94-2429. Regulatory Guidance Letters Issued by the Corps of Engineers  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-2429]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: February 3, 1994]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
    Corps of Engineers
    
     
    
    Regulatory Guidance Letters Issued by the Corps of Engineers
    
    AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
    
    ACTION: Notice.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to provide current Regulatory 
    Guidance Letters (RGL's) to all interested parties. RGL's are used by 
    the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters as a means to transmit 
    guidance on the permit program (33 CFR 320-330) to its division and 
    district engineers (DE's). Each future RGL will be published in the 
    Notice section of the Federal Register as a means to insure the widest 
    dissemination of this information while reducing costs to the Federal 
    Government. The Corps no longer maintains a mailing list to furnish 
    copies of the RGL's to the public.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Mr. Ralph Eppard, Regulatory Branch, Office of the Chief of Engineers 
    at (202) 272-1783.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: RGL's were developed by the Corps as a 
    system to organize and track written guidance issued to its field 
    agencies. RGL's are normally issued as a result of evolving policy; 
    judicial decisions and changes to the Corps regulations or another 
    agency's regulations which affect the permit program. RGL's are used 
    only to interpret or clarify existing regulatory program policy, but do 
    provide mandatory guidance to Corps district offices. RGL's are 
    sequentially numbered and expire on a specified date. After a RGL's 
    expiration date has passed, it no longer constitutes mandatory guidance 
    for Corps district and division offices. Nevertheless, many expired 
    RGL's still provide useful, non-mandatory guidance which Corps field 
    offices have the discretion to follow. On the other hand, some RGL's 
    have been superseded by specific provisions of subsequently issued 
    regulations or RGL's. In addition, other expired RGL's, in whole or in 
    part, may not be consistent with current Corps policy. The Corps 
    incorporates most of the guidance provided by RGL's whenever it revises 
    its permit regulations.
        There were three RGL's issued by the Corps during 1993, and all 
    were published in the Notices section of the Federal Register upon 
    issuance. We are hereby publishing all current RGL's, beginning with 
    RGL 91-1 and ending with RGL 93-3. We will continue to publish each RGL 
    in the Notice Section of the Federal Register upon issuance and in 
    early 1995, we will again publish the complete list of all current 
    RGL's.
    
        Dated: January 19, 1994.
    
        Approved:
    John R. Brown,
    Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Executive Director of Civil Works.
    
    Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL 91-1)
    
    RGL 91-1
    Date: Dec 31, 1991, Expires: Dec 31, 1996
    Subject: Extensions of Time For Individual Permit Authorizations
    
        1. The purpose of this guidance is to provide clarification for 
    district and division offices relating to extensions of time for 
    Department of Army permits (See 33 CFR 325.6).
        2. General: A permittee is informed of the time limit for 
    completing an authorized activity by General Condition #1 of the 
    standard permit form (ENG Form 1721). This condition states that a 
    request for an extension of time should be submitted to the authorizing 
    official at least one month prior to the expiration date. This request 
    should be in writing and should explain the basis of the request. The 
    DE may consider an oral request from the permittee provided it is 
    followed up with a written request prior to the expiration date. A 
    request for an extension of time will usually be granted unless the DE 
    determines that the time extension would be contrary to the public 
    interest. The one month submittal requirement is a workload management 
    time limit designed to prevent permittees from filing last minute time 
    extension requests. Obviously, the one month period is not sufficient 
    to make a final decision on all time extension requests that are 
    processed in accordance with 33 CFR 325.2. It should be noted that a 
    permittee may choose to request a time extension sooner than this 
    (e.g., six months prior to the expiration date). While there is no 
    formal time limit of this nature, a request for an extension of time 
    should generally not be considered by the DE more than one year prior 
    to the expiration date. A permit will automatically expire if an 
    extension is not requested and granted prior to the applicable 
    expiration date (See 33 CFR 325.6(d)).
        3. Requests for Time Extensions Prior to Expiration: For requests 
    of time extensions received prior to the expiration date, the DE should 
    consider the following procedures if a decision on the request cannot 
    be completed prior to the permit expiration date:
        (a) The DE may grant an interim time extension while a final 
    decision is being made; or
        (b) The DE may, when appropriate, suspend the permit at the same 
    time that an interim time extension is granted, while a final decision 
    is being made.
        4. Requests for Time Extensions After Expiration: At time extension 
    cannot be granted if a time extension request is received after the 
    applicable time limit. In such cases, a new permit application must be 
    processed, if the permittee wishes to pursue the work. However, the DE 
    may consider expedited processing procedures when: (1) The request is 
    received shortly (generally 30 days) after the expiration date, (2) the 
    DE determines that there have been no substantial changes in the 
    attendant circumstances since the original authorization was issued, 
    and (3) the De believes that the time extension would likely have been 
    granted. Expedited processing procedures may include, but are not 
    limited to, not requiring that a new application form be submitted or 
    issuing a 15 day public notice.
        5. This guidance expires 31 December 1996 unless sooner revised or 
    rescinded.
    
        For the Director of Civil Works:
    John P. Elmore,
    Chief, Operations, Construction and Readiness Division Directorate of 
    Civil Works.
    
    Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL 92-1)
    
    RGL 92-1
    Date: 13 May 1992, Expires: 31 December 1997
    Subject: Federal Agencies Roles and Responsibilities
    
        1. Purpose: The purpose of this guidance is to clarify the Army 
    Corps of Engineers leadership and decision-making role as ``project 
    manager'' for the evaluation of permit applications pursuant to section 
    404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and section 10 of the Rivers and 
    Harbors Act. This guidance is also intended to encourage effective and 
    efficient coordination among prospective permittees, the Corps, and the 
    Federal resource agencies (i.e., Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
    Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Marine Fisheries Service 
    (NMFS)). Implementation of this guidance will help to streamline the 
    permit process by minimizing delays and ensuring more timely decisions, 
    while providing a meaningful opportunity for substantive input from all 
    Federal agencies.
        2. Background:
        (a) The Department of the Army Regulatory Program must operate in 
    an efficient manner in order to protect the aquatic environment and 
    provide fair, equitable, and timely decisions to the regulated public. 
    Clear leadership and a predictable decision-making framework will 
    enhance the public acceptance of the program and allow the program to 
    meet the important objective of effectively protecting the Nation's 
    valuable aquatic resources.
        (b) On August 9, 1991, the President announced a comprehensive plan 
    for improving the protection of the Nation's wetlands. The plan seeks 
    to balance two important objectives--the protection, restoration, and 
    creation of wetlands and the need for sustained economic growth and 
    development. The plan, which is designed to slow and eventually stop 
    the net loss of wetlands, includes measures that will improve and 
    streamline the current wetlands regulatory system. This Regulatory 
    Guidance Letter is issued in accordance with the President's plan for 
    protecting wetlands.
        (c) The intent of this guidance is to express clearly that the 
    Corps is the decision-maker and project manager for the Department of 
    Army's Regulatory Program. The Corps will consider, to the maximum 
    extent possible, all timely, project-related comments from other 
    Federal agencies when making regulatory decisions. Furthermore, the 
    Corps and relevant Federal agencies will maintain and improve as 
    necessary their working relationships.
        (d) The Federal resource agencies have reviewed and concurred with 
    this guidance and have agreed to act in accordance with these 
    provisions. While this guidance does not restrict or impair the 
    exercise of legal authorities vested in the Federal resource agencies 
    or States under the CWA or other statutes and regulations (e.g., EPA's 
    authority under section 404(c), section 404(f), and CWA geographic 
    jurisdiction and FWS/NMFS authorities under the Fish and Wildlife 
    Coordination Act and the Endangered Species Act (ESA)), agency comments 
    on Department of the Army permit applications must be consistent with 
    the provisions contained in this regulatory guidance letter.
        3. The Corps Project Management/Decision Making Role:
        (a) The Corps is solely responsible for making final permit 
    decisions pursuant to section 10 and section 404(a), including final 
    determinations of compliance with the Corps permit regulations, the 
    section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, and section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. As such, 
    the Corps will act as the project manager for the evaluation of all 
    permit applications. The Corps will advise potential applicants of its 
    role as the project manager and decision-maker. This guidance does not 
    restrict EPA's authority to make determinations of compliance with the 
    Guidelines in carrying out its responsibilities under sections 309 and 
    404(c) of the Clean Water Act.
        (b) As the project manager, the Corps is responsible for requesting 
    and evaluating information concerning all permit applications. The 
    Corps will obtain and utilize this information in a manner that moves, 
    as rapidly as practical, the regulatory process towards a final permit 
    decision. The Corps will not evaluate applications as a project 
    opponent or advocate--but instead will maintain an objective 
    evaluation, fully considering all relevant factors.
        (c) The Corps will fully consider other Federal agencies' project-
    related comments when determining compliance with the National 
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the 
    ESA, the National Historic Preservation Act, and other relevant 
    statutes, regulations, and policies. The Corps will also fully consider 
    the agencies' views when determining whether to issue the permit, to 
    issue the permit with conditions and/or mitigation, or to deny the 
    permit.
        4. The Federal Resource Agencies' Role:
        (a) It is recognized that the Federal resource agencies have an 
    important role in the Department of the Army Regulatory Program under 
    the CWA, NEPA, ESA, Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, 
    and other relevant statutes.
        (b) When providing comments, Federal resource agencies will submit 
    to the Corps only substantive, project-related information on the 
    impacts of activities being evaluated by the Corps and appropriate and 
    practicable measures to mitigate adverse impacts. The comments will be 
    submitted within the time frames established in interagency agreements 
    and regulations. Federal resource agencies will limit their comments to 
    their respective areas of expertise and authority to avoid duplication 
    with the Corps and other agencies and to provide the Corps with a sound 
    basis for making permit decisions. The Federal resource agencies should 
    not submit comments that attempt to interpret the Corps regulations or 
    for the purposes of section 404(a) make determinations concerning 
    compliance with the section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Pursuant to its 
    authority under section 404(b)(1) of the CWA, the EPA may provide 
    comments to the Corps identifying its views regarding compliance with 
    the Guidelines. While the Corps will fully consider and utilize agency 
    comments, the final decision regarding the permit application, 
    including a determination of compliance with the Guidelines, rests 
    solely with the Corps.
        5. Pre-application Consultation:
        (a) To provide potential applicants with the maximum degree of 
    relevant information at an early phase of project planning, the Corps 
    will increase its efforts to encourage pre-application consultations in 
    accordance with regulations at 33 CFR 325.1(b). Furthermore, while 
    encouraging pre-application consultation, the Corps will emphasize the 
    need for early consultation concerning mitigation requirements, if 
    impacts to aquatic resources may occur. The Corps is responsible for 
    initiating, coordinating, and conducting pre-application consultations 
    and other discussions and meetings with applicants regarding Department 
    of the Army permits. This may not apply in instances where the 
    consultation is associated with the review of a separate permit or 
    license required from another Federal agency (e.g., the Federal Energy 
    Regulatory Commission or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) or in 
    situations where resource agencies perform work for others outside the 
    context of a specific Department of the Army permit application (e.g., 
    the conservation Reserve Program and technical assistance to applicants 
    of Federal grants).
        (b) For those pre-application consultations involving activities 
    that may result in impacts to aquatic resources, the Corps will provide 
    EPA, FWS, NMFS (as appropriate), and other appropriate Federal and 
    State agencies, a reasonable opportunity to participate in the pre-
    application process. The invited agencies will participate to the 
    maximum extent possible in the pre-application consultation, since this 
    is generally the best time to consider alternatives for avoiding or 
    reducing adverse impacts. To the extent practical, the Corps and the 
    Federal resource agencies will develop local procedures (e.g., 
    teleconferencing) to promote reasonable and effective pre-application 
    consultations within the logistical constraints of all affected 
    parties.
        6. Applications for Individual Permits:
        (a) The Corps is responsible for determining the need for, and the 
    coordination of, interagency meetings, requests for information, and 
    other interactions between permit applicants and the Federal 
    Government. In this regard, Federal resource agencies will contact the 
    Corps to discuss and coordinate any additional need for information for 
    the applicant. The Corps will cooperate with the Federal resource 
    agencies to ensure, to the extent practical, that information necessary 
    for the agencies to carry out their responsibilities is obtained. If it 
    is determined by the Corps that an applicant meeting is necessary for 
    the exchange of information with a Federal resource agency and the 
    Corps chooses not to participate in such a meeting, the Federal 
    resource agency will apprise the Corps, generally in writing, of that 
    agency's discussions with the applicant. Notwithstanding such meetings, 
    the Corps is solely responsible for permit requirements, including 
    mitigation and other conditions--the Federal resource agencies must not 
    represent their views as regulatory requirements. In circumstances 
    where the Corps meets with the applicant and develops information that 
    will affect the permit decision, the Corps will apprise the Federal 
    resource agencies of such information.
        (b) Consistent with 33 CFR part 325, the Corps will ensure that 
    public notices contain sufficient information to facilitate the timely 
    submittal of project-specific comments from the Federal resource 
    agencies. The resource agencies comments will provide specific 
    information and/or data related to the proposed project site. The Corps 
    will fully consider comments regarding the site from a watershed or 
    landscape scale, including an evaluation of potential cumulative and 
    secondary impacts.
        (c) The Corps must consider cumulative impacts in reaching permit 
    decisions. In addition to the Corps own expertise and experience, the 
    Corps will fully consider comments from the Federal resource agencies, 
    which can provide valuable information on cumulative impacts. 
    Interested Federal agencies are encouraged to provide periodically to 
    the Corps generic comments and assessments of impacts (outside the 
    context of a specific permit application) on issues within the 
    agencies' area of expertise.
        7. General Permits:
        (a) The Corps is responsible for proposing potential general 
    permits, assessing impacts of and comments on proposed general permits, 
    and deciding whether to issue general permits. The Corps will consider 
    proposals for general permits from other sources, including the Federal 
    resource agencies, although the final decision regarding the need to 
    propose a general permit rests with the Corps. Other interested Federal 
    agencies should provide comments to the Corps on proposed general 
    permits. These Federal agency comments will be submitted consistent 
    with established agreements and regulations and will focus on the 
    Federal agencies' area(s) of expertise. The Corps will fully consider 
    such agencies' comments in deciding whether to issue general permits, 
    including programmatic general permits.
        (b) The Corps is responsible for initiating and conducting meetings 
    that may be necessary in developing and evaluating potential general 
    permits. Any discussions with a State or local Government regarding 
    proposed programmatic general permits will be coordinated through and 
    conducted by the Corps. Prior to issuing a programmatic general permit, 
    the Corps will ensure that the State or local program, by itself or 
    with appropriate conditions, will protect the aquatic environment, 
    including wetlands, to the level required by the section 404 program.
        8. This guidance expires 31 December 1997 unless sooner revised or 
    rescinded.
    
        For the Commander.
    Arthur R. Williams,
    Major General, USA, Director of Civil Works.
    
    Regulatory Guidance Letter (92-2)
    
    RGL 92-2
    Date: 26 June 92, Expires: 31 December 95
    CECW-OR
    Subject: Water Dependency and Cranberry Production
    
        1. Enclosed for implementation is a joint Army Corps of Engineers/
    Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum to the Field on water 
    dependency with cranberry production. This guidance was developed 
    jointly by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental 
    Protection Agency.
        2. This guidance will expire 31 December 1995 unless sooner revised 
    or rescinded.
    
        For the Director of Civil Works.
    John P. Elmore.
    Chief, Operations, Construction and Readiness Division, Directorate of 
    Civil Works.
    
    Memorandum to the Field
    
    Subject: Water Dependency and Cranberry Production
    
        1. The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the applicability 
    of the section 404(b)(1) Guidelines water dependency provisions (40 CFR 
    230.10(a)) to the cultivation of cranberries, in light of Army Corps of 
    Engineers (Corps) regulations at 33 CFR 323.4(a)(1)(iii)(C)(1) (ii) and 
    (iii), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations at 40 CFR 
    232.3(d)(3)(i) (B) and (C). These sections of the Corps and EPA 
    regulations state, among other things, that cranberries are a wetland 
    crop, and that some discharges associated with cranberry production are 
    considered exempt from regulation under the provisions of section 
    404(f) of the Clean Water Act. The characterization of cranberries as a 
    wetland crop has led to inconsistency in determining if cranberry 
    production is a water dependent activity as defined in the section 
    404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines).
        2. The intent of Corps regulations at 33 CFR 320.4(b) and of the 
    Guidelines is to avoid the unnecessary destruction or alteration of 
    waters of the U.S., including wetlands, and to compensate for the 
    unavoidable loss of such waters. The Guidelines specifically required 
    that ``no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if 
    there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which 
    would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the 
    alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental 
    consequences'' (see 40 CFR 230.10(a)). Based on this provision, an 
    evaluation is required in every case for use of non-aquatic areas and 
    other aquatic sites that would result in less adverse impact to the 
    aquatic ecosystem, irrespective of whther the discharge site is a 
    special aquatic site or whether the activity associated with the 
    discharge is water dependent. A permit cannot be issued, therefore, in 
    circumstances where an environmentally preferable practicable 
    alternative for the proposed discharge exists (except as provided for 
    under section 404(b)(2)).
        3. For proposed discharges into wetlands and other ``special 
    acquatic sites,'' the Guidelines alternatives analysis requirement 
    further considers whether the activity associated with the proposed 
    discharge is ``water dependent''. The Guidelines define water 
    dependency in terms of an activity requiring access or proximity to or 
    siting within a special aquatic site to fulfill its basic project 
    purpose. Special aquatic sites (as defined in 40 CFR 230.40-230.45) 
    are: (1) Sanctuaries and refuges; (2) wetlands; (3) mud flats; (4) 
    vegetated shallows; (5) coral reefs; and (6) riffle and pool complexes. 
    If an activity is determined not to be water dependent, the Guidelines 
    establish the follow two presumptions (40 CFR 230.10(a)(3)) that the 
    applicant is required to rebut before satisfying the alternatives 
    analysis requirements:
        a. That practicable alternatives that do not involve special 
    aquatic sites are presumed to be available; and,
        b. That all practicable alternatives to the proposed discharge 
    which do not involve a discharge into a special aquatic site are 
    presumed to have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem.
        It is the responsibility of the applicant to clearly rebut these 
    presumptions in order to demonstrate compliance with the Guidelines 
    alternatives test.
        4. If an activity is determined to be water dependent, the 
    rebuttable presumptions stated in paragraph 3 of this memorandum do not 
    apply. However, the proposed discharge, whether or not it is associated 
    with a water dependent activity, must represent the least 
    environmentally damaging practicable alternative in order to comply 
    with the alternatives analysis requirement of the Guidelines as 
    described in paragraph 2 of this memorandum.
        5. As previously indicated, Corps and EPA regulations consider 
    cranberries as a wetland crop species. This characterization of 
    cranberries as a wetland crop species is based primarily on the listing 
    of cranberries as an obligate hydrophyte in the National List of Plant 
    Species That Occur in Wetlands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
    Biological Report 88 (26.1-26.13)) and the fact that cranberries must 
    be grown in wetlands or areas altered to create a wetland environment. 
    Therefore, the Corps and EPA consider the construction of cranberry 
    beds, including associated dikes and water control structures 
    associated with dikes (i.e., headgates, weirs, drop inlet structures), 
    to be a water dependent activity. Consequently, discharges directly 
    associated with cranberry bed construction are not subject to the 
    presumptions applicable to non-water dependent activities discussed in 
    paragraph 3 of this memorandum. However, consistent with the 
    requirements of Sec. 230.10(a), the proposed discharge must represent 
    the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative, after 
    considering aquatic and non-aquatic alternatives as appropriate. To be 
    considered practicable, an alternative must be available and capable of 
    being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, 
    and logistics in light of overall project purposes. For commercial 
    cranberry cultivation, practicable alternatives may include upland 
    sites with proper characteristics for creating the necessary conditions 
    to grow cranberries. Factors that must be considered in making a 
    determination of whether or not upland alternatives are practicable 
    include soil pH, topography, soil permeability, depth to bedrock, depth 
    to seasonal high water table, adjacent land uses, water supply, and, 
    for expansion of existing cranberry operations, proximity to existing 
    cranberry farms. EPA Regions and Corps Districts are encouraged to work 
    together with local cranberry growers to refine these factors to 
    reflect their regional conditions.
        6. In contrast, the following activities often associated with the 
    cultivation and harvesting of cranberries are not considered water 
    dependent: construction of roads, ditches, reservoirs, and pump houses 
    that are used during the cultivation of cranberries, and construction 
    of secondary support facilities for shipping, storage, packaging, 
    parking, etc. Therefore, the rebuttable practicable alternatives 
    presumptions discussed in paragraph 3 of this memorandum apply to the 
    discharges associated with these non-water dependent activities. 
    However, since determinations of practicability under the Guidelines 
    includes consideration of cost, technical, and logistics factors, 
    determining the availability of practicable alternatives to discharges 
    associated with these non-water dependent activities must involve 
    consideration of the need of an alternative to be proximate to the 
    cranberry bed in order to achieve the basic project purpose of 
    cranberry cultivation. Once it has been determined that the location of 
    the cranberry bed, including associated dikes, and water control 
    structures, represents the least environmentally damaging practicable 
    alternative, practicable alternatives for maintenance roads, ditches, 
    reservoirs and pump houses will generally be limited to the bed itself 
    and the area in the vicinity of the actual bed. For example, the bed 
    dikes may be the only practicable alternative for location of 
    maintenance roads. When practicable alternatives cannot be identified 
    within such geographic constraints, the applicant must minimize the 
    impacts of the roads, reservoirs, etc., to the maximum extent 
    practicable.
        7. During review of applications for discharges associated with 
    cranberry cultivation, it is important to reiterate that proposed 
    discharges must also comply with the other requirements of the 
    Guidelines (i.e., 40 CFR 230.10 (b) (c) and (d)). In addition, 
    evaluations of all discharges, whether or not the proposed discharge is 
    associated with a water dependent activity, must comply with the 
    provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, including an 
    investigation of alternatives to the proposed discharge. Further, 
    applications for discharges associated with cranberry cultivation will 
    continue to be evaluated in accordance with current Corps and EPA 
    policy and practice concerning mitigation, cumulative impact analysis, 
    and public interest review factors.
        8. This guidance expires 31 December 1995 unless sooner revised or 
    rescinded.
    
        For the Director of Civil Works.
    Robert H. Wayland, III,
    Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S. 
    Environmental Protection.
    John P. Elmore,
    Chief, Operations, Construction and Readiness Division, Directorate of 
    Civil Works.
    
    Regulatory Guidance Letter (92-3)
    
    RGL 92-3
    Date: 19 Aug 92, Expires: 31 Dec 97
    
    Subject: Extension of Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 86-10 RGL 86-10, 
    subject: ``Special Area Management Plans (SAMP's)'' is extended until 
    31 December 1997 unless sooner revised or rescinded.
    
        For the Director of Civil Works
    John P. Elmore,
    Chief, Operations, Construction and Readiness Division, Directorate of 
    Civil Works.
    RGL 86-10
    Special Area Management Plans (SAMP's)
    Issued 10/2/86, Expired 12/31/88
    
        1. The 1980 Amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act define 
    the SAMP process as ``a comprehensive plan providing for natural 
    resource protection and reasonable coastal-dependent economic growth 
    containing a detailed and comprehensive statement of policies, 
    standards and criteria to guide public and private uses of lands and 
    waters; and mechanisms for timely implementation in specific geographic 
    areas within the coastal zone.'' This process of collaborative 
    interagency planning within a geographic area of special sensitivity is 
    just as applicable in non-coastal areas.
        2. A good SAMP reduces the problems associated with the traditional 
    case-by-case review. Developmental interests can plan with 
    predictability and environmental interests are assured that individual 
    and cumulative impacts are analyzed in the context of broad ecosystem 
    needs.
        3. Because SAMP's are very labor intensive, the following 
    ingredients should usually exist before a district engineer becomes 
    involved in a SAMP:
        1. The area should be environmentally sensitive and under strong 
    developmental pressure.
        b. There should be a sponsoring local agency to ensure that the 
    plan fully reflects local needs and interests.
        c. Ideally there should be full public involvement in the planning 
    and development process.
        d. All parties must express a willingness at the outset to conclude 
    the SAMP process with a definitive regulatory product (see next 
    paragraph).
        4. An ideal SAMP would conclude with two products: (1) Appropriate 
    local/State approvals and a Corps general permit (GP) or abbreviated 
    processing procedure (APP) for activities in specifically defined 
    situations; and (2) a local/State restriction and/or an Environmental 
    Protection Agency (EPA) 404(c) restriction (preferably both) for 
    undesirable activities. An individual permit review may be conducted 
    for activities that do not fall into either category above. However, it 
    should represent a small number of the total cases addressed by the 
    SAMP. We recognize that an ideal SAMP is difficult to achieve, and, 
    therefore, it is intended to represent an upper limit rather than an 
    absolute requirement.
        5. Do not assume that an environmental impact statement is 
    automatically required to develop a SAMP.
        6. EPA's program for advance identification of disposal areas found 
    at 40 CFR 230.80 can be integrated into a SAMP process.
        7. In accordance with this guidance, district engineers are 
    encouraged to participate in development of SAMP's. However, since 
    development of a SAMP can require a considerable investment of time, 
    resources, and money, the SAMP process should be entered only if it is 
    likely to result in a definitive regulatory product as defined in 
    paragraph 4. above.
        8. This guidance expires 31 December 1988 unless sooner revised or 
    rescinded.
    
        For the Chief of Engineers.
    Peter J. Offringa,
    Brigadier General, USA, Deputy Director of Civil Works.
    
    Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL-92-4)
    
    RGL-92-4
    Date: 14 Sep 1992, Expires: 21 January 1997
    
    Subject: Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone 
    Management Act Conditions for Nationwide Permits
    
        1. The purpose of this Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) is to 
    provide additional guidance and clarification for divisions and 
    districts involved in developing acceptable conditions under the 
    section 401 Water Quality Certifications and Coastal Zone Management 
    Act (CZM) concurrences for the Nationwide Permit (NWP) Program. This 
    RGL represents a clarification if 330.4(c) (2) and (3) and 330.4(d) (2) 
    and (3), concerning when NWP Section 401 and CZM conditions should not 
    be accepted and thus treated as a denial without prejudice. The 
    principles contained in this RGL also apply to 401 certification and 
    CZM concurrence conditions associated with individual permits and 
    regional general permits.
        2. Corps divisions and districts should work closely and 
    cooperatively with the States to develop reasonable 401 and CZM 
    conditions. All involved parties should participate in achieving the 
    purpose of the NWP program, which is to provide the public with an 
    expeditious permitting process while, at the same time, safeguarding 
    the environment by only authorizing activities which result in no more 
    than minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects. When a State 
    certifying agency or CZM agency proposes conditions, the division 
    engineer is responsible for determining whether 401 Water Quality 
    Certification or CZM concurrence conditions are acceptable and comply 
    with the provisions of 33 CFR 325.4. In most cases it is expected that 
    the conditions will be acceptable and the division engineer shall 
    recognize these conditions as regional conditions of the NWP's.
        3. Unacceptable Conditions: There will be cases when certain 
    conditions will clearly be unacceptable and those conditioned 401 
    certifications or CZM concurrences shall be considered administratively 
    denied. Consequently, authorization for an activity which meets the 
    terms and conditions of such NWP(s) is denied without prejudice.
        a. Illegal conditions are clearly unacceptable. Illegal conditions 
    would result in violation of a law or regulation, or would require an 
    illegal action. For example, a condition which would require an 
    applicant to obtain a 401 certification or CZM concurrence, where the 
    State as previously denied certification or concurrence, prior to 
    submitting a predischarge notification (PDN) to the Corps in accordance 
    with PDN procedures, would violate the Corps regulation at 33 CFR 
    330.4(c)(6). Another example would be a case where an applicant would 
    be required, through a condition, to apply for an individual Department 
    of the Army permit. Another example is a requirement by the State 
    agency to utilize the 1989 Federal Wetland Delineation Manual to 
    establish jurisdiction.
        b. As a general rule, a condition that would require the Corps or 
    another Federal agency to take an action which we would not otherwise 
    take and do not choose to take, would be clearly unacceptable. For 
    example, where the certification or concurrence is conditioned to 
    require a PDN, where the proposed activity did not previously require a 
    PDN, the Corps should not accept that condition, since implicitly the 
    Corps would have to accept and utilize the PDN. Another example would 
    be a situation where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required, 
    through a condition, to provide any type of formal review or approval.
        c. Section 401 or CZM conditions which provide for limits 
    (quantities, dimensions, etc.) different from those imposed by the NWP 
    do not change the NWP limits.
        1. Higher limits are clearly not acceptable. For example, 
    increasing NWP 18 for minor discharges from 10 to 50 cubic yards would 
    not be acceptable. Such conditions would confuse the regulated public 
    and could contribute to violations.
        2. Lower limits are acceptable but have the effect of denial 
    without prejudice of those activities that are higher than the Section 
    401 or CZM condition limit but within the NWP limit. Thus, if an 
    applicant obtains an individual 401 water quality certification and/or 
    CZM concurrence for work within the limits of an NWP where the State 
    had denied certification and/or CZM concurrence, then the activity 
    could be authorized by the NWP.
        d. A condition which would delete, modify, or reduce NWP conditions 
    would be clearly unacceptable.
        4. Discretionary Enforcement: The initiation of enforcement actions 
    by the Corps, whether directed at unauthorized activities or to ensure 
    compliance with permit conditions, is discretionary. The district 
    engineer will consider the following situations when determining 
    whether to enforce 401 and/or CZM conditions.
        a. Unenforceable Conditions--Some conditions that a State may 
    propose will not be reasonably enforceable by the Corps (e.g., a 
    condition requiring compliance with the specific terms of another State 
    permit). Provided such conditions do not violate paragraph 3 above, the 
    conditions will be accepted by the Corps as regional conditions. 
    However, limited Corps resources should not be utilized in an attempt 
    to enforce compliance with 401 or CZM conditions which the district 
    engineer believes to be essentially unenforceable, or of low 
    enforcement priority for limited Corps resources.
        b. Enforceable Conditions--Some other conditions proposed by a 
    State may be considered enforceable, (e.g., a condition requiring the 
    applicant to obtain another State permit), but of low priority for 
    Federal enforcement, since the Federal Government would not have 
    required those conditions but for the State's requirement. Furthermore, 
    the Corps will generally not enforce such State-imposed conditions 
    except in very unusual cases, due to our limited personnel and 
    financial resources.
        5. NWP Verification and PDN Responses: In response to NWP 
    verification requests and PDN's, district engineers should utilize the 
    sample paragraphs presented below. This language should be used where 
    conditional 401 certification or CZM concurrence has been issued. This 
    specifically addresses situations when the conditions included with the 
    certification or concurrence are such that the district engineer 
    determines they are unforceable or the district engineer cannot clearly 
    determine compliance with the 401/CZM conditions (see 4.a.).
        ``Based on our review of your proposal to [describe proposal], we 
    have determined that the activity qualifies for the nationwide permit 
    authorizations [insert NWP No(s.)], subject to the terms and conditions 
    of the permit.
        [Insert paragraph on any Corps required activity-specific 
    conditions].
        Enclosed you will find a copy of the Section 401 Water Quality 
    Certification and/or Coastal Zone Management special conditions, which 
    are conditions of your authorization under Nationwide Permit [insert 
    NWP No(s.)]. If you have questions concerning compliance with the 
    conditions of the 401 certification or Coastal Zone Management 
    concurrence, you should contact the [insert appropriate State agency].
        If you do not or cannot comply with these State Section 401 
    certification conditions and/or CZM conditions, then in order to be 
    authorized by this Nationwide Permit, you must furnish this office with 
    an individual 401 certification or Coastal Zone Management concurrence 
    from [insert appropriate State agency], or a copy of the application to 
    the State for such certification or concurrence, [insert ``60 days'' 
    for Section 401 water quality certification, unless another reasonable 
    period of time has been determined pursuant to 33 CFR 330.4(c)(6), or 
    insert ``six months'' for CZM concurrence] after you submit it to the 
    State agency.''
        6. This guidance expires 21 January 1997 unless sooner revised or 
    rescinded.
    
        For the Director of Civil Works.
    John P. Elmore,
    Chief, Operations, Construction Readiness Division, Directorate of 
    Civil Works.
    
    Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL 92-5)
    
    RGL 92-5
    Date: 29 October 1992, Expires: 31 December 1997
    
    Subject: Alternatives Analysis Under the section 404(b)(1) Guidelines 
    for Projects Subject to Modification Under the Clean Air Act.
    
        1. Enclosed for implementation is a joint Army Corps of Engineers/
    Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum to the Field on alternatives 
    analysis for existing power plants that must be modified to meet 
    requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act. This guidance was developed 
    jointly by the Corps and EPA.
        2. This guidance expires 31 December 1997 unless sooner revised or 
    rescinded.
    
        For the Director of Civil Works.
    John P. Elmore,
    Chief, Operations, Construction and Readiness Division, Directorate of 
    Civil Works.
    
    EPA/Corps Joint Memorandum for the Field
    
    Subject: Alternatives Analysis under the section 404(b)(1) Guidelines 
    for Projects Subject to Modification Under the Clean Air Act.
    
        1. The 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments require most electric 
    generating plants to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide in phases 
    beginning in 1995 and requiring full compliance by 2010. The 
    congressional endorsement of the industry's ability to select the most 
    effective compliance method (e.g., sulfur dioxide scrubbers, low sulfur 
    coal, or other methods) recognizes the expertise of the industry in 
    these cases and is a fundamental element in the CAA market-based 
    pollution control program. Given the need for cooling water, a 
    substantial number of electric power generating plants are located 
    adjacent, or in close proximity, to waters of the United States, 
    including wetlands. Depending on the method chosen by the plants to 
    reduce emissions, we expect that these facilities will be applying for 
    Clean Water Act section 404 permits for certain proposed activities.
        2. The analysis and regulation under section 404 of the Clean Water 
    Act of activities in waters of the United States conducted by specific 
    power plants to comply with the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments must 
    ensure protection of the aquatic environment consistent with the 
    requirements of the Clean Water Act. The review of applications for 
    such projects will fully consider, consistent with requirements under 
    the section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, all practicable alternatives 
    including non-aquatic alternatives, for proposed discharges associated 
    with the method selected by the utility to comply with the 1990 Clean 
    Air Act amendments. For the purposes of the section 404(b)(1) 
    Guidelines analysis, the project purpose will be that pollutant 
    reduction method selected by the permit applicant.
        3. For example, a utility may have decided to install sulfur 
    dioxide scrubbers on an existing power plant in order to meet the new 
    1990 Clean Air Act standards. The proposed construction of the 
    scrubbers, treatment ponds and a barge unloading facility could impact 
    wetlands. In this case, the section 404 review would evaluate 
    practicable alternative locations and configurations for the scrubbers, 
    ponds and of the docking facilities. The analysis will also consider 
    practicable alternatives which satisfy the project purpose (i.e., 
    installing scrubbers) but which have a less adverse impact on the 
    aquatic environment or do not involve discharges into waters of the 
    United States. However, in order to best effectuate Congressional 
    intent reflected in the CAA that electric utilities retain flexibility 
    to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions in the most cost effective manner, 
    the section 404 review should not evaluate alternative methods of 
    complying with the Clean Air Act standards not selected by the 
    applicant (e.g., in this example use of low sulfur coal).
        4. In evaluating the scope of practicable alternatives which 
    satisfy the project purpose (e.g., constructing additional scrubber 
    capacity), the alternatives analysis should not be influenced by the 
    possibility that, based on a conclusion that practicable upland 
    alternatives are available to the applicant, the project proponent may 
    decide to pursue other options for meeting Clean Air Act requirements. 
    Continuing the above example, a Corps determination that practicable 
    upland alternatives are available for scrubber waste disposal should 
    not be affected by the possibility that an applicant may subsequently 
    decide to select a different method for meeting the Clean Air Act 
    standards (e.g., use of low sulfur coal that reduces waste generated by 
    scrubbers).
        5. The Corps and EPA will also recognize the tight time-frames 
    under which the industry must meet these new air quality standards.
    Robert H. Wayland,
    Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
    John P. Elmore,
    Chief, Operations, Construction and Readiness Division, Directorate of 
    Civil Works.
    
    Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL 93-1)
    
    RGL 93-1
    Issued: April 20, 1993, Expires: December 31, 1998
    CECW-OR
    Subject: Provisional Permits
    
        1. Purpose: The purpose of this guidance is to establish a process 
    that clarifies for applicants when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has 
    completed its evaluation and at what point the applicant should contact 
    the State concerning the status of the Section 401 Water Quality 
    Certification and/or Coastal Zone Management (CZM) consistency 
    concurrence. This process also allows for more accurate measurement of 
    the total length of time spent by the Corps in evaluating permit 
    applications (i.e., from receipt of a complete application until the 
    Corps reaches a permit decision). For verification of authorization of 
    activities under regional general permits, the Corps will use the 
    appropriate nationwide permit procedures at 33 CFR 330.6.
        2. Background: a. A Department of the Army permit involving a 
    discharge of dredged or fill material cannot be issued until a State 
    Section 401 Water Quality Certification has been issued or waived. 
    Also, a Department of the Army permit cannot be issued for a activity 
    within a State with a federally-approved Coastal Management Program 
    when that activity that would occur within, or outside, a State's 
    coastal zone will affect land or water uses or natural resources of the 
    State's coastal zone, until the State concurs with the applicant's 
    consistency determination, or concurrence is presumed. In many cases, 
    the Corps completes its review before the State Section 401 Water 
    Quality Certification or CZM concurrence requirements have been 
    satisfied. In such cases, applicants and the public are often confused 
    regarding who to deal with regarding resolution of any State issues.
        b. The ``provisional permit'' procedures described below will 
    facilitate a formal communication between the Corps and the applicant 
    to clearly indicate that the applicant should be in contact with the 
    appropriate State agencies to satisfy the State 401 Water Quality 
    Certification or CZM concurrence requirements. In addition, the 
    procedures will allow for a more accurate measurement of the Corps 
    permit evaluation time.
        3. Provisional Permit Procedures: The provisional permit procedures 
    are optional and may only be used in those cases where: (i) The 
    District Engineer (DE) has made a provisional individual permit 
    decision that an individual permit should be issued, and (ii) the only 
    action(s) preventing the issuance of that permit is that the State has 
    not issued a required Section 401 Water Quality Certification (or 
    waiver has not occurred) or the State has not concurred in the 
    applicant's CZM consistency determination (or there is not a presumed 
    concurrence). In such cases, the DE may, using these optional 
    procedures, send a provisional permit to the applicant.
        a. First, the DE will prepare and sign the provisional permit 
    decision document. Then the provisional permit will be sent to the 
    applicant by transmittal letter. (The sample transmittal letter at 
    enclosure 1 contains the minimum information that must be provided.)
        b. Next, the applicant would obtain the Section 401 Water Quality 
    Certification (or waiver) and/or CZM consistency concurrence (or 
    presumed concurrence). Then the applicant would sign the provisional 
    permit and return it to the DE along with the appropriate fee and the 
    Section 401 Water Quality Certification (or proof of wavier) and/or the 
    CZM consistency concurrence (or proof of presumed concurrence).
        c. Finally, the Corps would attach any Section 401 Water Quality 
    Certification and/or CZM consistency concurrence to the provisional 
    permit, then sign the provisional permit (which then becomes the issued 
    final permit), and forward the permit to the applicant.
        d. This is the same basic process as the normal standard permit 
    transmittal process except that the applicant is sent an unsigned 
    permit (i.e., a provisional permit) prior to obtaining the Section 401 
    Water Quality Certification (or waiver) and/or CZM consistency 
    concurrence (or presumed concurrence). (See enclosure 2.) A permit 
    cannot be issued (i.e., signed by the Corps) until the Section 401 and 
    CZM requirements are satisfied.
        4. Provisional Permit: A provisional permit is a standard permit 
    document with a cover sheet. The cover sheet must clearly indicate the 
    following: that a provisional permit is enclosed, that the applicant 
    must obtain the section 401 Water Quality Certification or CZM 
    concurrence from the State, that these documents must be sent to the 
    Corps along with the provisional permit signed by the applicant, and 
    that the Corps will issue the permit upon receipt of these materials. 
    The issued permit is the provisional permit signed by the applicant and 
    the Corps. The provisional permit must contain a statement indicating 
    that the applicant is required to comply with the Section 401 Water 
    Quality Certification, including any conditions, and/or the CZM 
    consistency concurrence, including any conditions. At enclosure 3 is a 
    sample cover sheet for the provisional permit.
        5. Provisional Permit Decision: The DE may reach a final decision 
    that a permit should be issued provided that the State issues a Section 
    401 Water Quality Certification and/or a CZM concurrence. In order to 
    reach such a decision the DE must complete the normal standard permit 
    evaluation process, prepare and sign a decision document, and prepare a 
    standard permit, including any conditions or mitigation (i.e., a 
    provisional permit). The decision document must include a statement 
    that the DE has determined that the permit will be issued if the State 
    issues a Section 401 Water Quality Certification or waiver and/or a CZM 
    concurrence, or presumed concurrence. The standard permit will not 
    contain a condition that requires or provides for the applicant to 
    obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or CZM 
    concurrence. Once the decision document is signed, the applicant has 
    the right to a DA permit if the State issues a Section 401 Water 
    Quality Certification or waiver and/or a CZM concurrence, or if 
    concurrence is presumed. Once the decision document is signed, the 
    permittee's right to proceed can only be changed by using the 
    modification, suspension and revocation procedures of 33 CFR 325.7, 
    unless the State denies the Section 401 Water Quality Certification or 
    nonconcurs with the applicant's CZM consistency determination.
        6. Enforcement: In some cases, applicants might proceed with the 
    project upon receipt of the provisional permit. The provisional permit 
    is not a valid permit. In such cases, the Corps has a discretionary 
    enforcement action to consider and should proceed as the DE determines 
    to be appropriate. This occurs on occasion during the standard permit 
    transmittal process. Since the Corps is not changing the normal process 
    of sending unsigned permits to the applicant for signature, there 
    should not be an increase in occurrence of such unauthorized 
    activities.
        7. Modification: a. In most cases the Section 401 Water Quality 
    Certification, including conditions, and/or CZM consistency 
    concurrence, including conditions, will be consistent with the 
    provisional permit. In such cases, the DE will simply sign the final 
    permit enclose the 401 water quality certification and/or CZM 
    consistency concurrence with the final permit (i.e., the signed 
    provisional permit).
        b. In a few cases such State approval may necessitate modifications 
    to the Corps preliminary permit decision. Such modifications will be 
    processed in accordance with 33 CFR 325.7.
        (1) When the modifications are minor and the DE agrees to such 
    modifications, then a supplement to the provisional decision document 
    may be prepared, as appropriate, and the permit issued with such 
    modifications. (This should usually be done by enclosing the State 401 
    Water Quality Certification and/or CZM consistency concurrence to the 
    permit, but in a few cases may require a revision to the permit 
    document itself.)
        (2) When the modification results in substantial change or 
    measurable increase in adverse impacts or the Corps does not initially 
    agree with the change, then the modification will be processed and 
    counted as a separate permit action for reporting purposes. This may 
    require a new public notice or additional coordination with appropriate 
    Federal and/or state agencies. The provisional decision document will 
    be supplemented or may be completely rewritten, as necessary.
        8. Denial: If the State denies the Section 401 Water Quality 
    Certification and/or the State nonconcurs with the applicant's CZM 
    consistency determination, then the Corps permit is denied without 
    prejudice.
        9. This guidance expires 31 December 1998 unless sooner revised or 
    rescinded.
    
        For the Director of Civil Works.
    
    3 Encls
    John P. Elmore,
    Chief, Operations, Construction and Readiness Division, Directorate of 
    Civil Works.
    
    Sample
    
    Provisional Permit Transmittal Letter
    
        Dear ______:
    
        We have completed our review of your permit application 
    identified as [File No., appl. name, etc.] for the following 
    proposed work:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    near/in/at____________________.
    
        Enclosed is a ``PROVISIONAL PERMIT.'' The provisional permit is NOT 
    VALID and does not authorize you to do your work. The provisional 
    permit describes the work that will be authorized, and the General and 
    Special Conditions [if any] which will be placed on your final 
    Department of the Army (DA) permit, if the State of ______ Water 
    Quality Certification and/or Coastal Zone Management (CZM) consistency 
    requirements are satisfied as described below. No work is to be 
    performed in the waterway or adjacent wetlands until you have received 
    a validated copy of the DA permit.
        By Federal law no DA permit can be issued until a State Section 401 
    Water Quality Certification has been issued or has been waived and/or 
    the State has concurred with a permit applicant's CZM consistency 
    determination or concurrence has been presumed. As of this date the 
    [State 401 certification agency] has not issued a Section 401 Water 
    Quality Certification for your proposed work. If the [State 401 
    certification agency] fails or refuses to act by [date 401 
    certification must be issued] the Section 401 Water Quality 
    Certification requirement will be automatically waived. Also, as of 
    this date the [State CZM agency] has not concurred with your CZM 
    consistency determination. If the State does not act by [six months 
    from receipt by the State of the applicant's CZM consistency 
    determination] then concurrence with your CZM consistency determination 
    will automatically be presumed.
        Conditions of the State Section 401 Water Quality Certification 
    and/or the State CZM concurrence will become conditions to the final DA 
    permit. Should the State's action on the required certification or 
    concurrence preclude validation of the provisional permit in its 
    current form, a modification to the provisional permit will be 
    evaluated and you will be notified as appropriate. Substantial changes 
    may require a new permit evaluation process, including issuing a new 
    public notice.
    
    Enclosure 1
    
    Final Permit Actions
    
    Normal Permit Process
    1. Corps Completes permit decision, and state 401/CZM issued/waived
    2. Corps sends unsigned permit to applicant
    3. Applicant signs permit and returns with fee
    4. Corps signs permit
    Draft Permit Process
    1. Corps Completes permit decision, but state 401/CZM not complete
    2. Corps sends draft permit to applicant
    3. State 401/CZM issued waived
    4. Applicant signs permit and returns with fee and 401/CZM action
    5. Corps reviews 401/CZM action and signs permit
    
        1. The signed draft permit with the attached 401/CZM action is to 
    be treated as the applicant's request for a permit subject to any 401/
    CZM certification/concurrence including any conditions.
        2. If the 401/CZM action results in a modification to the draft 
    permit, then step 4. would be treated as a request for such 
    modification and if we agree with the modification, then the permit 
    would be issued with the modification and the decision document 
    supplemented, as appropriate. If the Corps does not initially agree 
    with the modification, or it involves a substantial change or 
    measurable increase in adverse impacts, then the modification would be 
    processed as a separate permit action for reporting purposes.
    
    Enclosure 2
    
        Once the State has issued the required Section 401 Water Quality 
    Certification and/or concurred with your CZM consistency determination 
    or the dates above have passed without the State acting, and you agree 
    to the terms and conditions of the provisional permit, you should sign 
    and date both copies and return them to us along with your $100.00/
    $10.00 permit fee]. Your DA permit will not be valid until we have 
    returned a copy to you bearing both your signature and the signature of 
    the appropriate Corps official.
        If the State denies the required Section 401 Water Quality 
    Certification and/or nonconcurs with your CZM consistency 
    determination, then the DA permit is denied without prejudice. If you 
    should subsequently obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification 
    and/or a CZM consistency determination concurrence, you should contact 
    this office to determine how to proceed with your permit application.
        If you have any questions concerning your State Section 401 Water 
    Quality Certification, please contact (State 401 certification 
    contact).
        If you have any questions concerning your CZM consistency 
    determination, please contact (State CZM contact).
        If you have any other questions concerning your application for a 
    DA permit, please contact [Corps contact] at [Corps contact telephone 
    number].
    Provisional Permit Not Valid; Do Not Begin Work
        This PROVISIONAL PERMIT is NOT VALID until:
        (1) You obtain:
    
    ______ a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from State Agency)
    ______ a Coastal Zone Consistency determination concurrence from (State 
    Agency)
    
        (2) You sign and return the enclosed provisional permit with the 
    State Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or CZM concurrence 
    and the appropriate permit fee as indicated below:
    
    ______ $10.00
    ______ $100.00
    ______ No fee required
    
        (3) The Corps signs the permit and returns it to you. Your permit 
    is denied without prejudice, if the State denies your Section 401 Water 
    Quality Certification and/or nonconcurs with your Coastal Zone 
    Management consistency determination.
    (Do Not Begin Work)
    
    Regulatory Guidance Letter, (RGL 93-2)
    
    RGL 93-2
    Date: 23 August 1993, Expires: 31 December 1998
    Subject: Guidance on Flexibility of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines and 
    Mitigation Banking.
    
        1. Enclosed are two guidance documents signed by the Office of the 
    Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and the Environmental 
    Protection Agency. The first document provides guidance on the 
    flexibility that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be utilizing 
    when making determinations of compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) 
    Guidelines, particularly with regard to the alternatives analysis. The 
    second Document provides guidance on the use of mitigation banks as a 
    means of providing compensatory mitigation for Corps regulatory 
    Decisions.
        2. Both enclosed guidance documents should be implemented 
    immediately. These guidance documents constitute an important aspect of 
    the President's plan for protecting the Nation's wetlands, ``Protecting 
    America's Wetlands: A Fair, Flexible and Effective Approach'' 
    (published on 24 August 1993).
        3. This guidance expires 31 December 1998 unless sooner revised or 
    rescinded.
    
        For the Director of Civil Works.
    John P. Elmore,
    Chief, Operations, Construction and Readiness Division, Directorate of 
    Civil Works.
    
    Memorandum to the Field
    
    Subject: Appropriate Level of Analysis Required for Evaluating 
    Compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives 
    Requirements
    
        1. Purpose: The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the 
    appropriate level of analysis required for evaluating compliance with 
    the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines' (Guidelines) 
    requirements for consideration of alternatives. 40 CFR 230.10(a). 
    Specifically, this memorandum describes the flexibility afforded by the 
    Guidelines to make regulatory decisions based on the relative severity 
    of the environmental impact of proposed discharges of dredged or fill 
    material into waters of the United States.
        2. Background: The Guidelines are the substantive environmental 
    standards by which all Section 404 permit applications are evaluated. 
    The Guidelines, which are binding regulations, were published by the 
    Environmental Protection Agency at 40 CFR part 230 on December 24, 
    1980. The fundamental precept of the Guidelines is that discharges of 
    dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including 
    wetlands, should not occur unless it can be demonstrated that such 
    discharges, either individually or cumulatively, will not result in 
    unacceptable adverse effects on the aquatic ecosystem. The Guidelines 
    specifically require that ``no discharge of dredged or fill material 
    shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the 
    proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic 
    ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant 
    adverse environmental consequences.'' 40 CFR 230.10(a). Based on this 
    provision, the applicant is required in every case (irrespective of 
    whether the discharge site is a special aquatic site or whether the 
    activity associated with the discharge is water dependent) to evaluate 
    opportunities for use of non-aquatic areas and other aquatic sites that 
    would result in less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem. A permit 
    cannot be issued, therefore, in circumstances where a less 
    environmentally damaging practicable alternative for the proposed 
    discharge exists (except as provided for under Section 404(b)(2)).
        3. Discussion: The Guidelines are, as noted above, binding 
    regulations. It is important to recognize, however, that this 
    regulatory status does not limit the inherent flexibility provided in 
    the Guidelines for implementing these provisions. The preamble to the 
    Guidelines is very clear in this regard:
    
        Of course, as the regulation itself makes clear, a certain 
    amount of flexibility is still intended. For example, while the 
    ultimate conditions of compliance are ``regulatory'', the Guidelines 
    allow some room for judgment in determining what must be done to 
    arrive at a conclusion that those conditions have or have not been 
    met.
    
    Guidelines Preamble, ``Regulation versus Guidelines'', 45 FR 85336 
    (December 24, 1980).
        Notwithstanding this flexibility, the record must contain 
    sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed discharge 
    complies with the requirements of Section 230.10(a) of the Guidelines. 
    The amount of information needed to make a determination and the level 
    of scrutiny required by the Guidelines is commensurate with the 
    severity of the environmental impact (as determined by the functions of 
    the aquatic resource and the nature of the proposed activity) and the 
    scope/cost of the project.
    a. Analysis Associated With Minor Impacts
        The Guidelines do not contemplate that the same intensity of 
    analysis will be required for all types of projects but instead 
    envision a correlation between the scope of the evaluation and the 
    potential extent of adverse impacts on the aquatic environment. The 
    introduction to Sec. 230.10(a) recognizes that the level of analysis 
    required may vary with the nature and complexity of each individual 
    case:
    
        Although all requirements in Sec. 230.10 must be met, the 
    compliance evaluation procedures will vary to reflect the 
    seriousness of the potential for adverse impacts on the aquatic 
    ecosystems posed by specific dredged or fill material discharge 
    activities.
    
    40 CFR 230.10
        Similarly, Sec. 230.6 (``Adaptability'') makes clear that the 
    Guidelines:
    
        Allow evaluation and documentation for a variety of activities, 
    ranging from those large, complex impacts on the aquatic environment 
    to those for which the impact is likely to be innocuous. It is 
    unlikely that the Guidelines will apply in their entirety to any one 
    activity, no matter how complex. It is anticipated that substantial 
    numbers of permit applications will be for minor, routine activities 
    that have little, if any, potential for significant degradation of 
    the aquatic environment. It generally is not intended or expected 
    that extensive testing, evaluation or analysis will be needed to 
    make findings of compliance in such routine cases.
    
    40 CFR 230.6(9) (emphasis added)
        Section 230.6 also emphasizes that when making determinations of 
    compliance with the Guidelines, users:
    
        Must recognize the different levels of effort that should be 
    associated with varying degrees of impact and require or prepare 
    commensurate documentation. The level of documentation should 
    reflect the significance and complexity of the discharge activity.
    
    40 CFR 230.6(b) (emphasis added)
        Consequently, the Guidelines clearly afford flexibility to adjust 
    the stringency of the alternatives review for projects that would have 
    only minor impacts. Minor impacts are associated with activities that 
    generally would have little potential to degrade the aquatic 
    environment and include one, and frequently more, of the following 
    characteristics: Are located in aquatic resources of limited natural 
    function; are small in size and cause little direct impact; have little 
    potential for secondary or cumulative impacts; or cause only temporary 
    impacts. It is important to recognize, however, that in some 
    circumstances even small or temporary fills result in substantial 
    impacts, and that in such cases a more detailed evaluation is 
    necessary. The Corps Districts and EPA Regions will, through the 
    standard permit evaluation process, coordinate with the U.S. Fish and 
    Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and other 
    appropriate state and Federal agencies in evaluating the likelihood 
    that adverse impacts would result from a particular proposal. It is not 
    appropriate to consider compensatory mitigation in determining whether 
    a proposed discharge will cause only minor impacts for purposes of the 
    alternatives analysis required by Sec. 230.10(a).
        In reviewing projects that have the potential for only minor 
    impacts on the aquatic environment, Corps and EPA field offices are 
    directed to consider, in coordination with state and Federal resource 
    agencies, the following factors:
        (i) Such projects by their nature should not cause or contribute to 
    significant degradation individually or cumulatively. Therefore, it 
    generally should not be necessary to conduct or require detailed 
    analyses to determine compliance with Sec. 230.10(c).
        (ii) Although sufficient information must be developed to determine 
    whether the proposed activity is in fact the least damaging practicable 
    alternative, the Guidelines do not require an elaborate search for 
    practicable alternatives if it is reasonably anticipated that there are 
    only minor differences between the environmental impacts of the 
    proposed activity and potentially practicable alternatives. This 
    decision will be made after consideration of resource agency comments 
    on the proposed project. It often makes sense to examine first whether 
    potential alternatives would result in no identifiable or discernible 
    difference in impact on the aquatic ecosystem. Those alternatives that 
    do not may be eliminated from the analysis since Sec. 230.10(a) of the 
    Guidelines only prohibits discharges when a practicable alternative 
    exists which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem. 
    Because evaluating practicability is generally the more difficult 
    aspect of the alternatives analysis, this approach should save time and 
    effort for both the applicant and the regulatory agencies.\1\ By 
    initially focusing the alternatives analysis on the question of impacts 
    on the aquatic ecosystem, it may be possible to limit (or in some 
    instances eliminate altogether) the number of alternatives that have to 
    be evaluated for practicability.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\In certain instances, however, it may be easier to examine 
    practicability first. Some projects may be so site-specific (e.g., 
    erosion control, bridge replacement) that no offsite alternative 
    could be practicable. In such cases the alternatives analysis may 
    appropriately be limited to onsite options only.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (iii) When it is determined that there is no identifiable or 
    discernible difference in adverse impact on the environment between the 
    applicant's proposed alternative and all other practicable 
    alternatives, then the applicant's alternative is considered as 
    satisfying the requirements of Section 230.10(a).
        (iv) Even where a practicable alternative exists that would have 
    less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, the Guidelines allow it 
    to be rejected if it would have ``other significant adverse 
    environmental consequences.'' 40 CFR 230.10(a). As explained in the 
    preamble, this allows for consideration of ``evidence of damages to 
    other ecosystems in deciding whether there is a `better' alternative.'' 
    Hence, in applying the alternatives analysis required by the 
    Guidelines, it is not appropriate to select an alternative where minor 
    impacts on the aquatic environment are avoided at the cost of 
    substantial impacts to other natural environmental values.
        (v) In cases of negligible or trivial impacts (e.g., small 
    discharges to construct individual driveways), it may be possible to 
    conclude that no alternative location could result in less adverse 
    impact on the aquatic environment within the meaning of the Guidelines. 
    In such cases, it may not be necessary to conduct an offsite 
    alternatives analysis but instead require only any practicable onsite 
    minimization.
        This guidance concerns application of the Section 404(b)(1) 
    Guidelines to projects with minor impacts. Projects which may cause 
    more than minor impacts on the aquatic environment, either individually 
    or cumulatively, should be subjected to a proportionately more detailed 
    level of analysis to determine compliance or noncompliance with the 
    Guidelines. Projects which cause substantial impacts, in particular, 
    must be thoroughly evaluated through the standard permit evaluation 
    process to determine compliance with all provisions of the Guidelines.
    b. Relationship Between the Scope of Analysis and the Scope/Cost of the 
    Proposed Project
        The Guidelines provide the Corps and EPA with discretion for 
    determining the necessary level of analysis to support a conclusion as 
    to whether or not an alternative is practicable. Practicable 
    alternatives are those alternatives that are ``available and capable of 
    being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, 
    and logistics in light of overall project purposes.'' 40 CFR 
    230.10(a)(2). The preamble to the Guidelines provides clarification on 
    how cost is to be considered in the determination of practicability:
    
        Our intent is to consider those alternatives which are 
    reasonable in terms of the overall scope/cost of the proposed 
    project. The term economic [for which the term ``cost'' was 
    substituted in the final rule] might be construed to include 
    consideration of the applicant's financial standing, or investment, 
    or market share, a cumbersome inquiry which is not necessarily 
    material to the objectives of the Guidelines.
    
    Guidelines Preamble, ``Alternatives'', 45 FR 85339 (December 24, 1980) 
    (emphasis added).
        Therefore, the level of analysis required for determining which 
    alternatives are practicable will vary depending on the type of project 
    proposed. The determination of what constitutes an unreasonable expense 
    should generally consider whether the projected cost is substantially 
    greater than the costs normally associated with the particular type of 
    project. Generally, as the scope/cost of the project increases, the 
    level of analysis should also increase. To the extent the Corps obtains 
    information on the costs associated with the project, such information 
    may be considered when making a determination of what constitutes an 
    unreasonable expense.
        The preamble to the Guidelines also states that ``[i]f an alleged 
    alternative is unreasonably expensive to the applicant, the alternative 
    is not `practicable.''' Guidelines Preamble, ``Economic Factors'', 45 
    FR 85343 (December 24, 1980). Therefore, to the extent that individual 
    homeowners and small businesses may typically be associated with small 
    projects with minor impacts, the nature of the applicant may also be a 
    relevant consideration in determining what constitutes a practicable 
    alternative. It is important to emphasize, however, that it is not a 
    particular applicant's financial standing that is the primary 
    consideration for determining practicability, but rather 
    characteristics of the project and what constitutes a reasonable 
    expense for these projects that are most relevant to practicability 
    determinations.
        4. The burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with the 
    Guidelines rests with the applicant; where insufficient information is 
    provided to determine compliance, the Guidelines require that no permit 
    be issued. 40 CFR 230.12(a)(3)(iv).
        5. A reasonable, common sense approach in applying the requirements 
    of the Guidelines' alternatives analysis is fully consistent with sound 
    environmental protection. The Guidelines clearly contemplate that 
    reasonable discretion should be applied based on the nature of the 
    aquatic resource and potential impacts of a proposed activity in 
    determining compliance with the alternatives test. Such an approach 
    encourages effective decisionmaking and fosters a better understanding 
    and enhanced confidence in the Section 404 program.
        6. This guidance is consistent with the February 6, 1990 
    ``Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency 
    and the Department of the Army Concerning the Determination of 
    Mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.''
    
        Signed: August 23, 1993.
    Robert H. Wayland, III,
    Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S. 
    Environmental Protection Agency.
    Michael L. Davis,
    Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Department 
    of the Army.
    
    Memorandum to the Field
    
    Subject: Establishment and Use of Wetland Mitigation Banks in the Clean 
    Water Act Section 404 (Regulatory Program
    
        1. This memorandum provides general guidelines for the 
    establishment and use of wetland mitigation banks in the Clean Water 
    Act Section 404 regulatory program. This memorandum serves as interim 
    guidance pending completion of Phase I by the Corps of Engineer's 
    Institute for Water Resources study on wetland mitigation banking,\2\ 
    at which time this guidance will be reviewed and any appropriate 
    revisions will be incorporated into final guidelines.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\The Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, under 
    the authority of Section 307(d) of the Water Resources Development 
    Act of 1990, is undertaking a comprehensive two-year review and 
    evaluation of wetland mitigation banking to assist in the 
    development of a national policy on this issue. The interim summary 
    report documenting the results of the first phase of the study is 
    scheduled for completion in the fall of 1993.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        2. For purposes of this guidance, wetland mitigation banking refers 
    to the restoration, creation, enhancement, and, in exceptional 
    circumstances, preservation of wetlands or other aquatic habitats 
    expressly for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation in 
    advance of discharges into wetlands permitted under the Section 404 
    regulatory program. Wetland mitigation banks can have several 
    advantages over individual mitigation projects, some of which are 
    listed below:
        (a) Compensatory mitigation can be implemented and functioning in 
    advance of project impacts, thereby reducing temporal losses of wetland 
    functions and uncertainty over whether the mitigation will be 
    successful in offsetting wetland losses.
        (b) It may be more ecologically advantageous for maintaining the 
    integrity of the aquatic ecosystem to consolidate compensatory 
    mitigation for impacts to many smaller, isolated or fragmented habitats 
    into a single large parcel or contiguous parcels.
        (c) Development of a wetland mitigation bank can bring together 
    financial resources and planning and scientific expertise not 
    practicable to many individual mitigation proposals. This consolidation 
    of resources can increase the potential for the establishment and long-
    term management of successful mitigation.
        (d) Wetland mitigation banking proposals may reduce regulatory 
    uncertainty and Provide more cost-effective compensatory mitigation 
    opportunities.
        3. The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines), as clarified by 
    the ``Memorandum of Agreement Concerning the Determination of 
    Mitigation under the section 404(b)(1) Guidelines'' (Mitigation (MOA) 
    signed February 6, 1990, by the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
    Department of the Army, establish a mitigation sequence that is used in 
    the evaluation of individual permit applications. Under this sequence, 
    all appropriate and practicable steps must be undertaken by the 
    applicant to first avoid and then minimize adverse impacts to the 
    aquatic ecosystem. Remaining unavoidable impacts must then be offset 
    through compensatory mitigation to the extent appropriate and 
    practicable. Requirements for compensatory mitigation may be satisfied 
    through the use of wetland mitigation banks, so long as their use is 
    consistent with standard practices for evaluating compensatory 
    mitigation proposals outlined in the Mitigation MOA. It is important to 
    emphasize that, given the mitigation sequence requirements described 
    above, permit applicants should not anticipate that the establishment 
    of, or participation in, a wetland mitigation bank will ultimately lead 
    to a determination of compliance with the section 404(b)(1) Guidelines 
    without adequate demonstration that impacts associated with the 
    proposed discharge have been avoided and minimized to the extent 
    practicable.
        4. The agencies' preference for on-site, in-kind compensatory 
    mitigation does not preclude the use of wetland mitigation banks where 
    it has been determined by the Corps, or other appropriate permitting 
    agency, in coordination with the Federal resource agencies through the 
    standard permit evaluation process, that the use of a particular 
    mitigation bank as compensation for proposed wetland impacts would be 
    appropriate for offsetting impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. In making 
    such a determination, careful consideration must be given to wetland 
    functions, landscape position, and affected species populations at both 
    the impact and mitigation bank sites. In addition, compensation for 
    wetland impacts should occur, where appropriate and practicable, within 
    the same watershed as the impact site. Where a mitigation bank is being 
    developed in conjunction with a wetland resource planning initiative 
    (e.g., Special Area Management Plan, State Wetland Conservation Plan) 
    to satisfy particular wetland restoration objectives, the permitting 
    agency will determine, in coordination with the Federal resource 
    agencies, whether use of the bank should be considered an appropriate 
    form of compensatory mitigation for impacts occurring within the same 
    watershed.
        5. Wetland mitigation banks should generally be in place and 
    functional before credits may be used to offset permitted wetland 
    losses. However, it may be appropriate to allow incremental 
    distribution of credits corresponding to the appropriate stage of 
    successful establishment of wetland functions. Moreover, variable 
    mitigation ratios (credit acreage to impacted wetland acreage) may be 
    used in such circumstances to reflect the wetland functions attained at 
    a bank site at a particular point in time. For example, higher ratios 
    would be required when a bank is not yet fully functional at the time 
    credits are to be withdrawn.
        6. Establishment of each mitigation bank should be accompanied by 
    the development of a formal written agreement (e.g., memorandum of 
    agreement) among the Corps, EPA, other relevant resource agencies, and 
    those parties who will own, develop, operate or otherwise participate 
    in the bank. The purpose of the agreement is to establish clear 
    guidelines for establishment and use of the mitigation bank. A wetlands 
    mitigation bank may also be established through issuance of a Section 
    404 permit where establishing the proposed bank involves a discharge of 
    dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The banking 
    agreement or, where applicable, special conditions of the permit 
    establishing the bank should address the following considerations, 
    where appropriate:
        (a) Location of the mitigation bank;
        (b) Goals and objectives for the mitigation bank project;
        (c) Identification of bank sponsors and participants;
        (d) Development and maintenance plan;
        (e) Evaluation methodology acceptable to all signatories to 
    establish bank credits and assess bank success in meeting the project 
    goals and objectives;
        (f) Specific accounting procedures for tracking crediting and 
    debiting;
        (g) Geographic area of applicability;
        (h) Monitoring requirements and responsibilities;
        (i) Remedial action responsibilities including funding; and
        (j) Provisions for protecting the mitigation bank in perpetuity.
    
    Agency participation in a wetlands mitigation banking agreement may 
    not, in any way, restrict or limit the authorities and responsibilities 
    of the agencies.
        7. An appropriate methodology, acceptable to all signatories, 
    should be identified and used to evaluate the success of wetland 
    restoration and creation efforts within the mitigation bank and to 
    identify the appropriate stage of development for issuing mitigation 
    credits. A full range of wetland functions should be assessed. 
    Functional evaluations of the mitigation bank should generally be 
    conducted by a multi-disciplinary team representing involved resource 
    and regulatory agencies and other appropriate parties. The same 
    methodology should be used to determine the functions and values of 
    both credits and debits. As an alternative, credits and debits can be 
    based on acres of various types of wetlands (e.g., National Wetland 
    Inventory classes). Final determinations regarding debits and credits 
    will be made by the Corps, or other appropriate permitting agency, in 
    consultation with Federal resource agencies.
        8. Permit applicants may draw upon the available credits of a third 
    party mitigation bank (i.e., a bank developed and operated by an entity 
    other than the permit applicant). The section 404 permit, however, must 
    state explicitly that the permittee remains responsible for ensuring 
    that the mitigation requirements are satisfied.
        9. To ensure legal enforceability of the mitigation conditions, use 
    of mitigation bank credits must be conditioned in the section 404 
    permit by referencing the banking agreement or section 404 permit 
    establishing the bank; however, such a provision should not limit the 
    responsibility of the section 404 permittee for satisfying all legal 
    requirements of the permit.
    
        Signed: August 23, 1993.
    Robert H. Wayland, III,
    Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S. 
    Environmental Protection Agency.
    Michael L. Davis,
    Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Department 
    of the Army.
    
    Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL 93-3)
    
    RGL 93-3
    Issued: September 13, 1993, Expires: not applicable
    Subject: Rescission of Regulatory Guidance Letters (RGL) 90-5, 90-7, 
    and 90-8
    
        1. On 25 August 1993 the final ``Excavation Rule'' was published in 
    the Federal Register (58 FR 45008) and becomes effective on 24 
    September 1993. This regulation modifies the definition of ``Discharge 
    of Dredged Material'' to address landclearing activities (see 33 CFR 
    323.2(d)); modifies the definitions of ``Fill Material'' and 
    ``Discharge of Fill Material'' to address the placement of pilings (see 
    33 CFR 323.2(e) and (f) and 323.3(c)); and modifies the definition of 
    ``waters of the United States'' to address prior converted cropland 
    (see 33 CFR 328.(a)(8)).
        2. Therefore, RGL 90-5, Subject: ``Landclearing Activities Subject 
    to Section 404 Jurisdiction''; RGL 90-7, Subject: ``Clarification of 
    the Phrase `Normal Circumstances' as it pertains to Cropped Wetlands''; 
    and RGL 90-8, Subject: ``Applicability of section 404 to Pilings''; are 
    hereby rescinded effective 24 September 1993. Furthermore, although RGL 
    90-5, Subject: ``Landclearing Activities Subject to section 404 
    Jurisdiction'' expired on 31 December 1992 it should continue to be 
    applied until 24 September 1993.
        3. In addition, RGL's 90-5, 90-7, and 90-8 as of 24 September 1993 
    will no longer be used for guidance since the guidance contained in 
    those RGL's has been superseded by the regulation.
    
        For the Director of Civil Works.
    John P. Elmore, P.E.,
    Chief, Operations, Construction and Readiness Division, Directorate of 
    Civil Works.
    [FR Doc. 94-2429 Filed 2-2-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3710-92-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
02/03/1994
Department:
Engineers Corps
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Notice.
Document Number:
94-2429
Dates:
Dec 31, 1991, Expires: Dec 31, 1996 Subject: Extensions of Time For Individual Permit Authorizations
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: February 3, 1994