{"database": "openregs", "table": "cfr_sections", "is_view": false, "human_description_en": "where agency = \"USACE\" and part_number = 333 sorted by section_id", "rows": [["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.1.1.1", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "A", "Subpart A\u2014Purpose and Policy", "", "\u00a7 333.1 Purpose and policy.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a) The purpose of these procedures is to integrate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) decision-making processes for evaluating applications from other, non-Corps entities for authorization by the Corps. Specifically, the procedures: describe the process by which a District or Division Engineer determines what actions are subject to NEPA's procedural requirements and the applicable level of NEPA review; ensure that relevant environmental information is identified and considered early in the process in order to ensure informed decision making; enable District Engineers to conduct coordinated, consistent, predictable and timely environmental reviews; reduce unnecessary burdens and delays; and implement NEPA's mandates regarding lead and cooperating agency roles, page and time limits, and sponsor preparation of environmental documents.\n\n(b) This part sets forth the Corps procedures and practices for implementing NEPA when considering Department of the Army permit applications under 33 U.S.C. 1344 (Clean Water Act, section 404); 33 U.S.C. 401 (Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, section 9); 33 U.S.C. 403 (Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, section 10); and 33 U.S.C. 1413 (Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, section 103) and requests for permission under 33 U.S.C. 408 (Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, section 14). The Regulatory Program of the Corps implements 33 U.S.C. 1344, 33 U.S.C. 401, and 33 U.S.C. 1413 and references to the Regulatory Program in this part refer to the processing of permit applications under those authorities. As used in this part, \u201cpermit\u201d means an authorization under any of the authorities in this paragraph, and \u201capplication\u201d means any request for authorization under any of the above identified authorities. This part further explains the Corps' interpretation of certain key terms in NEPA. It does not, nor does it intend to, govern the rights and obligations of any party outside the government. It does, however, establish the procedures under which Corps District Engineers will typically fulfill requirements under NEPA for decisions under the authorities in this paragraph. The responsibilities of the District Engineer, as described in this part, may be elevated to a higher authority consistent with existing delegations and authorities and in such cases the role of the District Engineer described in the part will be assumed by the entity with decision making authority.\n\n(c) Consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality (\u201cCEQ\u201d). In addition to the process for establishing or revising categorical exclusions set forth in \u00a7 333.14(b) and (d), the Corps will consult with CEQ while developing or revising their proposed NEPA implementing procedures, in accord with NEPA section 102(2)(B), 42 U.S.C. 4332(B)."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.1.1.2", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "A", "Subpart A\u2014Purpose and Policy", "", "\u00a7 333.2 Applicability.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a)  Applicability.  This Part applies to all Corps elements processing applications for Department of the Army Permits or requests for permission under the authorities listed in 33 CFR 333.1(b).\n\n(b)  Authority.  NEPA imposes certain procedural requirements on the exercise of the Corps' existing legal authority in relevant circumstances. Nothing contained in these procedures is intended or should be construed to limit the Corps' other authorities or legal responsibilities."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.2.1.1", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "B", "Subpart B\u2014NEPA and General Concepts", "", "\u00a7 333.11 Determining when NEPA applies.", "USACE", "", "", "", "District Engineers will determine that NEPA does not apply to a proposed agency permitting action when:\n\n(a) The activities or decision do not result in final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 704, or any other relevant statute that includes a finality requirement;\n\n(b) The proposed activity or decision is exempted from NEPA by law;\n\n(c) Compliance with NEPA would clearly and fundamentally conflict with the requirements of another provision of law;\n\n(d) In circumstances where Congress by statute has prescribed decisional criteria with sufficient completeness and precision such that the Corps retains no residual discretion to alter its action based on the consideration of environmental factors, then that function of the Corps is nondiscretionary within the meaning of NEPA section 106(a)(4) and/or section 111(10)(B)(vii) (42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(4) and 4336e(10)(B)(vii), respectively), and NEPA does not apply to the action in question;\n\n(e) The proposed action is an action for which another statute's requirements serve the function of agency compliance with the Act; or\n\n(f) The proposed action is not a \u201cmajor Federal action,\u201d which is defined at 42 U.S.C. 4336e(10). Additionally, the terms \u201cmajor\u201d and \u201cFederal action\u201d each have independent force. NEPA applies only when both of these two criteria are met. Such a determination is specific to the facts and circumstances of each individual situation and is reserved to the judgment of the District Engineer in each instance. In addition to the illustrative general categories in NEPA section 111(10), 42 U.S.C. 4336e(10), the Corps has determined that the following non-exhaustive list of Corps activities related to the Regulatory Program and 33 U.S.C. 408 are presumptively not subject to NEPA as not meeting the definition of a major Federal action:\n\n(1) Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations;\n\n(2) Approved Jurisdictional Determinations;\n\n(3) Determination of whether an activity requires a Corps permit or permission;\n\n(4) Aquatic resource delineation concurrence or non-concurrence determinations; or\n\n(5) Determination that the modification of unimproved real estate of a project would not affect the function and usefulness of the project.\n\n(g) NEPA does not apply to \u201cnon-Federal actions.\u201d Therefore, under the terms of the statute, NEPA does not apply to actions with no or minimal Federal funding, or with no or minimal Federal involvement where a Federal agency cannot control the outcome of the project. NEPA \u00a7 111(10)(B)(i), 42 U.S.C. 4336e(10)(B)(i). A but-for causal relationship is insufficient to make the Corps responsible for a particular action under NEPA.\n\n(h) The issuance or update of the Corps' NEPA procedures is not subject to NEPA review.\n\n(i) In determining whether NEPA applies to a proposed action, the Corps will consider only the project at hand."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.2.1.2", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "B", "Subpart B\u2014NEPA and General Concepts", "", "\u00a7 333.12 Determine the appropriate level of NEPA review.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a) If the District Engineer determines under \u00a7 333.11 that NEPA applies to a proposed activity or decision, the District Engineer will then determine the appropriate level of NEPA review in the following sequence and manner. At all steps in the following process, the Corps will consider the proposed activity and  its  effects.\n\n(1) If the Corps has established, or adopted pursuant to NEPA section 109, 42 U.S.C. 4336c, a categorical exclusion that covers the proposed activity, the District Engineer will analyze whether to apply the categorical exclusion to the proposed activity and apply the categorical exclusion, if appropriate, pursuant to \u00a7 333.14(e).\n\n(2) If another agency has already established a categorical exclusion that covers the proposed activity, the District Engineer will consider whether to recommend that the Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adopt that exclusion pursuant to \u00a7 333.14(c) so that it can be applied to the proposed activity at issue, and so that Headquarters may consider applying to future activities of that type.\n\n(3) If the proposed activity warrants the establishment of a new categorical exclusion, or the revision of an existing categorical exclusion, pursuant to \u00a7 333.14(b), the Chief of Engineers will consider whether to so establish or revise, and then apply the categorical exclusion to the proposed action pursuant to \u00a7 333.14(e).\n\n(4) If the District Engineer cannot apply a categorical exclusion to the proposed activity consistent with paragraphs (a)(1)-(3), the District Engineer will determine the appropriate level of review,  i.e.,  whether the proposed activity warrants preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Most activities requiring a Corps permit that are not otherwise covered by a categorical exclusion normally require only an environmental assessment. In determining the level of review, the District Engineer will consider the proposed action's reasonably foreseeable effects consistent with paragraph (b), and then will:\n\n(i) develop an environmental assessment, as described in \u00a7 333.15, if the proposed activity is not likely to have reasonably foreseeable significant effects or the significance of the effects is unknown; or\n\n(ii) develop an environmental impact statement, as described in \u00a7 333.21, if the proposed activity is likely to have reasonably foreseeable significant effects.\n\n(b) When considering whether the reasonably foreseeable effects of the proposed activity are significant, the District Engineer will analyze the potentially affected environment and degree of the effects of the activity within their jurisdiction or control. The District Engineer may use any reliable data source, but will not undertake new research of any type unless it is essential to evaluating alternatives and the cost and time of obtaining it are not unreasonable. District Engineers should not determine that a proposed activity is significant based solely on public interest or opposition.\n\n(1) In considering the potentially affected environment, the District Engineer may consider, as appropriate to the specific activity, the affected area (national, regional, or local) and its resources. The District Engineer may, as appropriate, consider the regulated activity's effect on factors such as conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.\n\n(2) In considering the degree of the effects, the District Engineer may consider the following, as appropriate to the specific action:\n\n(i) Both short- and long-term effects.\n\n(ii) Both beneficial and adverse effects.\n\n(iii) Effects on public health and safety.\n\n(iv) Economic effects."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.2.1.3", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "B", "Subpart B\u2014NEPA and General Concepts", "", "\u00a7 333.13 NEPA and agency decision-making.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a)  Process.  The District Engineer will consider input received in response to the public notice, where public notice is required by the legal authority governing the proposed activity for which authorization is sought, advising interested parties of the proposed activity for which authorization is sought when determining the environmental effects that should be considered in the NEPA analysis. District Engineers will promote efficiency through the adoption or incorporation of existing applicable EAs and EISs and other relevant environmental analysis to the extent practicable. Information developed through the NEPA process will inform the District Engineer's decision on the permit application or request for permission.\n\n(b)  Limitations on actions during the NEPA process.  Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, until the Corps issues a record of decision or a finding of no significant impact, or makes a categorical exclusion determination, as applicable, the permit applicant should take no action concerning their application that would:\n\n(1) have an adverse environmental effect within an area under the jurisdiction of the Corps; or\n\n(2) limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.\n\n(c) If the Corps is considering an application from a non-Federal entity and becomes aware that the applicant is about to take an action within the Corps' jurisdiction that would meet either of the criteria in \u00a7 333.13(b), the Corps will promptly notify the applicant that the Corps will take appropriate action to ensure that the objectives and procedures of NEPA are achieved.\n\n(d)  Coordination with the Applicant.\n\n(1) The District Engineer will:\n\n(i) Coordinate at the earliest reasonable time in the application review process to inform the applicant what information the District Engineer might need to comply with NEPA and, if the lead agency, establish a schedule for completing steps in the NEPA review process, consistent with NEPA's statutory deadlines and any internal agency NEPA schedule requirements; and\n\n(ii) Begin the NEPA process by determining whether NEPA applies, as described in \u00a7 333.11, and if it does, determine the appropriate level of NEPA review, as described in \u00a7 333.12, as soon as practicable after receiving the complete application\n\n(2) The District Engineer may require the applicant to furnish appropriate information that the District Engineer considers necessary for the preparation of an EA or EIS. An applicant or a contractor hired by the applicant may prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the District Engineer's supervision. The Corps procedures for applicant-prepared environmental assessments and environmental impact statement are included in \u00a7 333.51 of this part."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.2.1.4", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "B", "Subpart B\u2014NEPA and General Concepts", "", "\u00a7 333.14 Categorical exclusions.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a)  Generally.  This section describes the process the Corps uses for establishing and revising categorical exclusions, for adopting other agencies' categorical exclusions, and for applying categorical exclusions to a proposed agency action. The Corps categorical exclusions, including Corps categorical exclusions specifically applicable to evaluating applications from other entities for authorization by the Corps established consistent with its NEPA procedures, any legislative categorical exclusions, and categorical exclusions adopted from other agencies, are listed in paragraph (g) in this section.\n\n(b)  Establishing and revising categorical exclusions.  To establish or revise a categorical exclusion, the Chief of Engineers will determine that the category of actions normally does not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. In making this determination, the Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will:\n\n(1) Develop a written record containing information to substantiate its determination;\n\n(2) Consult with CEQ on its proposed categorical exclusion, including the written record, for a period not to exceed 30 days prior to providing public notice as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section;\n\n(3) Provide public notice in the  Federal Register  of the Corps' establishment or revisions of the categorical exclusion and where the record is available; and\n\n(4) Document the establishment or revision of the categorical exclusion in the Corps' implementing procedures at \u00a7 333.14(g).\n\n(c)  Adopting categorical exclusions from other Federal agencies.  (1) Consistent with NEPA section 109, 42 U.S.C. 4336c, the Corps may adopt a categorical exclusion listed in another agency's NEPA procedures. When adopting a categorical exclusion, the Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in coordination with any recommending Districts, will:\n\n(i) Identify the categorical exclusion listed in another agency's NEPA procedures that covers its category of proposed or related actions;\n\n(ii) Consult with the agency that established the categorical exclusion to ensure that the proposed adoption of the categorical exclusion is appropriate;\n\n(iii) Provide public notification of the categorical exclusion that the Corps is adopting, including a brief description of the proposed action or category of proposed actions to which the Corps intends to apply the adopted categorical exclusion; and\n\n(iv) Document the adoption of the categorical exclusion in the Corps' implementing procedures at \u00a7 333.14(g).\n\n(2) The Corps may rely on another agency's determination that a categorical exclusion applies to a specific proposed activity if the specific activity covered by the original categorical exclusion determination and the Corps' proposed regulatory activity are substantially the same. For the Corps, actions occurring at essentially the same time and place are considered substantially the same when a proposed action would result in a categorical exclusion determination by one agency and an environmental assessment and a finding of no significant impact by another agency. For example, this would be the case when another agency's action may be a funding decision for a proposed project covered by a categorical exclusion established by the funding agency, and the Corps' proposed regulatory action is to consider a permit for construction activities with less than significant adverse environmental effects for that same project. When relying on another agency's determination that a categorical exclusion applies to a specific proposed Corps regulatory activity, the District Engineer will document the reliance on the agency's categorical exclusion determination in the administrative record for the proposal under Corps review.\n\n(d)  Removal of categorical exclusions.  The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works must approve the removal of a categorical exclusion from \u00a7 333.14(g) and, in coordination with the Corps, will:\n\n(1) Develop a written justification for the removal;\n\n(2) Consult with CEQ on its proposed removal of the categorical exclusion, including a description of the rationale for the removal, for a period not to exceed 30 days prior to providing public notice as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section;\n\n(3) Provide public notice of the Corps' removal of the categorical exclusion and a summary of the justification in the  Federal Register ; and\n\n(4) Document the removal of the categorical exclusion in the Corps' implementing procedures at \u00a7 333.14(g).\n\n(e)  Applying categorical exclusions.  (1) If the District Engineer determines that a categorical exclusion covers a proposed agency action, they should evaluate the presence of extraordinary circumstances where normally excluded actions could have reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects. If an extraordinary circumstance is not present, the District Engineer will determine that the categorical exclusion applies to the proposed agency action and conclude review.\n\n(2) If an extraordinary circumstance is present, the District Engineer will determine that the categorical exclusion applies to the proposed agency action and conclude review if the permit applicant modifies the proposed agency action to avoid those effects or if the District Engineer determines that, notwithstanding the extraordinary circumstance, the proposed action is not likely to result in reasonably foreseeable significant effects. If the District Engineer determines that they cannot apply the categorical exclusion to the proposed action, the District Engineer will prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, as appropriate.\n\n(3) In cases where a single action's constituent parts are covered by multiple categorical exclusions, the District Engineer may conclude the entire action is categorically excluded when there are no extraordinary circumstances present that are likely to result in reasonably foreseeable significant effects, or there are extraordinary circumstances present, but the District Engineer determines that applying a categorical exclusion is appropriate consistent with paragraph (e)(2) of this section.\n\n(4) Documentation of categorical exclusion determinations. The District Engineer will document its evaluation of the applicability of a categorical exclusion in the statement of findings supporting the permit or permission decision.\n\n(5) The documentation of evaluation of the applicability of a categorical exclusion does not have a prescribed format but should briefly address consideration of any potential extraordinary circumstances and any mitigation measures that reduce the level of impact. The level of analysis should reflect the sensitivity of the resources being impacted and the scale of the activity.\n\n(f)  Reliance on categorical exclusion determinations of other agencies.  The District Engineer may also rely on another agency's determination that a categorical exclusion applies to a particular proposed activity if the agency action covered by that determination and the proposed activity are substantially the same. The District Engineer will document its reliance on another agency's categorical exclusion determination in the statement of findings supporting the permit or permission decision.\n\n(g)  List of categorical exclusions.  The following activities normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment t and are therefore categorically excluded from NEPA documentation:\n\n(1) For permit applications for Clean Water Act, Section 404, River and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 10, and Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, section 103:\n\n(i) Fixed or floating small private piers, small docks, boat hoists and boathouses.\n\n(ii) Minor utility distribution and collection lines including irrigation;\n\n(iii) Minor maintenance dredging using existing disposal sites;\n\n(iv) Boat launching ramps;\n\n(v) All applications which qualify as letters of permission (as described at 33 CFR 325.5(b)(2)).\n\n(2) In addition to those listed for other permit applications in this section, the District Engineer can rely on the categorical exclusions at 33 CFR 230.9 for requests for permission under 33 U.S.C. 408."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.2.1.5", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "B", "Subpart B\u2014NEPA and General Concepts", "", "\u00a7 333.15 Environmental assessments.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a)  Generally.  If an activity is subject to NEPA, as determined following the procedures in \u00a7 333.11, and unless the District Engineer finds that the proposed activity is excluded from having to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement pursuant to a categorical exclusion as determined following the procedures in \u00a7 333.14, or by another provision of law, the District Engineer will prepare an environmental assessment with respect to the proposed activity that does not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment, or if the significance of such effect is unknown. District Engineers must follow Congress' direction that environmental assessments are to be \u201cconcise.\u201d NEPA section 106(b)(2); 42 U.S.C. 4336(b)(2). The environmental assessment should normally be combined with any other required documents including Clean Water Act, section 404(b)(1) guidelines documentation, any applicable public interest review, any statement of findings, a finding of no significant impact or a determination that an environmental impact statement is required. Environmental assessment as used throughout this part normally refers to this combined document. When the environmental assessment is a separate document, it must be completed prior to completion of the statement of finding. The District Engineer may delegate the signing of the NEPA document. Should the environmental assessment demonstrate that an environmental impact statement is necessary, the District Engineer shall follow the procedures outlined in subpart C of this part. In those cases where an environmental impact statement is required, an environmental assessment is not required. However, the District Engineer must document their reasons for requiring an environmental impact statement.\n\n(b)  Elements.  For the purpose of providing evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact, environmental assessments will:\n\n(1) Briefly discuss the:\n\n(i) Purpose and need for the proposed activity based on the Corps' statutory authority. The purpose and need for the proposed activity will also be informed by the applicant's goals (See 33 CFR 333.22 for considerations in developing purpose and need);\n\n(ii) Alternatives to the extent required by NEPA section 102(2)(H), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(H).\n\n(A) If the EA confirms that the impact of the applicant's proposal is not significant and there are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources, and, for activities evaluated under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the proposed activity is a \u201cwater dependent\u201d activity as defined in 40 CFR 230.10(a)(3), the EA need not include a discussion on alternatives.\n\n(B) In all other cases where the district engineer determines that there are unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources, the EA shall include a discussion of the reasonable alternatives which are to be considered. The decision options available to the Corps, which embrace all of the applicant's alternatives, are issue the permit, issue with modifications, or deny the permit. Modifications are limited to those project modifications within the scope of established permit conditioning policy (see 33 CFR 325.4) or within the scope of authority under Section 408. The decision option to deny the permit results in the \u201cno action\u201d alternative ( i.e.  no activity requiring a Corps permit).\n\n(iii) The reasonably foreseeable effects of the proposed activity and the alternatives considered.\n\n(iv) The combined document shall conclude with a finding of no significant impact or a determination that an environmental impact statement is required.\n\n(c)  Agency actions normally requiring an environmental assessment.  Most permits or permissions under the authorities identified in \u00a7 333.1(b) normally require environmental assessments, but likely do not require an environmental impact statement.\n\n(d)  Page limits.  (1) The text of an environmental assessment is strictly prohibited from exceeding 75 pages, not including citations or appendices.\n\n(2) Appendices are to be used for voluminous materials, such as scientific tables, collections of data, statistical calculations, and the like, which substantiate the analysis provided in the environmental assessment. Appendices are not to be used to provide additional substantive analysis, because that would circumvent the Congressionally mandated page limits.\n\n(3) Environmental assessments will be formatted for an 8.5\u201dx11\u201d page with one-inch margins using a word processor with 12-point proportionally spaced font, single spaced. Footnotes may be in 10-point font. Such size restrictions do not apply to explanatory maps, diagrams, graphs, tables, and other means of graphically displaying quantitative or geospatial information, although pages containing such material do count towards the page limit. When an item of graphical material is larger than 8.5\u201dx11\u201d, each such item will count as one page.\n\n(4) Certification related to page limits. The breadth and depth of analysis in an environmental assessment will be tailored to ensure that the environmental analysis does not exceed this page limit. As part of the finalization of the environmental assessment, the District Engineer will certify (and the certification will be incorporated into the environmental assessment) that the District Engineer has considered the factors mandated by NEPA; that the environmental assessment represents the Corps' good-faith effort to prioritize documentation of the most important considerations required by the statute within the congressionally mandated page limits; that this prioritization reflects the District Engineer's expert judgment; and that any considerations addressed briefly or left unaddressed were, in the District Engineer's judgment, comparatively not of a substantive nature that meaningfully informed the consideration of environmental effects and the resulting decision on how to proceed.\n\n(e)  Deadlines.  (1) NEPA is governed by a rule of reason. Congress supplied the measure of that reason in the 2003 revision of NEPA by setting the deadlines in NEPA 107(g), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g). These deadlines indicate Congress's determination that an agency has presumptively spent a reasonable amount of time on analysis and the document should issue, absent very unusual circumstances. In such circumstances, an extension will be given only for such time as is  necessary  to complete the analysis. Thus, unless otherwise specified in statute, the District Engineer will complete the environmental assessment not later than the date that is one year after the date on which they determine the preparation of an environmental assessment for the proposed activity is required. The District Engineer will typically make this decision at the start of the comment period for the public notice of the permit application, request for permission, or proposed general permit.\n\n(2) The end date is either:\n\n(i)When the District Engineer reaches a permit decision and initially proffers the permit to the applicant or provides permission to the requestor under 33 U.S.C. 408;\n\n(ii) When the District Engineer denies the permit or denies permission under 33 U.S.C. 408 with or without prejudice; or\n\n(iii) When the District Engineer publishes a general permit or categorical permission; or\n\n(iv) When the District Engineer reaches a decision on the mitigation instrument and provides the bank or in-lieu fee program sponsor with an instrument signed by the Corps.\n\n(3) The District Engineer may publish notification of the environmental assessment (unless the deadline is extended pursuant to the provision below), within a reasonable time after the deadline elapses or the completion of the document, whichever comes first.\n\n(4) Deadline extensions. If the District Engineer determines they are not able to meet the deadline prescribed by NEPA section 107(g)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g)(1)(B), they must consult with the applicant pursuant to NEPA section 107(g)(2), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g)(2). After such consultation, if needed, and for cause stated, the District Engineer may establish a new deadline. Cause for establishing a new deadline is only established if the environmental assessment is so incomplete, at the time at which the District Engineer determines it is not able to meet the statutory deadline, that issuance pursuant to \u00a7 333.15(e)(3) above would, in the Corps' view, result in an inadequate analysis. Such new deadline must provide only so much additional time as is necessary to complete such environmental assessment. The District Engineer will document in the administrative record for the proposed action the new deadline the reason why the environmental assessment was not able to be completed under the statutory deadline and whether the applicant consented to the new deadline.\n\n(5) Certification related to deadline. When the environmental assessment is complete, the District Engineer will certify (and the certification will be incorporated into the environmental assessment) that the resulting environmental assessment represents the Corps' good-faith effort to fulfill NEPA's requirements within the Congressional timeline; that such effort is substantially complete; that, in the District Engineer's expert opinion, they have thoroughly considered the factors mandated by NEPA; and that, in the District Engineer's judgment, the analysis contained therein is adequate to inform and reasonably explain the District Engineer's final decision regarding the proposed Federal activity."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.2.1.6", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "B", "Subpart B\u2014NEPA and General Concepts", "", "\u00a7 333.16 Findings of no significant impact.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a) The District Engineer will prepare a finding of no significant impact if the District Engineer determines, based on the environmental assessment, not to prepare an environmental impact statement because the proposed activity will not have significant effects. The finding of no significant impact will:\n\n(1) Be included in the environmental assessment;\n\n(2) Document the reasons why the District Engineer has determined that the selected alternative will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment;\n\n(3) If the District Engineer finds no significant effects based on mitigation, the mitigated finding of no significant impact will state any mitigation requirements enforceable by the agency or voluntary mitigation commitments that will be undertaken by the applicant to avoid significant effects;\n\n(4) Identify any other documents related to the finding of no significant impact; and\n\n(5) State that the District Engineer will not prepare an environmental impact statement, concluding the NEPA process for that permit application, request for permission, or mitigation instrument.\n\n(b) The District Engineer may publish notification of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on a public website."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.2.1.7", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "B", "Subpart B\u2014NEPA and General Concepts", "", "\u00a7 333.17 Lead and cooperating agencies.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a)  Corps as lead agency.  In many instances, a proposed activity or decision is undertaken in the context which entails activities or decisions undertaken by other Federal agencies ( e.g.,  where multiple Federal authorizations are required with respect to a project sponsor's overall purpose and goal). These activities and decisions may be \u201crelated actions,\u201d in that they are each the responsibility of a particular agency and they may be all related in a matter relevant to NEPA,  e.g.,  by their relationship with one overarching project. In such instances, Congress has provided that the multiple agencies involved shall determine which of them will be the lead agency pursuant to the criteria identified in NEPA section 107(a)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(a)(1)(A), or any other applicable statute. When serving as the lead agency, the Corps is responsible for managing the NEPA process, including those portions of a non-Federal applicant's proposed project which come under the jurisdiction of other Federal agencies. When serving as the lead agency, the Corps will also determine and document the scope of analysis. When a joint lead relationship is established pursuant to NEPA section 107(a)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(a)(1)(B), the Corps and the other joint lead agency or agencies are collectively responsible for completing the NEPA process. The Corps may reimburse, under agreement, staff support from other Federal agencies beyond the immediate jurisdiction of those agencies.\n\n(b)  Corps as cooperating agency.  As a cooperating agency the Corps will be responsible to the lead agency for providing environmental information which is directly related to the regulatory matter involved and which is required for the preparation of the NEPA documentation. This in no way shall be construed as lessening the District Engineer's ability to request the applicant to furnish appropriate information as discussed in \u00a7 333.51 of this part. The District Engineer will identify to the lead agency the information and analysis that is required to be included in the resulting NEPA documentation so that it can be relied on by the Corps for purposes of exercising its permitting authority. When the Corps is a cooperating agency because of a regulatory responsibility, the district engineer should make available staff support at the lead agency's request to enhance the latter's interdisciplinary capability provided the request pertains to the Corps regulatory action covered by the NEPA document, to the extent this is practicable. Beyond this, Corps staff support will generally be made available to the lead agency to the extent practicable within its own responsibility and available resources. Any assistance to a lead agency beyond this will normally be by written agreement with the lead agency providing for the Corps expenses on a cost reimbursable basis. If the District Engineer believes a public hearing should be held and another agency is lead agency, the District Engineer should request such a hearing and provide their reasoning for the request. The District Engineer should suggest a joint hearing and offer to take an active part in the hearing and ensure coverage of the Corps concerns. When the applicant's proposed activities qualify for an existing general permit or categorical permission, the Corps' obligations under NEPA were satisfied when the Corps issued the general permit or categorical permission. On this basis, Corps contributions as a cooperating agency on an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment should be limited to assisting the lead agency with accurate information pertaining to the proposed impacts under Corps authorities."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.2.1.8", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "B", "Subpart B\u2014NEPA and General Concepts", "", "\u00a7 333.18 Notices of intent and scoping.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a)  Notice of intent.  As soon as practicable after determining that a proposed activity for which Corps authorization is sought is sufficiently developed to allow for meaningful public comment and requires an environmental impact statement, the District Engineer will publish a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.\n\n(1) The notice of intent for an environmental impact statement will include a request for public comment on alternatives or effects and on relevant information, studies, or analyses with respect to the proposed agency action.\n\n(2) In addition to a request for comment required for notices of intent for environmental impact statements, notice of intent for any environmental document may include:\n\n(i) The purpose and need for the proposed action;\n\n(ii) A preliminary description of the proposed action and alternatives the environmental impact statement will consider;\n\n(iii) A brief summary of expected effects;\n\n(iv) Anticipated permits and other authorizations ( i.e.,  anticipated related actions);\n\n(v) A schedule for the decision-making process;\n\n(vi) A description of the public scoping process, including any scoping meeting(s);\n\n(vii) Contact information for the project manager handling the permit application, who can answer questions about the proposed action and the environmental impact statement; and\n\n(viii) Identification of any cooperating and participating agencies ( i.e.,  agencies responsible for related actions), and any information that such agencies require in the notice to facilitate their decisions or authorizations\n\n(b)  Scoping.  In addition to the notice of intent process described above, the District Engineer may also use other early and open processes to determine the scope of issues for analysis in an environmental document, including substantive issues that meaningfully inform the consideration of environmental effects and the resulting decision on how to proceed, eliminating from further study non-substantive issues, and determining whether connected actions should be addressed in the same environmental document. Scoping may begin as soon as practicable after the proposal for action is sufficiently developed for consideration. Scoping may include appropriate pre-application procedures, public meetings, or work conducted prior to publication of the notice of intent.\n\n(c)  Scope of analysis.  It is the exclusive responsibility of the District Engineer to determine the appropriate scope of analysis for the applicant's proposed activity based on the Corps' legal authority over the activity and whether the Corps has sufficient control and responsibility over any aspect of the applicant's proposed activity beyond the Corps' limited statutory authorities. When determining the scope of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement, the District Engineer must consider the following:\n\n(1) In some situations, a permit applicant may propose to conduct a specific activity requiring a Department of the Army (DA) permit ( e.g.,  construction of a pier in a navigable water of the United States), which is merely one component of a larger project ( e.g.,  construction of an oil refinery on an upland area). The district engineer should establish the scope of the Corps' NEPA review to address the impacts of the specific activity requiring a DA permit or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission and those portions of the entire project over which the district engineer has sufficient control, responsibility, and legal authority to warrant Federal review.\n\n(2) The District Engineer is considered to have control, responsibility, and legal authority for portions of the project beyond the limits of Corps jurisdiction where the Federal involvement is sufficient to turn an essentially private action into a Federal action, consistent with Congress's exclusions from the definition of \u201cmajor Federal action\u201d at NEPA Section 111(10) and the Supreme Court's holding in  Seven County  that NEPA does not require an agency to analyze effects from actions beyond the action the agency itself is taking or authorizing.. These are cases where the environmental consequences of the larger project are essentially products of the Corps permit or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission action. Typical factors to be considered in determining whether sufficient control, responsibility, and legal authority exist to turn an essentially private action occurring outside of Corps jurisdiction into a Federal action include:\n\n(i) Whether or not the regulated activity comprises merely a link in a corridor type project ( e.g.,  a transportation or utility transmission project).\n\n(ii) Whether there are aspects of the upland facility in the immediate vicinity of the regulated activity which affect the location and configuration of the regulated activity.\n\n(iii) The extent to which the entire project will be within Corps jurisdiction.\n\n(iv) The extent of cumulative Federal control, responsibility, and legal authority.\n\n(A) Federal control, responsibility, and legal authority will include the portions of the project beyond the limits of Corps jurisdiction where the cumulative Federal involvement of the Corps and other Federal agencies is sufficient to grant legal control over such additional portions of the project. These are cases where the environmental consequences of the additional portions of the projects are essentially products of Federal financing, assistance, direction, regulation, or approval (not including funding assistance solely in the form of general revenue sharing funds, with no Federal agency control over the subsequent use of such funds, and not including judicial or administrative civil or criminal enforcement actions).\n\n(B) In determining whether sufficient cumulative Federal involvement exists to expand the scope of Federal action the district engineer should consider whether other Federal agencies are required to take Federal action under their statutory authorities, and/or other environmental review laws and executive orders.\n\n(C) The District Engineer should also refer to \u00a7 333.17 of this part for guidance on determining whether the Corps should be the lead or a cooperating agency in these situations.\n\n(3) Examples:\n\n(i) If a non-Federal oil refinery, electric generating plant, or industrial facility is proposed to be built on an upland site and the only DA permit or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission requirement relates to a connecting pipeline, supply loading terminal, or fill road, that pipeline, terminal or fill road permit, in and of itself, normally would not constitute sufficient overall Federal involvement with the project to justify expanding the scope of a Corps NEPA document to cover upland portions of the facility beyond the structures in the immediate vicinity of the regulated activity that would affect the location and configuration of the regulated activity.\n\nSimilarly, if an applicant seeks a DA permit to fill waters or wetlands or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission to alter a covered project on which other construction or work is proposed, the control, responsibility, and legal authority of the Corps, as well as its overall Federal involvement, would extend to the portions of the project to be located on the permitted fill or within the boundary of the project covered by 33 U.S.C. 408. However, the NEPA review would be extended to the entire project, including portions outside waters of the United States or the project area covered by 33 U.S.C. 408, only if sufficient Federal control, responsibility, and legal authority over the entire project is determined to exist; that is, if the regulated activities, and those activities involving regulation, funding, etc., by other Federal agencies, comprise a substantial portion of the overall project. In any case, once the scope of analysis has been defined, the NEPA analysis for that action should include the effects or impacts from the proposed action or alternatives on all Federal interests within the purview of the NEPA statute. The District Engineer should, whenever practicable, incorporate by reference and rely upon the reviews of other Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies.\n\n(ii) For those regulated activities that comprise merely a link in a transportation or utility transmission project, the scope of analysis should address the Federal action,  i.e.,  the specific activity requiring a DA permit or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission and any other portion of the project that is within the control, responsibility, and legal authority of the Corps of Engineers (or other Federal agencies).\n\nFor example, a 50-mile electrical transmission cable crossing a 1 \n 1/4  mile-wide river that is a navigable water of the United States requires a DA permit. Neither the origin nor the destination of the cable, nor its route to and from the navigable water, except as the route applies to the location and configuration of the crossing, are within the control, responsibility, or legal authority of the Corps. Those matters would not be included in the Corps' scope of analysis which, in this case, would address the impacts of the specific cable crossing.\n\nAs another example, the same 50-mile electrical transmission cable crossing a Corps civil works project requires a 33 U.S.C. 408 permission. As with the previous example, neither the origin nor the destination of the cable, nor its route to and from the civil works project, except as the route applies to the location and configuration of the crossing within the civil works project, are within the control, responsibility, or legal authority of the Corps. Those matters would not be included in the Corps' scope of analysis which, in this case, would address the impacts of the specific cable crossing on the Corps civil works project.\n\nConversely, for those activities that require a DA permit or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission for a major portion of a transportation or utility transmission project, such that the Corps permit or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission bears upon the origin and destination as well as the route of the project outside the Corps regulatory boundaries (including those covered by 33 U.S.C. 408), the scope of analysis should include those portions of the project outside the boundaries of the Corps jurisdiction. To use the same example, if 30 miles of the 50-mile transmission line would cross jurisdictional wetlands, other \u201cwaters of the United States,\u201d or Corps civil works boundaries covered by 33 U.S.C. 408, the scope of analysis should reflect impacts of the whole 50-mile transmission line.\n\n(iii) For those activities that require a DA permit for a major portion of a shoreside facility, the scope of analysis should extend to upland portions of the facility. For example, a shipping terminal normally requires dredging, wharves, bulkheads, berthing areas, and disposal of dredged material in order to function. Permits for such activities are normally considered sufficient Federal control, responsibility, and legal authority to warrant extending the scope of analysis to include the upland portions of the facility.\n\n(4) In all cases, the scope of analysis used for analyzing both impacts and alternatives should be the same scope of analysis used for analyzing the benefits of a proposal.\n\n(5) In preparing the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, the District Engineer will focus its analysis on whether the environmental effects of the regulated activity are significant.\n\n(i) Similarly, the District Engineer will document in the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement where and how it drew a reasonable and manageable line relating to its consideration of any environmental effects from the regulated activity that extend outside the geographical territory of the project or might materialize later in time.\n\n(ii) To the extent it assists in reasoned decision-making, the District Engineer may, but is not required to by NEPA, analyze environmental effects from other projects separate in time, or separate in place, or that fall outside of the Corps' regulatory authority, or that would have to be initiated by a third party. If the District Engineer determines that such analysis would assist it in reasoned decisionmaking, it will document this determination in the environmental assessment and explain where it drew a reasonable and manageable line relating to the consideration of such effects from such separate projects."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.3.1.1", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "C", "Subpart C\u2014Environmental Impact Statements", "", "\u00a7 333.20 Significance determination.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a)  General.  Prior to initiating an environmental impact statement, the District Engineer must determine the proposed activity is likely to have reasonably foreseeable significant effects on the quality of the human environment, after consideration of any mitigation the Corps may require. As described in \u00a7 333.12(a)(5)(i) and \u00a7 333.15 of this part, this determination can be made following the completion of an environmental assessment in cases where that environmental assessment cannot conclude in a finding of no significant impact; in other situations, it can be made without first preparing an environmental assessment in instances where initial consideration as to the appropriate level of review as described indicates that the proposed activity is likely to have reasonably foreseeable significant effects. In cases where it is obvious that the proposed activity is likely to result in reasonably foreseeable significant effects and an environmental assessment terminating in a finding of no significant impact is therefore not prepared, the District Engineer must make a determination that an environmental impact statement is required due to the likely significant effects of the activity. This determination will be made in accordance with \u00a7 333.12(b) and documented. Whether an impact rises to the level of significant is a matter of the District Engineer's expert judgment.\n\n(b)  Timing.  The determination to prepare an environmental impact statement should be made as soon as the Corps has sufficient information to consider on whether the project would result in significant effects on the human environment, after consideration of any mitigation the Corps would require. In many cases this is soon after the receipt of a complete DA permit application or request for permission, although in some cases a determination may not be made until after an environmental assessment has been prepared. After a determination has been made to prepare an environmental impact statement as the lead agency, the Corps will notify the applicant in writing as soon as practicable."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.3.1.10", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "C", "Subpart C\u2014Environmental Impact Statements", "", "\u00a7 333.29 Review of other agencies' environmental impact statements.", "USACE", "", "", "", "District Engineers should provide comments directly to the requesting agency specifically related to the Corps jurisdiction by law or special expertise. If the District Engineer determines that another agency's environmental impact statement which involves a Corps permit or permission action is inadequate with respect to the Corps permit or permission action, the district engineer should attempt to resolve the differences concerning the Corps permit or permission action prior to the filing of the environmental impact statement by the other agency."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.3.1.2", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "C", "Subpart C\u2014Environmental Impact Statements", "", "\u00a7 333.21 Preparation of environmental impact statements.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a) During the process of preparing an environmental impact statement, the District Engineer:\n\n(1) Will contact all appropriate Federal agencies to determine their respective role(s),  i.e.,  that of lead agency or cooperating agency consistent with \u00a7 333.17 of this part.\n\n(2) Will obtain the comments of:\n\n(i) Any Federal agency that has specific statutory jurisdiction or special expertise identified in statute with respect to any environmental impact involved or is authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards. The District Engineer shall only consider comments directly tied to the commenting Federal agency's specific statutory jurisdiction or special expertise identified in statute and relevant to impacts or issues within the scope of analysis as determined by the District Engineer. The District Engineer shall only include those comments in the permit or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission administrative file and record.\n\n(ii) Appropriate State, Tribal, and local agencies that are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards.\n\n(3) May request the comments of:\n\n(i) State, Tribal, or local governments that may be affected by the proposed action;\n\n(ii) Any Federal agency that has requested it receive statements on actions of the kind proposed to the extent the comments are directly tied to that agency's statutory jurisdiction or special expertise as identified in statute;\n\n(iii) The applicant, and\n\n(iv) The public, including by affirmatively soliciting comments in a manner designed to inform those persons or organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action.\n\n(b) This process of obtaining and requesting comments pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section may be undertaken at any time that is reasonable in the process of preparing the environmental impact statement. The District Engineer will ensure the process of obtaining and request comments pursuant to paragraph (a) of this part, and the District Engineers' analysis of and response to those comments, does not cause the Corps to violate the congressionally mandated deadline for completion of an environmental impact statement.\n\n(c) The District Engineer will address any substantive and significant comments received consistent with paragraph (a) of this section in the environmental impact statement. Such responses to comments will be documented and may include:\n\n(1) Modifying alternatives, including the proposed activity.\n\n(2) Developing and evaluating alternatives not previously given serious consideration.\n\n(3) Supplementing, improving, or modifying analyses, to include consideration of science or literature not previously considered.\n\n(4) Making factual corrections.\n\n(5) No action needed. The agency may provide a brief rationale for taking no action, such as:\n\n(i) The comment is outside the scope of what is being proposed;\n\n(ii) There is no cause-effect relationship between the actions the agency is proposing and the issue raised and/or recommendation made;\n\n(iii) The commenter misinterpreted the information provided; or\n\n(iv) The recommendation made does not comply with applicable laws or regulations and/or are not feasible to implement (technically or economically), etc.\n\n(d) In those instances in which the District Engineer solicits comments from the public, the request for comments will provide clear instructions on how comments should be submitted, including electronic submission, and the dates during which comments will be accepted. The solicitation of comments should include requests for comments on specific questions or issues or for information that would be helpful in informing the District Engineer's decision.\n\n(e) If the District Engineer determines that an environmental impact statement is not required after a notice of intent has been published, the District Engineer shall terminate the environmental impact statement preparation and withdraw the notice of intent. The District Engineer shall notify in writing the appropriate Division Engineer; Headquarters U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; any appropriate federal agencies; and the public of the determination."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.3.1.3", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "C", "Subpart C\u2014Environmental Impact Statements", "", "\u00a7 333.22 Purpose and need.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a) The statement will include the purpose and need for the proposed agency action based on the Corps' statutory authority and independent judgment. The purpose and need for the proposed agency action must be informed by the goals of the applicant. The applicant may provide a statement of the purpose and need from their perspective, but the District Engineer will exercise independent judgment in defining the purpose and need for the project.\n\n(b) If the scope of analysis for the NEPA document (see \u00a7 333.18(b) of this part) covers only the proposed specific activity requiring a Department of the Army permit or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission, then the underlying purpose and need for that specific activity should be stated. (For example, \u201cThe purpose and need for the pipe is to obtain cooling water from the river for the electric generating plant.\u201d)\n\n(c) If the scope of analysis covers a more extensive project, only part of which may require a DA permit or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission, then the underlying purpose and need for the entire project should be stated. (For example, \u201cThe purpose and need for the electric generating plant is to provide increased supplies of electricity to the (named) geographic area.\u201d)"], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.3.1.4", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "C", "Subpart C\u2014Environmental Impact Statements", "", "\u00a7 333.23 Analysis within the environmental impact statement.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a) The Corps is neither an opponent nor proponent of the applicant's proposal; therefore, the applicant's final proposal will be identified as the \u201capplicant's preferred alternative\u201d in the final EIS. Decision options available to the District Engineer, which embrace all of the applicant's alternatives, are issue the permit, issue with modifications or conditions, or deny the permit.\n\n(b) The environmental impact statement will include a detailed statement on:\n\n(1) Reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the applicant's preferred alternative;\n\n(2) Any reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the applicant's preferred alternative be implemented;\n\n(3) A reasonable range of alternatives to the applicant's preferred alternative, including an analysis of any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the applicant's preferred alternative in the case of a no action alternative.\n\n(i) Only reasonable alternatives need be considered in detail. Reasonable alternatives must be those that are, in the District Engineer's expert judgment, technically, legally, and economically feasible and such feasibility must focus on the accomplishment of the underlying purpose and need.\n\n(ii) The alternatives analysis should be thorough enough to use the 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR part 230) where applicable.\n\n(iii) Those alternatives that are unavailable to the applicant, whether or not they require Federal action (permits), should normally be included in the analysis of the no-Federal-action (denial) alternative.\n\n(iv) The EIS should discuss geographic alternatives,  e.g.,  changes in location and other site-specific variables, and functional alternatives,  e.g.,  project substitutes and design modifications.\n\n(v) The \u201cno-action\u201d alternative is one which results in no construction requiring a Corps permit or permission. It may be brought by either the applicant electing to modify their proposal to eliminate work under the jurisdiction of the Corps or by the denial of the permit or permission. District engineers, when evaluating this alternative, should discuss, when appropriate, the consequences of other likely uses of a project site, should the permit be denied.\n\n(4) The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and\n\n(5) Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of Federal resources which would be involved in the proposed agency action should it be implemented; and\n\n(6) Any means identified to mitigate adverse environmental effects of the proposed action. (To note, NEPA itself does not require or authorize the Corps to impose any mitigation measures); and\n\n(7) Such alternatives should be evaluated only to the extent necessary to allow a complete and objective evaluation and a fully informed decision regarding the permit application or request for permission.\n\n(b) Environmental impact statements will discuss effects in proportion to their significance. With respect to issues that are not of a substantive nature and do not meaningfully inform the consideration of environmental effects and the resulting decision on how to proceed, there will be no more than the briefest possible discussion to explain why those issues are not substantive and therefore not worthy of any further analysis. Environmental impact statements will be analytic, concise, and no longer than necessary to comply with NEPA in light of the congressionally mandated page limits and deadlines.\n\n(c) The District Engineer will not include a cost-benefit analysis for projects requiring a Corps permit or permission, but may indicate any cost considerations relevant to the permit decision or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission decision."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.3.1.5", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "C", "Subpart C\u2014Environmental Impact Statements", "", "\u00a7 333.24 Page limits.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a)  Page limits.  Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the text of an environmental impact statement will not exceed 150 pages, not including citations or appendices.\n\n(b) An environmental impact statement for a proposed agency action of extraordinary complexity is strictly prohibited from not exceeding 300 pages, not including any citations or appendices. The District Engineer will determine at the earliest possible stage of preparation of an environmental impact statement whether the conditions for exceeding the page limit in paragraph (a) of this section are present. Factors that may indicate extraordinary complexity include: a geographically expansive project that affects multiple resource types; numerous alternatives that must be considered; involves a long time period for implementation; impacts multiple sensitive resources; involve authorization decisions by multiple agencies.\n\n(c) Appendices are to be used for voluminous materials, such as scientific tables, collections of data, statistical calculations, and the like, which substantiate the analysis provided in the environmental assessment. Appendices are not to be used to provide additional substantive analysis, because that would circumvent the Congressionally mandated page limits.\n\n(d)  Format.  Environmental impact statements will be formatted for 8.5\u201dx11\u201d paper with one-inch margins using a word processor with 12-point proportionally spaced font, single spaced. Footnotes may be in 10-point font. Such size restrictions do not apply to explanatory maps, diagrams, graphs, tables, and other means of graphically displaying quantitative or geospatial information. When an item of graphical material is larger than 8.5\u201dx11\u201d, each such item will count as one page.\n\n(e)  Certification related to page limits.  The breadth and depth of analysis in an environmental impact statement will be tailored to ensure that the environmental impact statement does not exceed these page limits. In this regard, as part of the finalization of the environmental impact statement, a responsible official will certify that the Corps has considered the factors mandated by NEPA; that the environmental impact statement represents the Corps' good-faith effort to prioritize documentation of the most important considerations required by the statute within the congressionally mandated page limits; that this prioritization reflects the District Engineer's expert judgment; and that any considerations addressed briefly or left unaddressed were, in the District Engineer's judgment, comparatively unimportant or frivolous."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.3.1.6", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "C", "Subpart C\u2014Environmental Impact Statements", "", "\u00a7 333.25 Deadlines.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a) NEPA is governed by a \u201crule of reason.\u201d Congress supplied the measure of that reason in the 2023 revision of NEPA by settling the deadlines in NEPA 107(g), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g). These deadlines indicate Congress's determination that an agency, working with Congress's allocation of resources has presumptively spent a reasonable amount of time on analysis and the document should issue, absent very unusual circumstances. In such circumstances, an extension will be given only for such time as is  necessary  to complete the analysis. Thus, unless otherwise specified in statute, the District Engineer will complete the environmental impact statement not later than the date that is two years after the date on which the District Engineer determines that the activity requires the issuance of an environmental impact statement.\n\n(b) The end date is either:\n\n(1) When the District Engineer reaches a decision and initially proffers the permit to the applicant or provides the requestor 33 U.S.C. 408 permission; or\n\n(2) When the District Engineer denies the permit or denies permission under 33 U.S.C. 408 with or without prejudice.\n\n(c) The District Engineer will publish the environmental impact statement.\n\n(d) If the District Engineer determines they are not able to meet the deadline prescribed by NEPA section 107(g)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g)(1)(A), they must consult with the applicant pursuant to NEPA section 107(g)(2), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(g)(2). After such consultation, if needed, and for cause stated, the District Engineer may establish a new deadline and must notify the Division Engineer and Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of the deadline extension. Cause for establishing a new deadline is only established if the environmental impact statement is so incomplete, at the time at which the District Engineer determines they are not able to meet the statutory deadline, that issuance pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section above would, in the District Engineer's view, result in an inadequate analysis. Such new deadline must provide only so much additional time as is necessary to complete such environmental impact statement. The District Engineer will document in the administrative record for the proposed action the new deadline, the reason why the environmental impact statement was not able to be completed under the statutory deadline, when the District Engineer consulted with the applicant on the new deadline, and whether the applicant consented to the new deadline.\n\n(e) When the environmental impact statement is published, the District Engineer will certify (and the certification will be incorporated into the environmental impact statement) that the resulting environmental impact statement represents the Corps' good-faith effort to fulfill NEPA's requirements within the Congressional timeline; that such effort is substantially complete; and that, in the District Engineer's expert opinion, they have thoroughly considered the factors mandated by NEPA; and that, in the District Engineer's judgment, the analysis contained therein is adequate to inform and reasonably explain the District Engineer's decision regarding the proposed Federal activity. ."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.3.1.7", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "C", "Subpart C\u2014Environmental Impact Statements", "", "\u00a7 333.26 Publication of the environmental impact statement.", "USACE", "", "", "", "The District Engineer will publish the entire environmental impact statement on a publicly available website. During the process of preparing the environmental impact statement, the District Engineer may publish a draft statement or other materials that in their judgment may assist in fulfilling their NEPA responsibilities."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.3.1.8", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "C", "Subpart C\u2014Environmental Impact Statements", "", "\u00a7 333.27 Public hearing.", "USACE", "", "", "", "If a public hearing is to be held pursuant to 33 CFR part 327, or any other authority, for a permit application requiring an environmental impact statement, the actions analyzed by the environmental impact statement should be considered at the public hearing. The District Engineer can, but need not, make a draft of the environmental impact statement available to the public and, in instances where the District Engineer does so, should do so at least 15 days in advance of the hearing. If a hearing request is received from another agency having jurisdiction over an element of the applicant's activity, the district engineer should coordinate a joint hearing with that agency whenever appropriate."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.3.1.9", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "C", "Subpart C\u2014Environmental Impact Statements", "", "\u00a7 333.28 Comments received on an environmental impact statement.", "USACE", "", "", "", "For permit applications or requests for permissions to be decided at the district level, the District Engineer should consider incoming comments and provide responses in the environmental impact statement when substantive issues are raised. For permit applications or requests for permissions to be decided at a higher authority, the District Engineer shall forward any comment letters together with appropriate responses to the higher authority."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.4.1.1", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "D", "Subpart D\u2014Efficient Environmental Reviews", "", "\u00a7 333.31 Tiered and programmatic environmental documents.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a) Activities that require Corps authorization under 33 U.S.C. 1344, 33 U.S.C. 401, 33 U.S.C. 403, and 33 U.S.C. 1413 are reviewed (and when applicable, permitted) on a site-specific basis based upon an application containing a complete description of the proposed activity, and all activities which the applicant plans to undertake which are reasonably related to the same project and for which a Corps permit will be required. See 33 CFR 325.1(d)(1)-(2). However, only for reviews of activities under 33 U.S.C. 408, the District Engineer may prepare tiered environmental documents when conducting multi-phased reviews of proposed alterations or in other appropriate circumstances. Multi-phased reviews under 33 U.S.C. 408 evaluate proposed alterations in multiple successive iterations of progressively greater detail. Each successive review must be accompanied by a NEPA document that considers the potential impacts of the alteration at the level of detail of the given phase of review to help inform the development of the proposed alteration. The analysis in each environmental document will reflect the level of planning in each tier. For example, the first tier may consider the differing impacts of selecting different sites for the alteration, the second tier may consider different project configurations, and the final tier may consider the impacts from different construction methods. Each successive analysis should build off the previous analysis, formally incorporating the prior environmental documents.\n\n(b) After completing a programmatic environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for a review under 33 U.S.C. 408, the District Engineer may rely on that document for 5 years if there are not substantial new circumstances or information about the significance of adverse effects that bear on the analysis. After 5 years, as long as the District Engineer reevaluates the analysis in the programmatic environmental document and any underlying assumption to ensure reliance on the analysis remains valid and briefly documents its reevaluation and explains why the analysis remains valid considering any new and substantial information or circumstances, the District Engineer may continue to rely on the document."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.4.1.2", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "D", "Subpart D\u2014Efficient Environmental Reviews", "", "\u00a7 333.32 Reliance on existing environmental documents.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a)  Generally.  The District Engineer may rely on an environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or portion thereof, provided that the statement, assessment, or portion thereof meets the standards for an adequate statement or assessment under these procedures. When relying on an environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or portion thereof, the District Engineer will cite, briefly describe the content and relevance to the environmental document, and may make modifications that are necessary to render the relied-upon document, or portion thereof, fit for fulfilling NEPA's analytic requirements for the action. If the District Engineer finds that the other agency's environmental impact statement or environmental assessment is inadequate with respect to the Corps permit or permission action, the District Engineer should incorporate the other agency's NEPA document or a portion thereof and prepare an appropriate and adequate NEPA document to address the Corps involvement with the proposed action.\n\n(b)  Substantial similarity.  (1) If the actions covered by the original environmental impact statement or environmental assessment and the proposed action are substantially the same, the District Engineer will document their reliance on the statement or assessment.\n\n(2) If the actions are not substantially the same, the District Engineer may modify the statement or assessment as necessary to render the statement fit for fulfilling NEPA's analytic requirements for the action at hand, and document the reliance on the statement or assessment, as modified, or may incorporate relevant portions in the District Engineer's own NEPA document. Where appropriate, the District Engineer may solicit comment to the extent that solicitation of comment will assist the District Engineer in expeditiously adapting the relied-upon statement or assessment so that it is fit for the District Engineer's purposes."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.4.1.3", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "D", "Subpart D\u2014Efficient Environmental Reviews", "", "\u00a7 333.33 Incorporation.", "USACE", "", "", "", "The District Engineer may incorporate material, such as planning studies, analyses, or other relevant information, into environmental documents by reference when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding the Corps review of the action. When incorporating material by reference, the District Engineer will cite, briefly describe the content and relevance to the environmental document, and make the materials reasonably available for review by potentially interested parties. The District Engineer will not use incorporation as a means to evade the statutory page limits."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.4.1.4", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "D", "Subpart D\u2014Efficient Environmental Reviews", "", "\u00a7 333.34 Supplements to environmental documents.", "USACE", "", "", "", "The District Engineer will prepare supplements to environmental documents only if a major Federal action remains to occur, and:\n\n(a) The applicant makes substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or\n\n(b) The District Engineer decides, in their discretion, that there are substantial significant new circumstances or information about the significance of the adverse effects that bear on the proposed action or its effects."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.4.1.5", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "D", "Subpart D\u2014Efficient Environmental Reviews", "", "\u00a7 333.35 Integrity and completeness of information.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a) The District Engineer will not undertake new scientific and technical research to inform their analyses unless that is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs and time frame of such undertaking are not unreasonable. Rather, the District Engineer will make use of reliable existing data and resources.\n\n(b) When the District Engineer is evaluating an action's reasonably foreseeable effects on the human environment, and there is incomplete or unavailable information that cannot be obtained at a reasonable cost or the means to obtain it are unknown, the District Engineer will make clear in the relevant environmental document that such information is lacking."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.4.1.6", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "D", "Subpart D\u2014Efficient Environmental Reviews", "", "\u00a7 333.36 Integrating NEPA with other environmental requirements.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a) To the fullest extent possible, the District Engineer will prepare environmental documents concurrently with and integrated with analyses and related surveys and studies required by other Federal statutes. In appropriate instances, the District Engineer may participate in preparing single environmental assessment, finding of no significant impact, environmental impact statement, and Record of Decision documents.\n\n(b) The District Engineer will combine an environmental document prepared in compliance with NEPA with any other agency document to reduce duplication and paperwork. Thus, the District Engineer may combine an environmental document with related plans, rules, or amendments as a single consolidated document.\n\n(c) If comments on a notice of intent or other aspects of a scoping process identify consultations, permits, or licenses necessary under other environmental laws, the environmental document may contain a section briefly listing the applicable requirements and how the applicant has or will meet them ( e.g.,  permits applied for or received, consultations initiated or concluded)."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.4.1.7", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "D", "Subpart D\u2014Efficient Environmental Reviews", "", "\u00a7 333.37 Elimination of duplication with State, Tribal, and local procedures.", "USACE", "", "", "", "(a) The District Engineer will, where appropriate, cooperate with State, Tribal, and local agencies that are responsible for preparing environmental documents.\n\n(b) To the fullest extent practicable unless specifically prohibited by law, the District Engineer will cooperate with State, Tribal, and local agencies to reduce duplication between NEPA and State, Tribal, and local requirements, including through use of studies, analysis, and decisions developed by State, Tribal, or local agencies. Such cooperation may include:\n\n(1) Joint planning processes;\n\n(2) Joint environmental research and studies;\n\n(3) Joint public hearings (except where otherwise provided by statute); or\n\n(4) Joint environmental documents."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.4.1.8", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "D", "Subpart D\u2014Efficient Environmental Reviews", "", "\u00a7 333.38 Unique identification numbers.", "USACE", "", "", "", "For all environmental documents, the District Engineer will provide a unique identification number for tracking purposes, which the District Engineer will reference on all associated environmental review documents prepared for the proposed agency action and in any database or tracking system for such documents. The District Engineer will coordinate with the CEQ and other Federal agencies to ensure uniformity of such identification numbers across Federal agencies."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.4.1.9", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "D", "Subpart D\u2014Efficient Environmental Reviews", "", "\u00a7 333.39 Emergency procedures.", "USACE", "", "", "", "In responding to emergency situations to prevent or reduce imminent risk of life, health, property, or severe economic losses, district commanders may proceed without the specific documentation and procedural requirements of other sections of this regulation. District Engineers shall consider the probable environmental consequences in determining appropriate emergency actions and when requesting approval to proceed on emergency actions, will describe proposed NEPA documentation or reasons for exclusion from documentation. NEPA documentation should be accomplished prior to initiation of emergency work if time constraints render this practicable. Such documentation may also be accomplished after the completion of emergency work, if appropriate. When possible, emergency actions considered major in scope with potentially significant environmental impacts shall be referred through the Division Engineers to Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for consultation with CEQ about NEPA alternative arrangements."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.5.1.1", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "E", "Subpart E\u2014Agency Decision Making", "", "\u00a7 333.41 Decision documents.", "USACE", "", "", "", "At the time of its decision on its proposed action, the Corps may prepare and timely publish a concise public decision document notifying the public that the District Engineer has certified that the Corps has considered all relevant information raised in the NEPA process and that the NEPA process has closed. To avoid duplication, a finding of no significant impact may reference the environmental assessment and a record of decision may reference the environmental impact statement. The decision document prepared for NEPA compliance informs the final agency action of making the decision on the permit application or the request for permission under 33 U.S.C. 408(a) but is not the final agency action."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.5.1.2", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "E", "Subpart E\u2014Agency Decision Making", "", "\u00a7 333.42 Filing requirements.", "USACE", "", "", "", "The District Engineer will file environmental impact statements together with comments and any responses with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Federal Activities for publication in the  Federal Register ."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.6.1.1", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "F", "Subpart F\u2014Procedures for Applicant-Prepared NEPA Documents", "", "\u00a7 333.51 Procedures for applicant-prepared environmental documents.", "USACE", "", "", "", "The District Engineer may require the applicant to furnish appropriate information that the district engineer considers necessary for the preparation of an EA or EIS. The District Engineer may prepare an EA or an EIS, or may obtain information needed to prepare an EA or an EIS, either with Corps staff or by third-party contract. In accordance with NEPA section 107(f), 42 U.S.C. 4336a(f), the Corps has established procedures allowing applicants, or contractors hired by applicants, to prepare environmental assessments and environmental impact statements documents under the District Engineer supervision.\n\n(a) The District Engineer will independently evaluate the environmental document and will take responsibility for its contents. The District Engineer is responsible for ensuring that the information provided by the applicant-hired contractor is consistent with Corps' need to take a hard, objective look at the public interest and environmental factors consistent with its statutory requirements.\n\n(b) The District Engineer will assist applicants and applicant-hired contractors by providing guidance and outlining the types of information required for the preparation of the environmental document. Third party contracting is the primary method for preparing all or part of environmental impact statements covered by this part. The District Engineer may also provide appropriate guidance and assist in environmental document preparation, to the extent that the District Engineer's resources and policy priorities allow. The District Engineer will work with the applicant to define the purpose and need, and, when appropriate, to develop a reasonable range of alternatives to meet that purpose and need.\n\n(c) The District Engineer will work develop and modify, as appropriate, a schedule for preparation of the environmental document. Major changes to the schedule or related matters will be documented through written correspondence.\n\n(d) The District Engineer may request from an applicant environmental information for use by the Corps in preparing or evaluating an environmental document. This may include a decision file consisting of any factual, scientific, or technical information used, developed, or considered by the applicant or applicant-hired contractor in the course of preparing the environmental document, including any correspondence with the Corps or with third parties.\n\n(e) The applicant may accept or reject the District Engineer's guidance. The District Engineer, however, may after specifying the information in contention, require the applicant to resubmit any previously submitted data which the District Engineer considers inadequate or inaccurate. The District Engineer must document in the record the Corps' independent evaluation of the information and its accuracy."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.7.1.1", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "G", "Subpart G\u2014Definitions", "", "\u00a7 333.61 Definitions.", "USACE", "", "", "", "As used in these implementing procedures, terms have the meanings provided in NEPA section 111, 42 U.S.C. 4336e. In addition:\n\n(a)  NEPA  means the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321,  et seq. ).\n\n(b)  Authorization  means a permit or permission.\n\n(c)  Connected action  means a separate Federal action within the Corps' authority that is closely related to the proposed agency action and should be addressed in a single environmental document because the proposed agency action:\n\n(1) Automatically triggers the separate Federal action, which independently would require the preparation of additional environmental documents;\n\n(2) Cannot proceed unless the separate Federal action is taken previously or simultaneously; or\n\n(3) Is an interdependent part of a larger Federal action that includes a separate Federal action, which mutually depend on the larger Federal action for their justification.\n\n(d)  Effects or impacts  means changes to the human environment from the proposed action or alternatives that are reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action or alternatives.\n\n(1) Effects include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic (such as the effects on employment), social, or health effects. Effects appropriate for analysis under NEPA may be either beneficial or adverse, or both, with respect to these values.\n\n(2) A \u201cbut for\u201d causal relationship is insufficient to make an agency responsible for a particular effect under NEPA. Effects should generally not be considered if they are remote in time, geographically remote, or the product of a lengthy causal chain. Effects do not include those effects that the agency has no ability to prevent due to the limits of its regulatory authority, or that would occur regardless of the proposed action, or that would need to be initiated by a third party.\n\n(e)  Human environment  means comprehensively the natural and physical environment and the relationship of Americans with that environment. (See also the definition of \u201ceffects or impacts\u201d in paragraph (c) of this section.)\n\n(f)  Jurisdiction  means the specific legal authority to approve an activity, such as 33 U.S.C. 1344 (Clean Water Act, section 404); 33 U.S.C. 401 (Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, section 9); 33 U.S.C. 403 (Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, section 10); and 33 U.S.C. 1413 (Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, section 103) or 33 U.S.C. 408 (Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, section 14).\n\n(g)  Mitigation  for the purposes of NEPA means measures that avoid, minimize, or compensate for effects caused by a proposed action or alternatives as described in an environmental document or record of decision and that have a nexus to those effects. While NEPA requires consideration of mitigation, it does not mandate the form or adoption of any mitigation. Mitigation includes:\n\n(1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.\n\n(2) Minimizing effects by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.\n\n(3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.\n\n(4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.\n\n(5) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.\n\n(h)  NEPA process  means all measures necessary for compliance with the requirements of NEPA section 102(2), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2).\n\n(i)  Notice of intent  means a public notice that an agency will prepare and consider an environmental document.\n\n(j)  Participating agency  means a Federal, State, Tribal, or local agency participating in an environmental review or authorization of an action.\n\n(k)  Permit,  as used in this part, is the authorization described in 33 CFR 325.5 or the document granting Corps permission under 33 U.S.C. 408(a). A permit decision is the final agency action.\n\n(l)  Publish  and  publication  mean methods found by the agency to efficiently and effectively make environmental documents and information available for review by interested persons, including electronic publication.\n\n(m)  Reasonable alternatives  means a reasonable range of alternatives that are technically, legally, and economically feasible, meet the purpose and need for the proposed action, and, where applicable, meet the goals of the applicant.\n\n(n)  Reasonably foreseeable  means sufficiently likely to occur such that a person of ordinary prudence would take it into account in reaching a decision.\n\n(o)  Related action  means an action undertaken by an agency,  e.g.,  a permitting action, some other type of authorization action, an analysis required by statute, or the like, that bears a relationship to other actions undertaken by other agencies relevant to NEPA,  e.g.,  that a set of related actions are all related to one overarching project.\n\n(p)  Scope  consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and effects subject to the Corps legal authority or subject to the Corps control and responsibility that should be considered in an environmental document. This part addresses the considerations for use by District Engineers when determining scope for NEPA compliance in \u00a7 333.18 of this part.\n\n(q)  Tiering  when used for the purposes of multi-phased reviews of activities under 33 U.S.C. 408, refers to the coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact statements or environmental assessments (such as a general plan to address a need that identifies different conceptual options) with subsequent narrower or more detailed statements or environmental analyses (such as an analysis of how one of those conceptual options could be implemented at a specific site) incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared."], ["33:33:3.0.1.1.27.8.1.1", 33, "Navigation and Navigable Waters", "II", "", "333", "PART 333\u2014PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS AND 33 U.S.C. 408 PERMISSIONS, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES", "H", "Subpart H\u2014Severability", "", "\u00a7 333.71 Severability.", "USACE", "", "", "", "The sections of this part are separate and severable from one another. If any section or portion therein is stayed or determined to be invalid, or the applicability of any section to any person or entity is held invalid, it is the Corps' intention that the validity of the remainder of those parts will not be affected. The remaining sections or portions, and all applications thereof, shall continue to be in effect."]], "truncated": false, "filtered_table_rows_count": 34, "expanded_columns": [], "expandable_columns": [], "columns": ["section_id", "title_number", "title_name", "chapter", "subchapter", "part_number", "part_name", "subpart", "subpart_name", "section_number", "section_heading", "agency", "authority", "source_citation", "amendment_citations", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["section_id"], "units": {}, "query": {"sql": "select section_id, title_number, title_name, chapter, subchapter, part_number, part_name, subpart, subpart_name, section_number, section_heading, agency, authority, source_citation, amendment_citations, full_text from cfr_sections where \"agency\" = :p0 and \"part_number\" = :p1 order by section_id limit 101", "params": {"p0": "USACE", "p1": "333"}}, "facet_results": {"title_number": {"name": "title_number", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/openregs/cfr_sections.json?agency=USACE&part_number=333", "results": [{"value": 33, "label": 33, "count": 34, "toggle_url": "https://www.pawtectors.org/openregs/cfr_sections.json?agency=USACE&part_number=333&title_number=33", "selected": false}], "truncated": false}, "agency": {"name": "agency", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/openregs/cfr_sections.json?agency=USACE&part_number=333", "results": [{"value": "USACE", "label": "USACE", "count": 34, "toggle_url": "https://www.pawtectors.org/openregs/cfr_sections.json?part_number=333", "selected": true}], "truncated": false}, "part_number": {"name": "part_number", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/openregs/cfr_sections.json?agency=USACE&part_number=333", "results": [{"value": "333", "label": "333", "count": 34, "toggle_url": "https://www.pawtectors.org/openregs/cfr_sections.json?agency=USACE", "selected": true}], "truncated": false}}, "suggested_facets": [{"name": "subpart", "toggle_url": "https://www.pawtectors.org/openregs/cfr_sections.json?agency=USACE&part_number=333&_facet=subpart"}, {"name": "subpart_name", "toggle_url": "https://www.pawtectors.org/openregs/cfr_sections.json?agency=USACE&part_number=333&_facet=subpart_name"}], "next": null, "next_url": null, "private": false, "allow_execute_sql": true, "query_ms": 842.8147059166804, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}