area'' even if located on uplands.
(ii) Consider further that the industry, if established, would cause local agencies to extend water and sewer lines to service the area of the industrial site. Assume that the extension would not itself involve the waters of the United States and is not solely the result of the industrial facility. The extensions would not be within the ``permit area'' because they would not be directly associated with the work or structure to be authorized.
(iii) Now consider that the industry, if established, would require increased housing for its employees, but that a private developer would develop the housing. Again, even if the housing would not be developed but for the authorized work and structure, the housing would not be within the permit area because it would not be directly associated with or integrally related to the work or structure to be authorized.
(3) Consider a different example. This time an industry will be established that requires no access to the navigable waters for its operation. The plans for the facility, however, call for a recreational pier with an access channel. The pier and channel will be used for the company-owned yacht and employee recreation. In the example, the industrial site is not included within the permit area. Only areas of dredging, dredged material disposal, and pier construction would be within the permit area.
(4) Lastly, consider a linear crossing of the waters of the United States; for example, by a transmission line, pipeline, or highway.
(i) Such projects almost always can be undertaken without Corps authorization, if they are designed to avoid affecting the waters of the United States. Corps authorization is sought because it is less expensive or more convenient for the applicant to do so than to avoid affecting the waters of the United States. Thus the ``but for'' test is not met by the entire project right-of-way. The ``same undertaking'' and ``integral relationship'' tests are met, but this is not sufficient to make the whole right-of-way part of the permit area. Typically, however, some portion of the right-of-way, approaching the crossing, would not occur in its given configuration ``but for'' the authorized activity. This portion of the right-of-way, whose location is determined by the location of the crossing, meets all three tests and hence is part of the permit area.
(ii) Accordingly, in the case of the linear crossing, the permit area shall extend in either direction from the crossing to that point at which alternative alignments leading to reasonable alternative locations for the crossing can be considered and evaluated. Such a point may often coincide with the physical feature of the waterbody to be crossed, for example, a bluff, the limit of the flood plain, a vegetational change, etc., or with a jurisdictional feature associated with the waterbody, for example, a zoning change, easement limit, etc., although such features should not be controlling in selecting the limits of the permit area.
2. General Policy
This appendix establishes the procedures to be followed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to fulfill the requirements set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), other applicable historic preservation laws, and Presidential directives as they relate to the regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers (33 CFR parts 320-334).
a. The district engineer will take into account the effects, if any, of proposed undertakings on historic properties both within and beyond the waters of the U.S. Pursuant to section 110(f) of the NHPA, the district engineer, where the undertaking that is the subject of a permit action may directly and adversely affect any National Historic Landmark, shall, to the maximum extent possible, condition any issued permit as may be necessary to minimize harm to such landmark.
b. In addition to the requirements of the NHPA, all historic properties are subject to consideration under the National Environmental Policy Act, (33 CFR part 325, appendix B), and the Corps' public interest review requirements contained in 33 CFR 320.4. Therefore, historic properties will be included as a factor in the district engineer's decision on a permit application.
c. In processing a permit application, the district engineer will generally accept for Federal or Federally assisted projects the Federal agency's or Federal lead agency's compliance with the requirements of the NHPA.
d. If a permit application requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, the draft EIS will contain the information required by paragraph 9.a. below. Furthermore, the SHPO and the ACHP will be given the opportunity to participate in the scoping process and to comment on the Draft and Final EIS.
e. During pre-application consultations with a prospective applicant the district engineer will encourage the consideration of historic properties at the earliest practical time in the planning process.
f. This appendix is organized to follow the Corps standard permit process and to indicate how historic property considerations are to be addressed during the processing and evaluating of permit applications. The procedures of this Appendix are not intended to diminish the full consideration of historic properties in the Corps regulatory program. Rather, this appendix is intended to provide for the maximum consideration of historic properties within the time and jurisdictional constraints of the Corps regulatory program. The Corps will make every effort to provide information on historic properties and the effects of proposed undertakings on them to the public by the public notice within the time constraints required by the Clean Water Act. Within the time constraints of applicable laws, executive orders, and regulations, the Corps will provide the maximum coordination and comment opportunities to interested parties especially the SHPO and ACHP. The Corps will discuss with and encourage the applicant to avoid or minimize effects on historic properties. In reaching its decisions on permits, the Corps will adhere to the goals of the NHPA and other applicable laws dealing with historic properties.
3. Initial Review
a. Upon receipt of a completed permit application, the district engineer will consult district files and records, the latest published version(s) of the National Register, lists of properties determined eligible, and other appropriate sources of information to determine if there are any designated historic properties which may be affected by the proposed undertaking. The district engineer will also consult with other appropriate sources of information for knowledge of undesignated historic properties which may be affected by the proposed undertaking. The district engineer will establish procedures (e.g., telephone calls) to obtain supplemental information from the SHPO and other appropriate sources. Such procedures shall be accomplished within the time limits specified in this appendix and 33 CFR part 325.
b. In certain instances, the nature, scope, and magnitude of the work, and/or structures to be permitted may be such that there is little likelihood that a historic property exists or may be affected. Where the district engineer determines that such a situation exists, he will include a statement to this effect in the public notice. Three such situations are:
(1) Areas that have been extensively modified by previous work. In such areas, historic properties that may have at one time existed within the permit area may be presumed to have been lost unless specific information indicates the presence of such a property (e.g., a shipwreck).
(2) Areas which have been created in modern times. Some recently created areas, such as dredged material disposal islands, have had no human habitation. In such cases, it may be presumed that there is no potential for the existence of historic properties unless specific information indicates the presence of such a property.
(3) Certain types of work or structures that are of such limited nature and scope that there is little likelihood of impinging upon a historic property even if such properties were to be present within the affected area.
c. If, when using the pre-application procedures of 33 CFR 325.1(b), the district engineer believes that a designated historic property may be affected, he will inform the prospective applicant for consideration during project planning of the potential applicability of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716). The district engineer will also inform the prospective applicant that the Corps will consider any effects on historic properties in accordance with this appendix.
d. At the earliest practical time the district engineer will discuss with the applicant measures or alternatives to avoid or minimize effects on historic properties.
4. Public Notice.
a. Except as specified in subparagraph 4.c., the district engineer's current knowledge of the presence or absence of historic properties and the effects of the undertaking upon these properties will be included in the public notice. The public notice will be sent to the SHPO, the regional office of the National Park Service (NPS), certified local governments (see paragraph (1.c.) and Indian tribes, and interested citizens. If there are designated historic properties which reasonably may be affected by the undertaking or if there are undesignated historic properties within the affected area which the district engineer reasonably expects to be affected by the undertaking and which he believes meet the criteria for inclusion in the National Register, the public notice will also be sent to the ACHP.
b. During permit evaluation for newly designated historic properties or undesignated historic properties which reasonably may be affected by the undertaking and which have been newly identified through the public interest review process, the district engineer will immediately inform the applicant, the SHPO, the appropriate certified local government and the ACHP of the district engineer's current knowledge of the effects of the undertaking upon these properties. Commencing from the date of the district engineer's letter, these entities will be given 30 days to submit their comments.
c. Locational and sensitive information related to archeological sites is excluded from the Freedom of Information Act (Section 304 of the NHPA and Section 9 of ARPA). If the district engineer or the Secretary of the Interior determine that the disclosure of information to the public relating to the location or character of sensitive historic resources may create a substantial risk of harm, theft, or destruction to such resources or to the area or place where such resources are located, then the district engineer will not include such information in the public notice nor otherwise make it available to the public. Therefore, the district engineer will furnish such information to the ACHP and the SHPO by separate notice.
5. Investigations
a. When initial review, addition submissions by the applicant, or response to the public notice indicates the existence of a potentially eligible property, the district engineer shall examine the pertinent evidence to determine the need for further investigation. The evidence must set forth specific reasons for the need to further investigate within the permit area and may consist of:
(1) Specific information concerning properties which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register and which are known to exist in the vicinity of the project; and
(2) Specific information concerning known sensitive areas which are likely to yield resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register, particularly where such sensitive area determinations are based upon data collected from other, similar areas within the general vicinity.
b. Where the scope and type of work proposed by the applicant or the evidence presented leads the district engineer to conclude that the chance of disturbance by the undertaking to any potentially eligible historic property is too remote to justify further investigation, he shall so advise the reporting party and the SHPO.
c. If the district engineer's review indicates that an investigation for the presence of potentially eligible historic properties on the upland locations of the permit area (see paragraph 1.g.) is justified, the district engineer will conduct or cause to be conducted such an investigation. Additionally, if the notification indicates that a potentially eligible historic property may exist within waters of the U.S., the district engineer will conduct or cause to be conducted an investigation to determine whether this property may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Comments or information of a general nature will not be considered as sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation.
d. In addition to any investigations conducted in accordance with paragraph 6.a. above, the district engineer may conduct or cause to be conducted additional investigations which the district engineer determines are essential to reach the public interest decision . As part of any site visit, Corps personnel will examine the permit area for the presence of potentially eligible historic properties. The Corps will notify the SHPO, if any evidence is found which indicates the presence of potentially eligible historic properties.
e. As determined by the district engineer, investigations may consist of any of the following: further consultations with the SHPO, the State Archeologist, local governments, Indian tribes, local historical and archeological societies, university archeologists, and others with knowledge and expertise in the identification of historical, archeological, cultural and scientific resources; field examinations; and archeological testing. In most cases, the district engineer will require, in accordance with 33 CFR 325.1(e), that the applicant conduct the investigation at his expense and usually by third party contract.
f. The Corps of Engineers' responsibilities to seek eligibility determinations for potentially eligible historic properties is limited to resources located within waters of the U.S. that are directly affected by the undertaking. The Corps responsibilities to identify potentially eligible historic properties is limited to resources located within the permit area that are directly affected by related upland activities. The Corps is not responsible for identifying or assessing potentially eligible historic properties outside the permit area, but will consider the effects of undertakings on any known historic properties that may occur outside the permit area.
6. Eligibility determinations
a. For a historic property within waters of the U.S. that will be directly affected by the undertaking the district engineer will, for the purposes of this Appendix and compliance with the NHPA:
(1) Treat the historic property as a ``designated historic property,'' if both the SHPO and the district engineer agree that it is eligible for inclusion in the National Register; or
(2) Treat the historic property as not eligible, if both the SHPO and the district engineer agree that it is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register; or
(3) Request a determination of eligibility from the Keeper of the National Register in accordance with applicable National Park Service regulations and notify the applicant, if the SHPO and the district engineer disagree or the ACHP or the Secretary of the Interior so request. If the Keeper of the National Register determines that the resources are not eligible for listing in the National Register or fails to respond within 45 days of receipt of the request, the district engineer may proceed to conclude his action on the permit application.
b. For a historic property outside of waters of the U.S. that will be directly affected by the undertaking the district engineer will, for the purposes of this appendix and compliance with the NHPA:
(1) Treat the historic property as a ``designated historic property,'' if both the SHPO and the district engineer agree that it is eligible for inclusion in the National Register; or
(2) Treat the historic property as not eligible, if both the SHPO and the district engineer agree that it is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register; or
(3) Treat the historic property as not eligible unless the Keeper of the National Register determines it is eligible for or lists it on the National Register. (See paragraph 6.c. below.)
(1) and the SHPO notifies the district engineer that it is nominating a potentially eligible historic property for the National Register that may be affected by the undertaking, the district engineer will wait a reasonable period of time for that determination to be made before concluding his action on the permit. Such a reasonable period of time would normally be 30 days for the SHPO to nominate the historic property plus 45 days for the Keeper of the National Register to make such determination. The district engineer will encourage the applicant to cooperate with the SHPO in obtaining the information necessary to nominate the historic property.
7. Assessing Effects
a. Applying the Criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect. During the public notice comment period or within 30 days after the determination or discovery of a designated history property the district engineer will coordinate with the SHPO and determine if there is an effect and if so, assess the effect. (See Paragraph 15.)
b. No Effect. If the SHPO concurs with the district engineer's determination of no effect or fails to respond within 15 days of the district engineer's notice to the SHPO of a no effect determination, then the district engineer may proceed with the final decision.
c. No Adverse Effect. If the district engineer, based on his coordination with the SHPO (see paragraph 7.a.), determines that an effect is not adverse, the district engineer will notify the ACHP and request the comments of the ACHP. The district engineer's notice will include a description of both the project and the designated historic property; both the district engineer's and the SHPO's views, as well as any views of affected local governments, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and the public, on the no adverse effect determination; and a description of the efforts to identify historic properties and solicit the views of those above. The district engineer may conclude the permit decision if the ACHP does not object to the district engineer's determination or if the district engineer accepts any conditions requested by the ACHP for a no adverse effect determination, or the ACHP fails to respond within 30 days of the district engineer's notice to the ACHP. If the ACHP objects or the district engineer does not accept the conditions proposed by the ACHP, then the effect shall be considered as adverse.
d. Adverse Effect. If an adverse effect on designated historic properties is found, the district engineer will notify the ACHP and coordinate with the SHPO to seek ways to avoid or reduce effects on designated historic properties. Either the district engineer or the SHPO may request the ACHP to participate. At its discretion, the ACHP may participate without such a request. The district engineer, the SHPO or the ACHP may state that further coordination will not be productive. The district engineer shall then request the ACHP's comments in accordance with paragraph 9.
8. Consultation
At any time during permit processing, the district engineer may consult with the involved parties to discuss and consider possible alternatives or measures to avoid or minimize the adverse effects of a proposed activity. The district engineer will terminate any consultation immediately upon determining that further consultation is not productive and will immediately notify the consulting parties. If the consultation results in a mutual agreement among the SHPO, ACHP, applicant and the district engineer regarding the treatment of designated historic properties, then the district engineer may formalize that agreement either through permit conditioning or by signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with these parties. Such MOA will constitute the comments of the ACHP and the SHPO, and the district engineer may proceed with the permit decision. Consultation shall not continue beyond the comment period provided in paragraph 9.b.
9. ACHP Review and Comment
a. If: (i) The district engineer determines that coordination with the SHPO is unproductive; or (ii) the ACHP, within the appropriate comment period, requests additional information in order to provide its comments; or (iii) the ACHP objects to any agreed resolution of impacts on designated historic properties; the district engineer, normally within 30 days, shall provide the ACHP with:
(1) A project description, including, as appropriate, photographs, maps, drawings, and specifications (such as, dimensions of structures, fills, or excavations; types of materials and quantity of material);
(2) A listing and description of the designated historic properties that will be affected, including the reports from any surveys or investigations;
(3) A description of the anticipated adverse effects of the undertaking on the designated historic properties and of the proposed mitigation measures and alternatives considered, if any; and
(4) The views of any commenting parties regarding designated historic properties.
In developing this information, the district engineer may coordinate with the applicant, the SHPO, and any appropriate Indian tribe or certified local government.
Copies of the above information also should be forwarded to the applicant, the SHPO, and any appropriate Indian tribe or certified local government. The district engineer will not delay his decision but will consider any comments these parties may wish to provide.
b. The district engineer will provide the ACHP 60 days from the date of the district engineer's letter forwarding the information in paragraph 9.a., to provide its comments. If the ACHP does not comment by the end of this comment period, the district engineer will complete processing of the permit application. When the permit decision is otherwise delayed as provided in 33 CFR 325.2(d) (3) & (4), the district engineer will provide additional time for the ACHP to comment consistent with, but not extending beyond that delay.
10. District Engineer Decision
a. In making the public interest decision on a permit application, in accordance with 33 CFR 320.4, the district engineer shall weigh all factors, including the effects of the undertaking on historic properties and any comments of the ACHP and the SHPO, and any views of other interested parties. The district engineer will add permit conditions to avoid or reduce effects on historic properties which he determines are necessary in accordance with 33 CFR 325.4. In reaching his determination, the district engineer will consider the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716).
b. If the district engineer concludes that permitting the activity would result in the irrevocable loss of important scientific, prehistoric, historical, or archeological data, the district engineer, in accordance with the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, will advise the Secretary of the Interior (by notifying the National Park Service (NPS)) of the extent to which the data may be lost if the undertaking is permitted, any plans to mitigate such loss that will be implemented, and the permit conditions that will be included to ensure that any required mitigation occurs.
11. Historic Properties Discovered During Construction
After the permit has been issued, if the district engineer finds or is notified that the permit area contains a previously unknown potentially eligible historic property which he reasonably expects will be affected by the undertaking, he shall immediately inform the Department of the Interior Departmental Consulting Archeologist and the regional office of the NPS of the current knowledge of the potentially eligible historic property and the expected effects, if any, of the undertaking on that property. The district engineer will seek voluntary avoidance of construction activities that could affect the historic property pending a recommendation from the National Park Service pursuant to the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974. Based on the circumstances of the discovery, equity to all parties, and considerations of the public interest, the district engineer may modify, suspend or revoke a permit in accordance with 33 CFR 325.7.
12. Regional General Permits
Potential impacts on historic properties will be considered in development and evaluation of general permits. However, many of the specific procedures contained in this appendix are not normally applicable to general permits. In developing general permits, the district engineer will seek the views of the SHPO and, the ACHP and other organizations and/or individuals with expertise or interest in historic properties. Where designated historic properties are reasonably likely to be affected, general permits shall be conditioned to protect such properties or to limit the applicability of the permit coverage.
13. Nationwide General Permit
a. The criteria at paragraph 15 of this Appendix will be used for determining compliance with the nationwide permit condition at 33 CFR 330.5(b)(9) regarding the effect on designated historic properties. When making this determination the district engineer may consult with the SHPO, the ACHP or other interested parties.
b. If the district engineer is notified of a potentially eligible historic property in accordance with nationwide permit regulations and conditions, he will immediately notify the SHPO. If the district engineer believes that the potentially eligible historic property meets the criteria for inclusion in the National Register and that it may be affected by the proposed undertaking then he may suspend authorization of the nationwide permit until he provides the ACHP and the SHPO the opportunity to comment in accordance with the provisions of this Appendix. Once these provisions have been satisfied, the district engineer may notify the general permittee that the activity is authorized including any special activity specific conditions identified or that an individual permit is required.
14. Emergency Procedures
The procedures for processing permits in emergency situations are described at 33 CFR 325.2(e)(4). In an emergency situation the district engineer will make every reasonable effort to receive comments from the SHPO and the ACHP, when the proposed undertaking can reasonably be expected to affect a potentially eligible or designated historic property and will comply with the provisions of this Appendix to the extent time and the emergency situation allows.
15. Criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect
(a) An undertaking has an effect on a designated historic property when the undertaking may alter characteristics of the property that qualified the property for inclusion in the National Register. For the purpose of determining effect, alteration to features of a property's location, setting, or use may be relevant, and depending on a property's important characteristics, should be considered.
(b) An undertaking is considered to have an adverse effect when the effect on a designated historic property may diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects on designated historic properties include, but are not limited to:
(1) Physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property;
(2) Isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the property's setting when that character contributes to the property's qualification for the National Register;
(3) Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property or alter its setting;
(4) Neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or destruction; and
(5) Transfer, lease, or sale of the property.
(c) Effects of an undertaking that would otherwise be found to be adverse may be considered as being not adverse for the purpose of this appendix:
(1) When the designated historic property is of value only for its potential contribution to archeological, historical, or architectural research, and when such value can be substantially preserved through the conduct of appropriate research, and such research is conducted in accordance with applicable professional standards and guidelines;
(2) When the undertaking is limited to the rehabilitation of buildings and structures and is conducted in a manner that preserves the historical and architectural value of affected designated historic properties through conformance with the Secretary's ``Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings'', or
(3) When the undertaking is limited to the transfer, lease, or sale of a designated historic property, and adequate restrictions or conditions are included to ensure preservation of the property's important historic features. [55 FR 27003, June 29, 1990]