ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL WORKS WASHINGTON …...Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASA-CW). These NEPA decision documents are typically for projects proposed for congressional

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL WORKS

108 ARMY PENTAGON WASHINGTON DC 20310-0108

2 3 APR 2019

MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDING GENERAL U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

SUBJECT: National Environmental Policy Act Decision Documents

1. References:

a. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 40 CFR 1500-1508, 28 November 1978.

b. Engineer Regulation (ER) 200-2-2 (33 CFR 230), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Procedures for Implementing NEPA, 4 March 1998.

c. ER 1105-2-100 Planning Guidance Notebook, Appendix H Review and Approval of Decision Documents, 20 November 2007.

d. Executive Order 13807, Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects, 24 August 2017.

e. Director of Civil Works Policy Memorandum 2018-12, Subject: Implementation of EO 13807 and One Federal Decision within Civil Works Programs, 26 September 2018.

2. I have reviewed the NEPA decision document (e.g . Record of Decisions (RODs) or Findings of No Significant Impacts (FONSI)) procedures within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASA-CW). These NEPA decision documents are typically for projects proposed for congressional authorization. To ensure consistency with EO 13807, make timely decisions for major infrastructure projects and conduct environmental reviews in a coordinated , consistent, predictable and timely manner the following modifications will be made to current ASA (CW) procedures.

a. NEPA decision documents requiring ASA (CW) review and approval that will either be executed by the ASA (CW) or delegated to another office for execution , will be executed concurrent with the ASA (CW) determination that the Corps recommended plan (e.g. Chief of Engineers Reports and Director of Civil Works Reports) is feasible. For delegated NEPA decision documents, the Office of the ASA (CW) will notify the Corps when it is appropriate to sign the decision document. As part of the standard procedures outlined in reference c, th is determination occurs prior to the transmittal of the document to the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) for their review and opinion in accordance with Executive Order 12322.

I have reviewed the requirements for NEPA decision documents as outlined in reference a, and while the 0MB review and opinion is critical to determining the budgetary priorities

SUBJECT: National Environmental Policy Act Decision Documents

for projects, the determination typically does not alter the recommended plan. However, in the event that based on 0MB opinion, plan modifications are required or additional information is needed prior to budgeting for the project, the Corps may be required to prepare supplemental environmental analysis and documentation.

b. All NEPA decision documents requiring ASA (CW) review and approval should follow the attached ROD and FONSI templates. Use of the templates will allow for consistent and predictable documentation for projects. Additionally, use of the templates should help expedite the internal review of the documents. Any requested modification of the template for a project will be coordinated with the Deputy ASA for Project Planning and Review and staff, with final approval by the ASA(CW), prior to submittal. The Corps shall adopt the templates for all NEPA decision documents for the Civil Works mission.

3. This guidance is effective immediately. Reference c will be updated to include this guidance and other appropriate guidance and submitted to this office for review no later than 30 June 2019.

4. Any questions regarding NEPA decision documents for Corps studies shall be directed to Cindy Barger, Environmental Planner, Project Planning and Review, [email protected] or (202) 761-0038.

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)

-2-

TEMPLATE VERSION: 11 April 2019 DIRECTIONS: Black text denotes required language. Blue text denotes where project specific information is required. Some sections are drop-down menus with required options available to select. Green text denotes directions or guidance to completing the document and should be deleted in final project specific decision document. Upon opening new template, click “File” and “Save As” to immediate save the decision document to project specific folder. HQUSACE Office of Water Policy Review and Office of Counsel need to be consulted on when it is appropriate to deviate from the required template language. Additional language to meet project specific needs may be added as appropriate.

RECORD OF DECISION

PROJECT NAME - THE FR/EIS, CHIEFS REPORT, AND ROD SHOULD HAVE IDENTICAL NAMES

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION SUCH AS CITY/COUNTY, STATE

The Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (IFR/EIS) dated DATE OF FEIS, for the PROJECT NAME addresses PROJECT PURPOSE(S) opportunities and feasibility in the GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION SUCH AS CITY/COUNTY, STATE. The final recommendation is contained in the report of the Chief of Engineers, dated DATE OF CHIEF’S REPORT. Based on these reports, the reviews by other Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribes, input of the public, and the review by my staff, I find the plan recommended by the Chief of Engineers to be technically feasible, SELECT OPTION BASED ON PROJECT PURPOSE(S), in accordance with environmental statutes, and the public interest.

The Final IFR/EIS, incorporated herein by reference, evaluated various alternatives that

would DESCRIBE STUDY GOALS (e.g., reduce flood risk) in the study area. The recommended plan is the SELECT APPLICABLE OPTION and includes:

• ENTER PROJECT DESCRIPTION HERE. MATCH THE CHIEF’S REPORT

AND PHRASE AS BULLET POINTS E.G. CONSTRUCT A LEVEE “Y” FEET LONG, DREDGE “X” CUBIC YARDS

• Implementation of the environmental compensatory mitigation and associated

monitoring and mitigation area adaptive management plan. Monitoring will continue until the mitigation is determined to be successful based on the identified criteria within the TITLE OF MONITORING AND MITIGATION AREA ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN included in Appendix XX. Monitoring is

2

expected to last no more than 10 years. Mitigation monitoring needs to be scaled to the minimum necessary to reach ecological success and is not to exceed 10 years. Compensatory mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plans will be developed in consultation with the non-Federal Sponsor during plan formulation.

In addition to a “no action” plan, INSERT APPLICABLE NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVES alternatives were evaluated.1 The alternatives included BRIEFLY LIST THE FINAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED AND COMPARED AND REFER TO THE SECTION OF THE EIS THAT DISCUSSES ALTERNATIVE FORMULATION AND SELECTION. (OPTIONAL) IF NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE(S) CONSIDERED AND NOT SELECTED, BRIEFLY DISCUSS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE REASON WHY. IF THE LPP IS RECOMMENDED, BRIEFLY DISCUSS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS BETWEEN THE LPP AND NED/NER PLAN (I.E., IS THE LPP SIMILAR< LESS THAN OR GREATER IMPACT THAN NED/NER PLAN) AND HOW THAT AFFECTED THE LPP SELECTION. The NAME THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE was identified as the environmentally preferable alternative.2 IF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN IS NOT THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PLAN, THEN PROVIDE A SHORT EXPLANATION WHY THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PLAN WAS NOT CHOSEN. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS: For all alternatives, the potential effects were evaluated, as appropriate. A summary assessment of the potential effects of the recommended plan are listed in Table 1: This list is to capture typical resource categories that may be evaluated as part of a NEPA document and is not intended to be a minimum list or an exhaustive list. The list of resources may be adjusted (deleted or added) based on NEPA scoping results and the primary analysis in the EIS. *Significant adverse effects, provide additional concise summary (e.g. 1-2 sentences) of key significant adverse effects following table. **Insignificant effects due to mitigation, provide a summary of the mitigation that is a condition to the project following the table.

Table 1: Summary of Potential Effects of Recommend Plan Significant

adverse effect*

Insignificant effects due to mitigation**

Insignificant effects

Resource unaffected by action

Aesthetics ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Air quality ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Aquatic resources/wetlands ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Invasive species ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Fish and wildlife habitat ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Threatened/Endangered species ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Historic properties ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

1 40 CFR 1505.2(b) requires a summary of the alternatives considered. 2 40 CFR 1505.2(b) requires identification of which alternative is the environmentally preferable alternative.

3

Significant adverse effect*

Insignificant effects due to mitigation**



Other cultural resources ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Floodplains ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Hazardous, toxic & radioactive waste ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Hydrology ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Land use ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Navigation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Noise levels ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Public infrastructure ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Socio-economics ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Environmental justice ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Soils ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Tribal trust resources ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Water quality ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Climate change ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ADD OTHER RESOURCES OR DELETE THIS ROW AS NEEDED

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

ADD SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS OF ANY RESORUCES MARKED AS “SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS”. INCLUDE A REFERENCE TO THE APPROPRIATE SECTION OF THE IFR/EIS.

All practicable means to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects were analyzed and incorporated into the recommended plan. Best management practices (BMPs) as detailed in the IFR/EIS will be implemented to minimize impacts.3 ADD SUMMARY OF AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES TAKEN INCLUDING BMPs AND NEPA MITIGATION, ENSURING MITIGATION FOR ANY RESOURCES MARKED AS “INSIGNIFICANT EFFECTS DUE TO MITIGATION” ARE DISCUSED. INCLUDE A REFERENCE TO THE APPROPRIATE SECTION OF THE IFR/EIS. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION: Choose the appropriate paragraph depending on whether compensatory mitigation is required or not.

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIRED: The recommended plan will result in unavoidable adverse impacts to . To mitigate for these

unavoidable adverse impacts, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will INSERT MORE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF MITIGATION PLAN FROM THE BULLETED LIST IN THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROVIDE A REFERENCE TO THE APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE EIS. DESCRIBE ONLY THOSE MITIGATION ACTIONS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THE PROJECT OR WERE INCLUDED TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE OR AGENCY CONCERN. THESE 3 40 CFR 1505.2(C) all practicable means to avoid and minimize environmental harm are adopted.

4

MEASURES SHOULD ALSO BE CALLED OUT IN THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION NOT REQUIRED

No compensatory mitigation is required as part of the recommended plan. PUBLIC REVIEW:

Public review of the draft IFR/EIS was completed on . All comments submitted during the public comment period were responded to in the Final IFR/EIS. IF STATE AND AGENCY REVIEW (SAR) IS REQUIRED, INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES. A 30-day waiting period and state and agency review of the Final IFR/EIS was completed on .4 . OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS: For documentation of other environmental and cultural compliance complete the appropriate paragraph(s) below and delete those that are not applicable. Alternatively, cut and paste text from the IFR/EIS that briefly summarizes compliance with each of the applicable requirements. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT FORMAL CONSULTATION: Pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the PICK THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY issued a biological opinion, dated , that determined that the recommended plan will not jeopardize the continued existence of the following federally listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat: . All terms and conditions, conservation measures, and reasonable and prudent measures resulting from these consultations will be implemented in order to minimize take of endangered species and avoid jeopardizing the species. INFORMAL CONSULTATION: Pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined that the recommended plan may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the following federally listed species or their designated critical habitat: . The concurred with the Corps’ determination on . NO EFFECT LANGUAGE: Pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined that the recommended plan will have no effect on federally listed species or their designated critical habitat. NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT HISTORIC PROPERTIES ADVERSELY AFFECTED: Pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined that historic properties may be adversely affected by

4 40 CFR 1506.10(b) requires the EIS to be publically available/30-day waiting period prior to the ROD being signed.

5

the recommended plan. The Corps and the entered into a , dated . IF ADVERSE IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT BRIEFLY DESCRIBE WHAT WILL BE DONE UNDER THE AGREEMENT. All terms and conditions resulting from the agreement shall be implemented in order to minimize adverse impacts to historic properties.5 HISTORIC PROPERTIES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTED: Pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined that historic properties would not be adversely affected by the recommended plan. The concurred with the determination on . NO EFFECT TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES: Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined that the recommended plan has no effect on historic properties. CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 404(B)(1) COMPLIANCE Pursuant to the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended, all discharges of dredged or fill material associated with the recommended plan have been found to be compliant with the section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230). The Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines evaluation is found in of the IFR/EIS. CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 401 COMPLIANCE: 401 WQC OBTAINED: A water quality certification pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act was obtained from the NAME OF ISSUING AUTHORITY. All conditions of the water quality certification shall be implemented in order to minimize adverse impacts to water quality. 401 WQC WAIVED: The NAME OF ISSUING AUTHORITY has waived water quality certification pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act, as follows. DESCRIBE DOCUMENTATION OF THE WAIVER OF THE WQC. 401 WQC PENDING: A water quality certification pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act will obtained from the NAME OF ISSUING AUTHORITY prior to construction. In a letter dated DATE OF LETTER, the STATE, TERRITORY, OR TRIBE stated that the recommended plan appears to meet the requirements of the water quality certification, pending confirmation based on information to be developed during the pre-construction engineering and design phase. All conditions of the water quality certification will be implemented in order to minimize adverse impacts to water quality. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT CZMA CONSISTENCY ISSUED: A determination of consistency with the Coastal Zone Management program pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 was obtained from the . All conditions of the consistency determination shall be implemented in order to minimize adverse impacts to the coastal zone. CZMA CONSISTENCY WAIVED: 5 Required by 36 CFR 800.6(c)(3) meeting the terms and conditions of the MOA

6

A determination of consistency with the Coastal Zone Management program was provided to on pursuant to Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Due to the lack of response of within six months of the Corps’ submittal, consistency is presumed under 16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3)(A). CZMA CONSISTENCY PENDING: A determination of consistency with the Coastal Zone Management program pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 will be obtained from the prior to construction. In a letter dated DATE OF LETTER, the STATE OR TERRITORY NAME stated that the recommended plan appears to be consistent with state Coastal Zone Management plans, pending confirmation based on information to be developed during the pre-construction engineering and design phase. All conditions of the consistency determination shall be implemented in order to minimize adverse impacts to the coastal zone. EXECUTIVE ORDER 12114 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ABROAD OF MAJOR FEDERAL ACTIONS6 The recommended plan may result in environmental effects within . In accordance with E.O. 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, 4 January 1979, the Corps consulted with . . OTHER SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE:

All applicable environmental laws have been considered and coordination with appropriate agencies and officials has been completed. ADD BRIEF DISCUSSION IF OTHER SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WERE RAISED RELATIVE TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND/OR EOs SUCH AS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, CLEAN AIR ACT, PRIME OR UNIQUE FARMLANDS, MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT, ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT, WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS, OR COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT.

6 33 CFR 230.25(b) – compliance with EO 12114 Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions

7

FINDING Technical, environmental, criteria used in the formulation of alternative plans were those specified in the Water Resources Council’s 1983 Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. All applicable laws, executive orders, regulations, and local government plans were considered in evaluation of alternatives.7 Based on the review of these evaluations, I find that benefits of the recommended plan outweigh the costs and any adverse effects. This Record of Decision completes the National Environmental Policy Act process.8 ___________________________ ___________________________________ Date NAME OF ASA(CW) Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)

7 40 CFR 1505.2(B) requires identification of relevant factors including any essential to national policy which were balanced in the agency decision. 8 40 CFR 1505.2 requires clearly stating the NEPA decision.

TEMPLATE VERSION: 11 April 2019

1

DIRECTIONS: Black text denotes required language. Blue text denotes where project specific information is required. Some sections are drop-down menus with required options available to select. Green text denotes directions or guidance to completing the document and should be deleted in final project specific decision document. Upon opening new template, click “File” and “Save As” to immediate save the decision document to project specific folder. HQUSACE Office of Water Policy Review and Office of Counsel need to be consulted on when it is appropriate to deviate from the required template language. Additional language to meet project specific needs may be added as appropriate.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

PROJECT NAME - THE FR/EA, CHIEFS REPORT, AND FONSI SHOULD HAVE IDENTICAL

NAMES GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION SUCH AS CITY/COUNTY, STATE

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DISTRICT NAME District (Corps) has conducted an environmental analysis in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. The final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment (IFR/EA) dated DATE OF IFR/EA, for the PROJECT NAME addresses PROJECT PURPOSE(S) opportunities and feasibility in the GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION SUCH AS CITY/COUNTY, STATE. The final recommendation is contained in the report of the Chief of Engineers, dated DATE OF CHIEF’S REPORT.

The Final IFR/EA, incorporated herein by reference, evaluated various alternatives that

would DESCRIBE STUDY GOALS (e.g., reduce flood risk) in the study area. The recommended plan is the SELECT APPLICABLE OPTION FROM DROP DOWN BOX and includes:

• ENTER PROJECT DESCRIPTION HERE. MATCH THE CHIEF’S REPORT

AND PHRASE AS BULLET POINTS E.G. CONSTRUCT A LEVEE “Y” FEET LONG, DREDGE “X” CUBIC YARDS

• DELETE THIS BULLET IF FISH & WILDLIFE MITIGATION IS NOT REQUIRED

Implementation of any required environmental compensatory mitigation and associated monitoring and mitigation area adaptive management plan, when applicable and appropriate. Monitoring will continue until any required mitigation has been determined to be successful based on the identified criteria within the


2

TITLE OF MONITORING AND MITIGATION AREA ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN (IF SUCH A PLAN IS REQUIRED) included in Appendix XX. Monitoring is expected to last no more than 10 years. Mitigation monitoring time needs to be scaled to the minimum necessary to reach ecological success and is not to exceed 10 years. Compensatory mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plans will be developed in consultation with the non-Federal Sponsor during plan formulation.

In addition to a “no action” plan, INSERT APPLICABLE NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVES alternatives were evaluated.1 The alternatives included BRIEFLY LIST THE FINAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED AND COMPARED AND REFER TO THE SECTION OF THE EA THAT DISCUSSES ALTERNATIVE FORMULATION AND SELECTION. (OPTIONAL) IF NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE(S) CONSIDERED AND NOT SELECTED, BRIEFLY DISCUSS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE REASON WHY. IF THE LPP IS RECOMMENDED, BRIEFLY DISCUSS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS BETWEEN THE LPP AND NED/NER PLAN (I.E., IS THE LPP SIMILAR< LESS THAN OR GREATER IMPACT THAN NED/NER PLAN) AND HOW THAT AFFECTED THE LPP SELECTION. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS: For all alternatives, the potential effects were evaluated, as appropriate. A summary assessment of the potential effects of the recommended plan are listed in Table 1: This list is to capture typical resource categories that may be evaluated as part of a NEPA document and is not intended to be a minimum list or an exhaustive list. The list of resources may be adjusted (deleted or added) based on NEPA scoping results and the primary analysis in the EA. *Insignificant effects as a result of mitigation: For any resources that fall in this category, a description of the required mitigation shall be included in the paragraph following the table.

Table 1: Summary of Potential Effects of the Recommended Plan Insignificant

effects Insignificant effects as a result of mitigation*


Aesthetics ☐ ☐ ☐ Air quality ☐ ☐ ☐ Aquatic resources/wetlands ☐ ☐ ☐ Invasive species ☐ ☐ ☐ Fish and wildlife habitat ☐ ☐ ☐ Threatened/Endangered species/critical habitat ☐ ☐ ☐ Historic properties ☐ ☐ ☐

1 40 CFR 1505.2(b) requires a summary of the alternatives considered.


3


Insignificant effects as a result of mitigation*


Other cultural resources ☐ ☐ ☐ Floodplains ☐ ☐ ☐ Hazardous, toxic & radioactive waste ☐ ☐ ☐ Hydrology ☐ ☐ ☐ Land use ☐ ☐ ☐ Navigation ☐ ☐ ☐ Noise levels ☐ ☐ ☐ Public infrastructure ☐ ☐ ☐ Socio-economics ☐ ☐ ☐ Environmental justice ☐ ☐ ☐ Soils ☐ ☐ ☐ Tribal trust resources ☐ ☐ ☐ Water quality ☐ ☐ ☐ Climate change ☐ ☐ ☐ ADD OTHER RESOURCES OR DELETE THIS ROW AS NEEDED

☐ ☐ ☐

All practicable and appropriate means to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects were analyzed and incorporated into the recommended plan. Best management practices (BMPs) as detailed in the IFR/EA will be implemented, if appropriate, to minimize impacts.2 ADD SUMMARY OF AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES TAKEN INCLUDING BMPs AND NEPA MITIGATION, ENSURING MITIGATION FOR ANY RESOURCES MARKED AS “INSIGNIFICANT EFFECTS DUE TO MITIGATION” ARE DISCUSED. INCLUDE A REFERENCE TO THE APPROPRIATE SECTION OF THE IFR/EA COMPENSATORY MITIGATION: Choose the appropriate paragraph depending on whether compensatory mitigation is required or not.

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIRED: The recommended plan will result in unavoidable adverse impacts to . To mitigate for these

unavoidable adverse impacts, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will COMPENSATORY MITIGATION NOT REQUIRED

No compensatory mitigation is required as part of the recommended plan.

2 40 CFR 1505.2(C) all practicable means to avoid and minimize environmental harm are adopted.


4

PUBLIC REVIEW: If a Draft EA/FONSI was circulated for public review pursuant to 33 CFR 230.11, confirm completion of the review and consideration of any submitted comments using the following paragraph:

Public review of the draft IFR/EA and FONSI was completed on DATE DRAFT EA AND FONSI REVIEW PERIOD ENDED. All comments submitted during the public review period were responded to in the Final IFR/EA and FONSI. IF STATE AND AGENCY REVIEW (SAR) IS REQUIRED, INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES. A 30-day state and agency review of the Final IFR/EA was completed on . . OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS: For documentation of other environmental and cultural compliance complete the appropriate paragraph(s) below and delete those that are not applicable. Alternatively, cut and paste text from the EA that briefly summarizes compliance with each of the applicable requirements. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT FORMAL CONSULTATION: Pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the PICK THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY issued a biological opinion, dated , that determined that the recommended plan will not jeopardize the continued existence of the following federally listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat: LIST ALL SPECIES INCLUDED IN THE FORMAL CONSULTATION. All terms and conditions, conservation measures, and reasonable and prudent alternatives and measures resulting from these consultations shall be implemented in order to minimize take of endangered species and avoid jeopardizing the species. INFORMAL CONSULATION: Pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined that the recommended plan may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the following federally listed species or their designated critical habitat: LIST ALL SPECIES INCLUDED IN INFORMAL CONSULTATION. The concurred with the Corps’ determination on NO EFFECT: Pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined that the recommended plan will have no effect on federally listed species or their designated critical habitat. NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT HISTORIC PROPERTIES ADVERSELY AFFECTED: Pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined that historic properties may be adversely affected by the recommended plan. The Corps and the ENTER THE APPROPRIATE SHPO(S) OR


5

THPO(S) entered into a , dated . All terms and conditions resulting from the agreement shall be implemented in order to minimize adverse impacts to historic properties.3 HISTORIC PROPERTIES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTED: Pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined that historic properties would not be adversely affected by the recommended plan. The ENTER THE APPROPRIATE SHPO OR THPO concurred with the determination on . NO EFFECT TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES: Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined that the recommended plan has no effect on historic properties. CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 404(B)(1) COMPLIANCE Pursuant to the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended, the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with the recommended plan has been found to be compliant with section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230). The Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines evaluation is found in ENTER SECTION OR APPENDIX WITH 404(B)(1) EVALUATION of the IFR/EA. CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 401 COMPLIANCE: 401 WQC OBTAINED: A water quality certification pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act was obtained from the NAME OF ISSUING AUTHORITY. All conditions of the water quality certification shall be implemented in order to minimize adverse impacts to water quality. 401 WQC WAIVED: The NAME OF ISSUING AUTHORITY has waived water quality certification pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act, as follows. DESCRIBE DOCUMENTATION OF THE WAIVER OF THE WQC. 401 WQC PENDING: A water quality certification pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act will obtained from the NAME OF ISSUING AUTHORITY prior to construction. In a letter dated , the STATE, TERRITORY, OR TRIBE stated that the recommended plan appears to meet the requirements of the water quality certification, pending confirmation based on information to be developed during the pre-construction engineering and design phase. All conditions of the water quality certification will be implemented in order to minimize adverse impacts to water quality. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT CZMA CONSISTENCY ISSUED:

3 Required by 36 CFR 800.6(c)(3) meeting the terms and conditions of the MOA4 33 CFR 230.25(b) – compliance with EO 12114 Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions


6

A determination of consistency with the STATE OR TERRITORY NAME Coastal Zone Management program pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 was obtained from the NAME OF CZM ISSUING AUTHORITY. All conditions of the consistency determination shall be implemented in order to minimize adverse impacts to the coastal zone. CZMA CONSISTENCY WAIVED: A determination of consistency with the STATE OR TERRITORY NAME Coastal Zone Management program was provided to NAME OF CZM ISSUING AUTHORITY on pursuant to Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Due to the lack of response of STATE OR TERRITORY NAME within six months of the Corps’ submittal, consistency is presumed under 16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3)(A). CZMA CONSISTENCY PENDING: A determination of consistency with the STATE OR TERRITORY NAME Coastal Zone Management program pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 will be obtained from the NAME OF CZM ISSUING AUTHORITY prior to construction. In a letter dated DATE OF LETTER, the STATE OR TERRITORY NAME stated that the recommended plan appears to be consistent with state Coastal Zone Management plans, pending confirmation based on information to be developed during the pre-construction engineering and design phase. All conditions of the consistency determination shall be implemented in order to minimize adverse impacts to the coastal zone. EXECUTIVE ORDER 12114 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ABROAD OF MAJOR FEDERAL ACTIONS4 The recommended plan may result in environmental effects within NAME OF FOREIGN NATION(S) AFFECTED. In accordance with E.O. 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, 4 January 1979, the Corps consulted with NAME OF AGENCY(IES) SUCH AS DEPARTMENT OF STATE, INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION, OR INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION. OTHER SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE:

All applicable environmental laws have been considered and coordination with appropriate agencies and officials has been completed. ADD BRIEF DISCUSSION IF OTHER ISSUES WERE RAISED RELATIVE TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND/OR EOs SUCH AS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, CLEAN AIR ACT, PRIME OR UNIQUE FARMLANDS, MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT, ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT, WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS, OR COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT. FINDING Technical, environmental, criteria used in the formulation of alternative plans were those specified in the Water Resources Council’s 1983 Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. All applicable laws, executive orders, regulations, and local government plans were considered in evaluation 4 33 CFR 230.25(b) – compliance with EO 12114 Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions


7

of alternatives.5 Based on this report, the reviews by other Federal, State and local agencies, Tribes, input of the public, and the review by my staff, it is my determination that the recommended plan would not cause significant adverse effects on the quality of the human environment; therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.6 ___________________________ ___________________________________ Date NAME RANK, Corps of Engineers District Commander

5 40 CFR 1505.2(B) requires identification of relevant factors including any essential to national policy which were balanced in the agency decision. 6 40 CFR 1508.13 stated the FONSI shall include an EA or a summary of it and shall note any other environmental documents related to it. If an assessment is included, the FONSI need not repeat any of the discussion in the assessment but may incorporate by reference.