|
Normally,the riparian area will be 25 to 50 feet wide on each side of the stream, but the district engineer may require slightly wider riparian
<br /> areas to address documented water quality or habitat loss concerns.If it is not possible to restore or maintain/protect a riparian area on both
<br /> sides of a stream,or if the waterbody is a lake or coastal waters,then restoring or maintaining/protecting a riparian area along a single bank or
<br /> shoreline may be sufficient.Where both wetlands and open waters exist on the project site,the district engineer will determine the appropriate
<br /> compensatory mitigation(e.g.,riparian areas and/or wetlands compensation)based on what is best for the aquatic environment on a watershed
<br /> basis.In cases where riparian areas are determined to be the most appropriate form of minimization or compensatory mitigation,the district
<br /> engineer may waive or reduce the requirement to provide wetland compensatory mitigation for wetland losses.
<br /> (f)Compensatory mitigation projects provided to offset losses of aquatic resources must comply with the applicable provisions of 33 CFR part
<br /> 332.
<br /> (1)The prospective permittee is responsible for proposing an appropriate compensatory mitigation option if compensatory mitigation is
<br /> necessary to ensure that the activity results in no more than minimal adverse environmental effects. For the NWPs,the preferred
<br /> mechanism for providing compensatory mitigation is mitigation bank credits or in-lieu fee program credits(see 33 CFR 332.3(b)(2)and
<br /> (3)).However,if an appropriate number and type of mitigation bank or in-lieu credits are not available at the time the PCN is submitted
<br /> to the district engineer,the district engineer may approve the use of permittee-responsible mitigation.
<br /> (2)The amount of compensatory mitigation required by the district engineer must be sufficient to ensure that the authorized activity
<br /> results in no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects(see 33 CFR 330.1(e)(3)).(See also 33 CFR
<br /> 332.3(f)).
<br /> (3)Since the likelihood of success is greater and the impacts to potentially valuable uplands are reduced,aquatic resource restoration
<br /> should be the first compensatory mitigation option considered for permittee-responsible mitigation.
<br /> (4)If permittee-responsible mitigation is the proposed option,the prospective permittee is responsible for submitting a mitigation plan.
<br /> A conceptual or detailed mitigation plan may be used by the district engineer to make the decision on the NWP verification request,
<br /> but a final mitigation plan that addresses the applicable requirements of 33 CFR 332.4(c)(2)through(14)must be approved by the
<br /> district engineer before the permittee begins work in waters of the United States,unless the district engineer determines that prior
<br /> approval of the final mitigation plan is not practicable or not necessary to ensure timely completion of the required compensatory
<br /> mitigation(see 33 CFR 332.3(k)(3)).
<br /> (5)If mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program credits are the proposed option,the mitigation plan only needs to address the baseline
<br /> conditions at the impact site and the number of credits to be provided.
<br /> (6)Compensatory mitigation requirements(e.g.,resource type and amount to be provided as compensatory mitigation,site protection,
<br /> ecological performance standards,monitoring requirements)may be addressed through conditions added to the NWP authorization,
<br /> instead of components of a compensatory mitigation plan(see 33 CFR 332.4(c)(1)(ii)).
<br /> (g)Compensatory mitigation will not be used to increase the acreage losses allowed by the acreage limits of the NWPs.For example,if an NWP
<br /> has an acreage limit of 1/2-acre,it cannot be used to authorize any NWP activity resulting in the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of waters of the
<br /> United States,even if compensatory mitigation is provided that replaces or restores some of the lost waters.However,compensatory mitigation
<br /> can and should be used,as necessary,to ensure that an NWP activity already meeting the established acreage limits also satisfies the no more
<br /> than minimal impact requirement for the NWPs.
<br /> (h)Permittees may propose the use of mitigation banks,in-lieu fee programs,or permittee-responsible mitigation.When developing a
<br /> compensatory mitigation proposal,the permittee must consider appropriate and practicable options consistent with the framework at 33 CFR
<br /> 332.3(b). For activities resulting in the loss of marine or estuarine resources,permittee-responsible mitigation may be environmentally preferable
<br /> if there are no mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs in the area that have marine or estuarine credits available for sale or transfer to the
<br /> permittee.For permittee-responsible mitigation,the special conditions of the NWP verification must clearly indicate the party or parties
<br /> responsible for the implementation and performance of the compensatory mitigation project,and,if required,its long-term management.
<br /> (i)Where certain functions and services of waters of the United States are permanently adversely affected by a regulated activity,such as
<br /> discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States that will convert a forested or scrub-shrub wetland to a herbaceous wetland
<br /> in a permanently maintained utility line right-of-way,mitigation may be required to reduce the adverse environmental effects of the activity to the
<br /> no more than minimal level.
<br /> 24.Safety of Impoundment Structures.To ensure that all impoundment structures are safely designed,the district engineer may require non-Federal
<br /> applicants to demonstrate that the structures comply with established state dam safety criteria or have been designed by qualified persons.The district
<br /> engineer may also require documentation that the design has been independently reviewed by similarly qualified persons,and appropriate modifications
<br /> made to ensure safety.
<br /> 25.Water Quality.Where States and authorized Tribes,or EPA where applicable,have not previously certified compliance of an NWP with CWA section
<br /> 401,individual 401 Water Quality Certification must be obtained or waived(see 33 CFR 330.4(c)).The district engineer or State or Tribe may require
<br /> additional water quality management measures to ensure that the authorized activity does not result in more than minimal degradation of water quality.
<br /> 26.Coastal Zone Management.In coastal states where an NWP has not previously received a state coastal zone management consistency concurrence,
<br /> an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained,or a presumption of concurrence must occur(see 33 CFR
<br /> 330.4(d)).The district engineer or a State may require additional measures to ensure that the authorized activity is consistent with state coastal zone
<br /> management requirements.
<br /> 27.Regional and Case-By-Case Conditions.The activity must comply with any regional conditions that may have been added by the Division Engineer
<br /> (see 33 CFR 330.4(e))and with any case specific conditions added by the Corps or by the state, Indian Tribe,or U.S.EPA in its section 401 Water
<br /> Quality Certification,or by the state in its Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination.
<br /> 28.Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits.The use of more than one NWP for a single and complete project is prohibited,except when the acreage loss of
<br /> waters of the United States authorized by the NWPs does not exceed the acreage limit of the NWP with the highest specified acreage limit.For example,if
<br /> a road crossing over tidal waters is constructed under NWP 14,with associated bank stabilization authorized by NWP 13,the maximum acreage loss of
<br /> waters of the United States for the total project cannot exceed 1/3-acre.
<br /> 29.Transfer of Nationwide Permit Verifications.If the permittee sells the property associated with a nationwide permit verification,the permittee may
<br /> transfer the nationwide permit verification to the new owner by submitting a letter to the appropriate Corps district office to validate the transfer.A copy of
<br /> the nationwide permit verification must be attached to the letter,and the letter must contain the following statement and signature'When the structures or
<br /> work authorized by this nationwide permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred,the terms and conditions of this nationwide permit,
<br /> including any special conditions,will continue to be binding on the new owner(s)of the property.To validate the transfer of this nationwide permit and the
<br /> associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions,have the transferee sign and date below."
<br /> (Transferee)
<br /> (Date)
<br /> 30.Compliance Certification.Each permittee who receives an NWP verification letter from the Corps must provide a signed certification documenting
<br /> completion of the authorized activity and implementation of any required compensatory mitigation.The success of any required permittee-responsible
<br /> Page 5 of 7
<br />
|