1 

DRAFT DECISION DOCUMENT 

NATIONWIDE PERMIT 48

This document discusses the factors considered by the Corps of Engineers (Corps) during 

the issuance process for this Nationwide Permit (NWP). This document contains: (1) the 

public interest review required by Corps regulations at 33 CFR 320.4(a)(1) and (2); (2) a 

discussion of the environmental considerations necessary to comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act; and (3) the impact analysis specified in Subparts C through F of 

the 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230). This evaluation of the NWP includes a 

discussion of compliance with applicable laws, consideration of public comments, an 

alternatives analysis, and a general assessment of individual and cumulative impacts, 

including the general potential effects on each of the public interest factors specified at 33 

CFR 320.4(a). 

1.0 Text of the Nationwide Permit 

Existing Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture Activities. Discharges of dredged or fill 

material in waters of the United States or structures or work in navigable waters of the 

United States necessary for the continued operation and/or expansion of existing 

commercial shellfish aquaculture operations, including the installation of buoys, floats, 

racks, trays, nets, lines, tubes, containers, and other structures. This NWP also authorizes 

discharges of dredged or fill material necessary for shellfish seeding, rearing, cultivating, 

transplanting, and harvesting activities. Rafts and other floating structures must be securely 

anchored and clearly marked. This NWP does not authorize: 

(a) The cultivation of species not previously cultivated in the waterbody or of an aquatic 

nuisance species as defined in the Nonidigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control 

Act of 1990; or, 

(b) Attendant features such as docks, piers, boat ramps, stockpiles, staging areas, or the 

deposition of shell material back into waters of the United States as waste. 

This NWP does not authorize new commercial shellfish aquaculture operations, except for 

expansions of existing operations. 

Notification: The permittee must submit a pre-construction notification to the district 

engineer if: (1) the project area is greater than 100 acres; or (2) there is any reconfiguration 

of the aquaculture activity, such as relocating existing operations into portions of the project 

area not previously used for aquaculture activities; or (3) there is a change in culture 

methods (e.g., from bottom culture to off-bottom culture); or (4) dredge harvesting, tilling, 

or harrowing is conducted in areas inhabited by submerged aquatic vegetation; or, (5) there 

is an expansion to the project area. (See general condition 30.) 

In addition to the information required by paragraph (b) of general condition 30, the preconstruction notification must also include the following information: (a) the size of the 

project area, plus any proposed expansion (in acres); (b) the corner latitude and longitude 
2 

coordinates of the project area and the expansion area; (c) a brief description of the culture 

and harvest method(s), including plans for rotating production within a project area; (d) the 

name(s) of the cultivated species; (e) whether canopy predator nets are being used; and, (f) a 

description of the composition of the substrate material and vegetation. (Sections 10 and 

404) 

Note 1: The permittee should notify the applicable U.S. Coast Guard office regarding the 

project. 

Note 2: The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 defines 

“aquatic nuisance species” as “a nonindigenous species that threatens the diversity or 

abundance of native species or the ecological stability of infested waters, or commercial, 

agricultural, aquacultural, or recreational activities dependent on such waters.” 

1.1 Requirements 

General conditions of the NWPs are in the Federal Register notice announcing the issuance 

of this NWP. Pre-construction notification requirements, additional conditions, limitations, 

and restrictions are in 33 CFR part 330. 

1.2 Statutory Authority 

 Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) 

 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) 

1.3 Compliance with Related Laws (33 CFR 320.3) 

1.3.1 General 

NWPs are a type of general permit designed to authorize certain activities that have minimal 

adverse effects on the aquatic environment and generally comply with the related laws cited 

in 33 CFR 320.3. Activities that result in more than minimal adverse effects on the aquatic 

environment, individually or cumulatively, cannot be authorized by NWPs. Individual 

review of each activity authorized by an NWP will not normally be performed, except when 

pre-construction notification to the Corps is required or when an applicant requests 

verification that an activity complies with an NWP. Potential adverse impacts and 

compliance with the laws cited in 33 CFR 320.3 are controlled by the terms and conditions 

of each NWP, regional and case-specific conditions, and the review process that is 

undertaken prior to the issuance of NWPs. 

The evaluation of this NWP, and related documentation, considers compliance with each of 

the following laws, where applicable: Sections 401, 402, and 404 of the Clean Water Act; 

Section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended; Section 302 of 

the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended; the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; the Migratory Marine 

Game-Fish Act; the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Federal Power Act of 1920, as 
3 

amended; the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; the Interstate Land Sales Full 

Disclosure Act; the Endangered Species Act; the Deepwater Port Act of 1974; the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act of 1972; Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; the Ocean 

Thermal Energy Act of 1980; the National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984; the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation and Management Act, the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act; and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In addition, compliance of the 

NWP with other Federal requirements, such as Executive Orders and Federal regulations 

addressing issues such as floodplains, essential fish habitat, and critical resource waters is 

considered. 

1.3.2 Terms and Conditions 

Many NWPs have notification requirements that trigger case-by-case review of certain 

activities. Two NWP general conditions require case-by-case review of all activities that 

may adversely affect Federally-listed endangered or threatened species or historic properties 

(i.e., general conditions 19 and 20). General condition 17 restricts the use of NWPs for 

activities that are located in Federally-designated wild and scenic rivers. None of the NWPs 

authorize artificial reefs. General condition 27 prohibits the use of an NWP with other 

NWPs, except when the acreage loss of waters of the United States does not exceed the 

highest specified acreage limit of the NWPs used to authorize the single and complete 

project. 

In some cases, activities authorized by an NWP may require other federal, state, or local 

authorizations. Examples of such cases include, but are not limited to: activities that are in 

marine sanctuaries or affect marine sanctuaries or marine mammals; the ownership, 

construction, location, and operation of ocean thermal conversion facilities or deep water 

ports beyond the territorial seas; activities that result in discharges of dredged or fill material 

into waters of the United States and require Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality 

certification; or activities in a state operating under a coastal zone management program 

approved by the Secretary of Commerce under the Coastal Zone Management Act. In such 

cases, a provision of the NWPs states that an NWP does not obviate the need to obtain other 

authorizations required by law. [33 CFR 330.4(b)(2)] 

Additional safeguards include provisions that allow the Chief of Engineers, division 

engineers, and/or district engineers to: assert discretionary authority and require an 

individual permit for a specific activity; modify NWPs for specific activities by adding 

special conditions on a case-by-case basis; add conditions on a regional or nationwide basis 

to certain NWPs; or take action to suspend or revoke an NWP or NWP authorization for 

activities within a region or state. Regional conditions are imposed to protect important 

regional concerns and resources. [33 CFR 330.4(e) and 330.5] 

1.3.3 Review Process 

The analyses in this document and the coordination that was undertaken prior to the 

issuance of the NWP fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and other acts promulgated to protect the 
4 

quality of the environment. 

All NWPs that authorize activities which may result in discharges of dredged or fill material 

into waters of the United States require water quality certification. NWPs that authorize 

activities within, or affecting land or water uses within a state that has a Federally-approved 

coastal zone management program, must also be certified as consistent with the state’s 

program. The procedures to ensure that the NWPs comply with these laws are described in 

33 CFR 330.4(c) and (d), respectively. 

1.4 Public Comment and Response 

For a summary of the public comments received in response to the February 16, 2011, 

Federal Register notice, refer to the preamble in the Federal Register notice announcing the 

reissuance of this NWP. The substantive comments received in response to the February 16, 

2011, Federal Register notice were used to improve the NWP by changing NWP terms and 

limits, notification requirements, and/or NWP general conditions, as necessary. 

The Corps proposed to modify this NWP by removing the reporting requirement for 

activities that do not require pre-construction notification. The Corps also proposed to add 

terms prohibiting the cultivation of an aquatic nuisance species, as defined by the NonIndigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. The Corps proposed to 

authorize the expansion of commercial shellfish aquaculture operations. The Corps also 

solicited public comment on whether the NWP should be modified to authorize new 

commercial shellfish aquaculture activities or new NWP should be issued to authorize such 

activities. 

[This section to be completed for the final NWP.] 

2.0 Alternatives 

This evaluation includes an analysis of alternatives based on the requirements of NEPA, 

which requires a more expansive review than the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) 

Guidelines. The alternatives discussed below are based on an analysis of the potential 

environmental impacts and impacts to the Corps, Federal, Tribal, and state resource 

agencies, general public, and prospective permittees. Since the consideration of off-site 

alternatives under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines does not apply to specific projects authorized by 

general permits, the alternatives analysis discussed below consists of a general NEPA 

alternatives analysis for the NWP. 

2.1 No Action Alternative (No Nationwide Permit) 

The no action alternative would not achieve one of the goals of the Corps Nationwide 

Permit Program, which is to reduce the regulatory burden on applicants for activities that 

result in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment, individually or cumulatively. 

The no action alternative would also reduce the Corps ability to pursue the current level of 

review for other activities that have greater adverse effects on the aquatic environment, 
5 

including activities that require individual permits as a result of the Corps exercising its 

discretionary authority under the NWP program. The no action alternative would also 

reduce the Corps ability to conduct compliance actions. 

If this NWP is not available, substantial additional resources would be required for the 

Corps to evaluate these minor activities through the individual permit process, and for the 

public and Federal, Tribal, and state resource agencies to review and comment on the large 

number of public notices for these activities. In a considerable majority of cases, when the 

Corps publishes public notices for proposed activities that result in minimal adverse effects 

on the aquatic environment, the Corps typically does not receive responses to these public 

notices from either the public or Federal, Tribal, and state resource agencies. Another 

important benefit of the NWP program that would not be achieved through the no action 

alternative is the incentive for project proponents to design their projects so that those 

activities meet the terms and conditions of an NWP. The Corps believes the NWPs have 

significantly reduced adverse effects to the aquatic environment because most applicants 

modify their projects to comply with the NWPs and avoid the delays and costs typically 

associated with the individual permit process. 

In the absence of this NWP, Department of the Army (DA) authorization in the form of 

another general permit (i.e., regional or programmatic general permits, where available) or 

individual permits would be required. Corps district offices may develop regional general 

permits if an NWP is not available, but this is an impractical and inefficient method for 

activities with minimal individual or cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic environment 

that are conducted across the Nation. Not all districts would develop these regional general 

permits for a variety of reasons. The regulated public, especially those companies that 

conduct work in more than one Corps district, would be adversely affected by the 

widespread use of regional general permits because of the greater potential for lack of 

consistency and predictability in the authorization of similar activities with minimal adverse 

effects on the aquatic environment. These companies would incur greater costs in their 

efforts to comply with different regional general permit requirements between Corps 

districts. Nevertheless, in some states Corps districts have issued programmatic general 

permits to take the place of this and other NWPs. However, this approach only works in 

states with regulatory programs comparable to the Corps Regulatory Program. 

2.2 National Modification Alternatives 

Since the Corps Nationwide Permit program began in 1977, the Corps has continuously 

strived to develop NWPs that authorize activities that result only in minimal adverse effects 

on the aquatic environment, individually or cumulatively. Every five years the Corps 

reevaluates the NWPs during the reissuance process, and may modify an NWP to address 

concerns for the aquatic environment. Utilizing collected data and institutional knowledge 

concerning activities authorized by the Corps regulatory program, the Corps reevaluates the 

potential impacts of activities authorized by NWPs. The Corps also uses substantive public 

comments on proposed NWPs to assess the expected impacts. This NWP was developed to 

authorize structures, work, and discharges for the continued operation of existing 

commercial shellfish aquaculture activities, provided those activities have minimal adverse 
6 

effects on the aquatic environment. The Corps has considered suggested changes to the 

terms and conditions of this NWP, as well as modifying or adding NWP general conditions, 

as discussed in the preamble of the Federal Register notice announcing the proposed 

reissuance of this NWP. 

In the February 16, 2011, Federal Register notice, the Corps requested comments on the 

proposed reissuance of this NWP. The Corps proposed to modify this NWP by removing 

the reporting requirement for activities that do not require pre-construction notification. The 

Corps also proposed to add terms prohibiting the cultivation of an aquatic nuisance species, 

as defined by the Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. 

The Corps proposed to authorize the expansion of commercial shellfish aquaculture 

operations. The Corps also solicited public comment on whether the NWP should be 

modified to authorize new commercial shellfish aquaculture activities or new NWP should 

be issued to authorize such activities. 

2.3 Regional Modification Alternatives 

An important aspect for the NWPs is the emphasis on regional conditions to address 

differences in aquatic resource functions, services, and values across the nation. All Corps 

divisions and districts are expected to add regional conditions to the NWPs to enhance 

protection of the aquatic environment and address local concerns. Division engineers can 

also revoke an NWP if the use of that NWP results in more than minimal adverse effects on 

the aquatic environment, especially in high value or unique wetlands and other waters. 

Corps divisions and districts also monitor and analyze the cumulative adverse effects of the 

NWPs, and if warranted, further restrict or prohibit the use of the NWPs to ensure that the 

NWPs do not authorize activities that result in more than minimal adverse effects on the 

aquatic environment. To the extent practicable, division and district engineers will use 

regulatory automated information systems and institutional knowledge about the typical 

adverse effects of activities authorized by NWPs, as well as substantive public comments, to 

assess the individual and cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic environment resulting 

from regulated activities. 

2.4 Case-specific On-site Alternatives 

Although the terms and conditions for this NWP have been established at the national level 

to authorize most activities that have minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment, 

division and district engineers have the authority to impose case-specific special conditions 

on an NWP authorization to ensure that the authorized work will result in minimal adverse 

effects. 

General condition 22 requires the permittee to minimize and avoid impacts to waters of the 

United States to the maximum extent practicable on the project site. Off-site alternatives 

cannot be considered for activities authorized by NWPs. During the evaluation of a preconstruction notification, the district engineer may determine that additional avoidance and 

minimization is practicable. The district engineer may also condition the NWP 
7 

authorization to require mitigation to reduce impacts to waters of the United States and 

ensure that the net adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal. As another 

example, the NWP authorization can be conditioned to prohibit the permittee from 

conducting the work during certain times of the year to protect specific resources. If the 

proposed work will result in more than minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment, 

then the district engineer will exercise discretionary authority and require an individual 

permit. Discretionary authority can be asserted where there are concerns for the aquatic 

environment, including high value aquatic habitats. The individual permit review process 

requires a project-specific alternatives analysis, including the consideration of off-site 

alternatives, and a public interest review. 

3.0 Affected Environment 

The affected environment consists of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The total land area 

in the contiguous United States is approximately 1,930,000,000 acres (Dahl 2006). Alaska 

is 366,050,000 acres in size and Hawaii is 4,110,720 acres in size (source: 

http://www.usgs.gov/state/ , accessed July 25, 2005). Terrestrial ecosystems comprise more 

than 93 percent of the contiguous United States and aquatic ecosystems make up the 

remainder (Dahl 2006). In the contiguous United States, approximately 67 percent of the 

land is privately owned, 31 percent is held by the United States government, and two 

percent is owned by state or local governments (Dale et al. 2000). Developed non-federal 

lands comprise 4.4 percent of the total land area of the contiguous United States (Dale et al. 

2000). 

The Federal Geographic Data Committee has established the Cowardin system developed by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Cowardin et al. 1979) as the national standard 

for wetland mapping, monitoring, and data reporting (Dahl 2006) (see also 

http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standards-projects/wetlands/fgdc-announce , 

accessed April 3, 2006). The Cowardin system is a hierarchical system which describes 

various wetland and deepwater habitats, using structural characteristics such as vegetation, 

substrate, and water regime as defining characteristics. Wetlands are defined by vegetation 

type, soils, and flooding frequency. Deepwater habitats are permanently flooded areas 

located below the wetland boundary. In rivers and lakes, deepwater habitats are usually 

more than two meters deep. 

There are five major systems in the Cowardin classification scheme: marine, estuarine, 

riverine, lacustrine, and palustrine (Cowardin et al. 1979). The marine system consists of 

open ocean on the continental shelf and its high energy coastline. The estuarine system 

consists of tidal deepwater habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually partially 

enclosed by land, but may have open connections to open ocean waters. The riverine 

system generally consists of all wetland and deepwater habitats located within a river 

channel. The lacustrine system generally consists of wetland and deepwater habitats located 

within a topographic depression or dammed river channel, with a total area greater than 20 

acres. The palustrine system generally includes all non-tidal wetlands and wetlands located 

in tidal areas with salinities less than 0.5 parts per thousand; it also includes ponds less than 
8 

20 acres in size. Approximately 95 percent of wetlands in the conterminous United States 

are freshwater wetlands, and the remaining 5 percent are estuarine or marine wetlands (Dahl 

2006). 

The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-645) requires the USFWS 

to submit wetland status and trends reports to Congress (Dahl 2006). The latest status and 

trends report, which covers the period of 1998 to 2004, is summarized in Table 3.1. 

Table 3.1. Estimated aquatic resource acreages in the conterminous United States in 

2004 (Dahl 2006). 

Aquatic Habitat Category 

Estimated Area 

in 2004 

(acres) 

Marine 128,600 

Estuarine intertidal non-vegetated 600,000 

Estuarine intertidal vegetated 4,571,700 

All intertidal waters and wetlands 5,300,300 

Palustrine non-vegetated 6,633,900 

Palustrine vegetated 95,819,800 

 Palustrine emergent wetlands 26,147,000 

 Palustrine forested wetlands 52,031,400 

 Palustrine shrub wetlands 17,641,400 

All palustrine aquatic habitats 102,453,700 

Lacustrine deepwater habitats 16,773,400 

Riverine deepwater habitats 6,813,300 

Estuarine subtidal habitats 17,717,800 

All aquatic habitats 149,058,500 

The acreage of lacustrine deepwater habitats does not include the open waters of Great 

Lakes (Dahl 2006). 

According to Hall et al. (1994), there are more than 204 million acres of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats in the State of Alaska, including approximately 174.7 million acres of 

wetlands. Wetlands and deepwater habitats comprise approximately 50.7 percent of the 

surface area in Alaska (Hall et al. 1994). 

The National Resources Inventory (NRI) is a statistical survey conducted by the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (2009) of natural resources on non-federal land in 

the United States. The NRCS defines non-federal land as privately owned lands, tribal and 

trust lands, and lands under the control of local and State governments. The land use 

determined by 2007 NRI is summarized in Table 3.2. The 2007 NRI estimates that there are 

110,671,500 acres of palustrine and estuarine wetlands on non-Federal land and water areas 

in the United States (NRCS 2009). The 2007 NRI estimates that there are 48,471,100 acres 
9 

of open waters on non-Federal land in the United States, including lacustrine, riverine, and 

marine habitats, as well as estuarine deepwater habitats. 

Table 3.2. The 2007 National Resources Inventory acreages for palustrine and 

estuarine wetlands on non-federal land, by land cover/use category (NRCS 

2009). 

National Resources Inventory Land Cover/Use Category 

Area of Palustrine and 

Estuarine Wetlands 

(acres) 

cropland, pastureland, and Conservation Reserve Program 

land 16,790,300 

forest land 66,043,100 

Rangeland 7,940,300 

other rural land 14,744,800 

developed land 1,571,900 

water area 3,581,100 

Total 110,671,500 

The land cover/use categories used by the 2007 NRI are defined below (NRCS 2009). 

Croplands are areas used to produce crops adapted for harvest. Pastureland is land managed 

for livestock grazing, through the production of introduced forage plants. Conservation 

Reserve Program land is under a Conservation Reserve Program contract. Forest land is 

comprised of at least 10 percent single stem woody plant species that will be at least 13 feet 

tall at maturity. Rangeland is land on which plant cover consists mostly of native grasses, 

herbaceous plants, or shrubs suitable for grazing or browsing, and introduced forage plant 

species. Other rural land consists of farmsteads and other farm structures, field windbreaks, 

marshland, and barren land. Developed land is comprised of large urban and built-up areas 

(i.e., urban and built-up areas 10 acres or more in size), small built-up areas (i.e., developed 

lands 0.25 to 10 acres in size) , and rural transportation land (e.g., roads, railroads, and 

associated rights-of-way outside urban and built-up areas). Water areas are comprised of 

waterbodies and streams that are permanent open waters. 

Leopold, Wolman, and Miller (1964) estimated that there are approximately 3,250,000 miles 

of river and stream channels in the United States. This estimate is based on an analysis of 

1:24,000 scale topographic maps, by stream order. This estimate does not include many 

small streams. Many small streams are not mapped on 1:24,000 scale U.S. Geological 

Survey topographic maps (Leopold 1994) or included in other analyses (Meyer and Wallace 

2001). In a study of stream mapping in the southeastern United States, only 20% of the 

stream network was mapped on 1:24,000 scale topographic maps, and nearly none of the 

observed intermittent or ephemeral streams were indicated on those maps (Hansen 2001). 

For a 1:24,000 scale topographic map, the smallest tributary found by using 10-foot contour 

interval has drainage area of 0.7 square mile and length of 1,500 feet, and smaller channels 

are common throughout the United States (Leopold 1994). Due to the difficulty in mapping 

small streams, there are no accurate estimates of the total number of river or stream miles in 
10 

the conterminous United States that may be classified as “waters of the United States.” 

The USFWS status and trends study does not assess the condition or quality of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats (Dahl 2006). The Nation’s aquatic resource base is underestimated by 

the USFWS status and trends study, the National Wetland Inventory (NWI), and studies that 

estimate the length or number of stream channels within watersheds (see above). The 2006 

status and trends study does not include Alaska and Hawaii. The underestimate by the status 

and trends study and the NWI results from the minimum size of wetlands detected through 

remote sensing techniques and the difficulty of identifying certain wetland types through 

those remote sensing techniques. The NWI maps do not show small or linear wetlands 

(Tiner 1997) that may be directly impacted by activities authorized by NWPs. For the latest 

USFWS status and trends study, most of the wetlands identified are larger than 2.5 acres, but 

the minimum size of detectable wetland varies by wetland type (Dahl 2006). Some wetland 

types less than one acre in size can be identified; the smallest wetland detected for the most 

recent status and trends report was 0.005 acre (Dahl 2006). Because of the limitations of 

remote sensing techniques, certain wetland types are not included in the USFWS status and 

trends study: seagrass beds, submerged aquatic vegetation, submerged reefs, certain types of 

forested wetlands, and emergent wetlands along the Pacific coast (Dahl 2006). Therefore, 

activities authorized by NWPs will adversely affect a smaller proportion of the Nation’s 

wetland base than indicated by the wetlands acreage estimates provided in the most recent 

status and trends report, or the NWI maps for a particular region. 

Not all of the Nation’s aquatic resources are subject to regulatory jurisdiction under Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the United States subject to Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act are defined at 33 CFR part 328. Some wetlands are not subject to Clean Water 

Act jurisdiction because they do not meet the criteria at Part 328. In its decision in Solid 

Waste County of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 

(2001), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Clean Water Act jurisdiction does not apply to 

isolated, intrastate, non-navigable waters based on their use as habitat for migratory birds. 

Tiner (2003) estimated that in some areas of the country, the proportion of wetlands that are 

geographically isolated, and may not be subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction is 

approximately 20 to 50 percent of the wetland area, and there are other areas where more 

than 50 percent of the wetlands are geographically isolated. Geographically isolated 

wetlands comprise a substantial proportion of the wetlands found in regions with arid, semiarid, and semi-humid climates, as well as areas with karst topography (Tiner 2003). 

However, it is difficult to determine from maps or aerial photographs whether wetlands are 

hydrologically isolated from other waters, because there may be small surface hydrologic 

connections that are not included on those maps or detected by those photographs (Tiner 

2003). The scope of waters subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction has also been affected by 

the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the consolidated cases of Rapanos v. U.S. and Carabell 

v. U.S., but there have been no formal studies to estimate the proportion of wetlands, 

streams, and other aquatic resources that may have been affected by that decision. 

This NWP authorizes activities in waters of the United States, including navigable waters. 

The waters in which this NWP would normally be used are the estuarine and marine systems 

of the Cowardin classification system. 
11 

Wetland functions are the biophysical processes that occur within a wetland (King et al. 

2000). Wetlands provide many functions, such as habitat for fish and shellfish, habitat for 

waterfowl and other wildlife, habitat for rare and endangered species, food production, plant 

production, flood conveyance, flood-peak reduction, flood storage, shoreline stabilization, 

water supply, ground water recharge, pollutant removal, sediment accretion, and nutrient 

uptake (NRC 1992). 

Functions provided by streams include sediment transport, water transport, transport of 

nutrients and detritus, habitat for many species of plants and animals (including endangered 

or threatened species), and maintenance of biodiversity (NRC 1992). Streams also provide 

hydrologic functions, nutrient cycling functions, food web support, and corridors for 

movement of aquatic organisms (Allan and Castillo 2007). 

Freshwater ecosystems provide services such as water for drinking, household uses, 

manufacturing, thermoelectric power generation, irrigation, and aquaculture; production of 

finfish, waterfowl, and shellfish; and non-extractive services, such as flood control, 

transportation, recreation (e.g., swimming and boating), pollution dilution, hydroelectric 

generation, wildlife habitat, soil fertilization, and enhancement of property values (Postel 

and Carpenter 1997). 

Marine ecosystems provide a number of ecosystem services, including fish production; 

materials cycling (e.g., nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur); transformation, 

detoxification, and sequestration of pollutants and wastes produced by humans; support of 

ocean-based recreation, tourism, and retirement industries; and coastal land development 

and valuation, including aesthetics related to living near the ocean (Peterson and Lubchenco 

1997). 

Activities authorized by this NWP will provide a wide variety of goods and services that are 

valued by society. For example, commercial shellfish aquaculture activities provide sources 

of protein and other nutrients to human populations. Commercial shellfish aquaculture 

activities can also produce other compounds that are used by society. 
12 

4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.1 General Evaluation Criteria 

This document contains a general assessment of the foreseeable effects of the individual 

activities authorized by this NWP and the anticipated cumulative effects of those activities. 

In the assessment of these individual and cumulative effects, the terms and limits of the 

NWP, notification requirements, and the standard NWP general conditions are considered. 

The supplementary documentation provided by division engineers will address how regional 

conditions affect the individual and cumulative effects of the NWP. 

The following evaluation comprises the NEPA analysis, the public interest review specified 

in 33 CFR 320.4(a)(1) and (2), and the impact analysis specified in Subparts C through F of 

the 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230). 

The issuance of an NWP is based on a general assessment of the effects on public interest 

and environmental factors that are likely to occur as a result of using this NWP to authorize 

activities in waters of the United States. As such, this assessment must be speculative or 

predictive in general terms. Since NWPs authorize activities across the nation, projects 

eligible for NWP authorization may be constructed in a wide variety of environmental 

settings. Therefore, it is difficult to predict all of the indirect impacts that may be associated 

with each activity authorized by an NWP. For example, the NWP that authorizes 25 cubic 

yard discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States may be used to 

fulfill a variety of project purposes. Indication that a factor is not relevant to a particular 

NWP does not necessarily mean that the NWP would never have an effect on that factor, but 

that it is a factor not readily identified with the authorized activity. Factors may be relevant, 

but the adverse effects on the aquatic environment are negligible, such as the impacts of a 

boat ramp on water level fluctuations or flood hazards. Only the reasonably foreseeable 

direct or indirect effects are included in the environmental assessment for this NWP. 

Division and district engineers will impose, as necessary, additional conditions on the NWP 

authorization or exercise discretionary authority to address locally important factors or to 

ensure that the authorized activity results in no more than minimal individual and 

cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic environment. In any case, adverse effects will be 

controlled by the terms, conditions, and additional provisions of the NWP. For example, 

Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation will be required for activities that may affect 

endangered or threatened species or critical habitat. 

4.2 Impact Analysis 

This NWP authorizes structures, work, and discharges of dredged or fill material into 

navigable waters of the United States for the continued operation of existing commercial 

shellfish aquaculture activities. This NWP does not authorize the expansion of the project 

area for the commercial shellfish aquaculture activity. 

Pre-construction notification is required if: (1) the project area is greater than 100 acres; or (2) 

there is any reconfiguration of the aquaculture activity, such as relocating existing operations 
13 

into portions of the project area not previously used for aquaculture activities; or (3) there is 

a change in species being cultivated; or (4) there is a change in culture methods (e.g., from 

bottom culture to off-bottom culture); or (5) dredge harvesting, tilling, or harrowing is 

conducted in areas inhabited by submerged aquatic vegetation. The pre-construction 

notification requirement allows district engineers to review proposed activities on a case-bycase basis to ensure that the adverse effects of those activities on the aquatic environment 

are minimal. If the district engineer determines that the adverse effects of a particular 

project are more than minimal after considering mitigation, then discretionary authority will 

be asserted and the applicant will be notified that another form of DA authorization, such as 

a regional general permit or individual permit, is required (see 33 CFR 330.4(e) and 330.5). 

Additional conditions can be placed on proposed activities on a regional or case-by-case 

basis to ensure that the work has minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. 

Regional conditioning of this NWP will be used to account for differences in aquatic 

resource functions, services, and values across the country, ensure that the NWP authorizes 

only those activities with minimal individual or cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic 

environment, and allow each Corps district to prioritize its workload based on where its 

efforts will best serve to protect the aquatic environment. Regional conditions can prohibit 

the use of an NWP in certain waters (e.g., high value waters or specific types of wetlands or 

waters), lower notification thresholds, or require pre-construction notification for all work in 

certain watersheds or types of waters. Specific NWPs can also be revoked on a geographic 

or watershed basis where the adverse effects resulting from the use of those NWPs are more 

than minimal. 

In high value waters, division and district engineers can: 1) prohibit the use of the NWP in 

those waters and require an individual permit or regional general permit; 2) impose an 

acreage limit on the NWP; 3) lower the notification threshold of the NWP to require 

notification for activities with smaller impacts in those waters; 4) require notification for all 

activities in those waters; 5) add regional conditions to the NWP to ensure that the adverse 

environmental effects are minimal; or 6) for those activities that require notification, add 

special conditions to NWP authorizations, such as compensatory mitigation requirements, to 

ensure that the adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal. NWPs can 

authorize activities in high value waters as long as the individual and cumulative adverse 

effects on the aquatic environment are minimal. 

The construction and use of fills for temporary access for construction may be authorized by 

NWP 33 or regional general permits issued by division or district engineers. The related 

work must meet the terms and conditions of the specified permit(s). If the discharge is 

dependent on portions of a larger project that require an individual permit, this NWP will 

not apply. [See 33 CFR 330.6(c) and (d)] 

4.3 Cumulative Impacts 

The Council on Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations define cumulative impact as: 

“the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 
14 

what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place 

over a period of time.” [See 40 CFR 1508.7.] The NEPA cumulative impacts analysis for an 

NWP includes Federal and non-Federal activities that affect the Nation’s wetlands, streams, 

and other aquatic resources, and is not limited to activities authorized by NWPs or other DA 

permits. The geographic scope of the cumulative impacts analysis is the United States, 

where the NWP can be used to authorize activities that require DA authorization. The 

temporal scope of the cumulative effects analysis includes past actions that have affected the 

Nation’s wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources, as well as present actions and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect aquatic resources. 

There are many activities that contribute to cumulative effects on wetlands, streams, and 

other aquatic resources in the United States, and alter the quantity and quality of those 

resources. Not all of those activities are regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Federal, nonfederal, and private activities contribute cumulative effects to aquatic resources. Activities 

authorized by DA permits, including structures and work in navigable waters and discharges 

of dredged or fill material, can directly or indirectly cause the loss of, or adversely affect the 

functions provided by, wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources. Activities that do not 

require DA permits, because they are exempt from section 404 permit requirements, can 

also adversely affect the quantity and quality of the Nation’s wetlands, streams, and other 

aquatic resources. Discharges of dredged or fill material that convert wetlands, streams, and 

other aquatic resources to upland areas result in permanent losses of aquatic resource 

functions and services. Temporary fills and other activities may cause short-term or partial 

losses of aquatic resource functions and services. 

In addition to activities regulated and authorized by the Corps, including those authorized by 

this nationwide permit, other include federal, non-federal, and private actions not regulated 

by the Corps have cumulative effects on the Nation’s wetlands, streams, and aquatic 

resources, and adversely affect the quantity and quality of those resources. Changes in the 

use of uplands next to or near wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources may directly or 

indirectly diminish the ecological functions and services provided by those waters (e.g., 

Allan 2004 for streams; Zedler and Kercher 2005 for wetlands). 

Actions that affect wetland quantity and quality include: land use changes that alter local 

hydrology (including water withdrawal), clearing and draining wetlands, constructing levees 

that sever hydrologic connections between rivers and floodplain wetlands, constructing 

other obstructions to water flow (e.g., dams, locks), constructing water diversions, 

accumulating nutrients and contaminants, and fire suppression (Brinson and Malvárez. 

2002). 

Actions that affect the quantity and quality of streams and rivers include habitat alterations 

caused by dam construction, channelization, and land use changes; changes in species 

composition caused by non-indigenous species; and additions of pollutants through either 

point sources or non-point sources (Allan and Castillo 2007). In urbanized and agricultural 

watersheds, the number of small stream channels has been substantially reduced, in part by 
15 

activities that occurred between the 19th and mid-20th centuries (Meyer and Wallace 2001). 

Activities that affect the quantity and quality of small streams include residential, 

commercial, and industrial development, mining, agricultural activities, forestry activities, 

and road construction (Meyer and Wallace 2001). 

Dahl (1990) estimates that approximately 53 percent of the wetlands in the conterminous 

United States were lost in the 200-year period covering the 1780s to 1980s. The annual rate 

of wetland loss has decreased substantially since the 1970s (Dahl 2006), when wetland 

regulation became more prevalent (Brinson and Malvárez. 2002). According to the 2006 

status and trends report, during the period of 1998 to 2004 urban development accounted for 

39% of wetland losses (88,960 acres), rural development resulted in 22% of wetland losses 

(51,440 acres), silviculture accounted for 8% of wetland losses (18,000 acres), and wetland 

conversion to deepwater habitats caused a 31% loss in wetland area (70,100 acres) (Dahl 

2006). Some of the losses are for non-jurisdictional wetlands and some losses may be due to 

activities not regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, such as unregulated 

drainage activities or water withdrawals. From 1998 to 2004, approximately 70,770 acres of 

wetlands were gained as a result of wetland restoration and conservation programs on 

agricultural land (Dahl 2006). Another source of wetland gain is conversion of uplands to 

wetlands (349,600 acres during the same time period) (Dahl 2006). It is important to 

understand that inventories of wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources are likely to be 

incomplete (e.g., Dahl 2006. Meyer and Wallace 2001), which further complicates 

cumulative effects analysis. 

The estimated contribution of this NWP to the cumulative effects to wetlands, streams, and 

other aquatic resources in the United States during the five year period the NWP is in effect 

is provided in section 6.2.2. 

In a specific watershed, division or district engineers may determine that the cumulative 

adverse effects of activities authorized by NWPs are more than minimal. Division and 

district engineers will conduct more detailed assessments for geographic areas that are 

determined to be potentially subject to more than minimal cumulative adverse effects. 

Division and district engineers have the authority to require individual permits where the 

cumulative adverse effects are more than minimal, or add conditions to the NWP either on a 

case-by-case or regional basis to ensure that the cumulative adverse effects are minimal. 

When division or district engineers determine that a geographic area is subject to more than 

minimal cumulative adverse effects due to the use of the NWPs, they will use the revocation 

and modification procedure at 33 CFR 330.5. In reaching the final decision, they will 

compile information on the cumulative adverse effects and supplement this document. 

The Corps expects that the convenience and time savings associated with the use of this 

NWP will encourage applicants to design their projects within the scope of the NWP rather 

than request individual permits for projects which could result in greater adverse impacts to 

the aquatic environment. The minimization encouraged by the issuance of this NWP, as well 

as compensatory mitigation that may be required for specific activities authorized by this 

NWP, will help reduce cumulative effects to the Nation’s aquatic resources. 
16 

5.0 Public Interest Review 

5.1 Public Interest Review Factors (33 CFR 320.4(a)(1)) 

For each of the 20 public interest review factors, the extent of the Corps consideration of 

expected impacts resulting from the use of this NWP is discussed, as well as the reasonably 

foreseeable cumulative adverse effects that are expected to occur. The Corps decision 

process involves consideration of the benefits and detriments that may result from the 

activities authorized by this NWP. 

(a) Conservation. The activities authorized by this NWP will result in minor changes to the 

natural resource characteristics of the project area, since the NWP authorizes only the 

continued operation of existing commercial shellfish aquaculture activities. Mitigation may 

be required to minimize impacts to conservation values. 

(b) Economics. Commercial shellfish aquaculture activities will have positive impacts on the 

local economy. These activities will generate jobs and revenue for local growers as well as 

revenue to supply companies that sell materials used for the continued operation of these 

activities. Commercial shellfish aquaculture activities supply seafood for restaurants and 

other consumers. The authorized aquaculture activities will also benefit the community by 

improving the local economic base, which is affected by employment, tax revenues, 

community services, and property values. 

(c) Aesthetics. Commercial shellfish aquaculture activities may alter the visual character of 

some waters of the United States, but such changes will be negligible since the NWP 

authorizes only the continued operation of existing activities. The extent and perception of 

these changes will vary, depending on the size and configuration of the aquaculture activity, 

the nature of the surrounding area, and the public uses of the area. The use of the project 

area and the surrounding land may also alter local aesthetic values. 

(d) General environmental concerns. Activities authorized by this NWP will affect general 

environmental concerns, such as water, air, noise, and land pollution. The authorized work 

will also affect the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the environment. 

The adverse effects of the activities authorized by this NWP on general environmental 

concerns will be minor. At moderate population densities, commercially produced shellfish 

populations may improve general environmental concerns, such as water quality, within 

navigable waters by removing suspended materials and plankton from the water column. 

Adverse effects to the chemical composition of the aquatic environment will be controlled 

by general condition 6, which states that the material used for construction must be free 

from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. General condition 22 requires mitigation to 

minimize adverse effects to the aquatic environment through avoidance and minimization at 

the project site. Mitigation may be required by district engineers to ensure that the net 

adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal. Specific environmental concerns 

are addressed in other sections of this document. 
17 

(e) Wetlands. The commercial shellfish aquaculture activities authorized by this NWP may 

result in impacts to tidal wetlands. In many cases the impacts will be temporary since the 

NWP authorizes only on-going commercial aquaculture activities. Impacts to wetlands will 

be minor, since the NWP authorizes only the continued operation of existing commercial 

aquaculture activities. 

Wetlands provide habitat, including foraging, nesting, spawning, rearing, and resting sites 

for aquatic and terrestrial species. The destruction of wetlands may alter natural drainage 

patterns. Wetlands reduce erosion by stabilizing the substrate. Wetlands also act as storage 

areas for stormwater and flood waters. The loss of wetland vegetation will adversely affect 

water quality because these plants trap sediments, pollutants, and nutrients and transform 

chemical compounds. Wetland vegetation also provides habitat for microorganisms that 

remove nutrients and pollutants from water. Wetlands, through the accumulation of organic 

matter, act as sinks for some nutrients and other chemical compounds, reducing the amounts 

of these substances in the water. 

General condition 22 requires avoidance and minimization of impacts to waters of the 

United States, including wetlands, at the project site. Compensatory mitigation may be 

required by district engineers to ensure that the net adverse effects on the aquatic 

environment are minimal. Division engineers can regionally condition this NWP to restrict 

or prohibit the use of this NWP in high value tidal wetlands. District engineers will also 

exercise discretionary authority to require an individual permit if the wetlands to be filled 

are high value and the work will result in more than minimal adverse effects on the aquatic 

environment. District engineers can also add case-specific special conditions to the NWP 

authorization to provide protection to wetlands or require compensatory mitigation to offset 

losses of wetlands. 

(f) Historic properties. General condition 20 states that in cases where the district engineer 

determines that the activity may affect properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the 

National Register of Historic Places, the activity is not authorized, until the requirements of 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act have been satisfied.

(g) Fish and wildlife values. This NWP authorizes activities in tidal waters of the United 

States, which provide habitat to many species of fish and wildlife. Activities authorized by 

this NWP may alter the habitat characteristics of tidal waters, decreasing the quantity and 

quality of fish and wildlife habitat. Tidal waters, including tidal wetlands and vegetated 

shallows, provides food and habitat for many species, including foraging areas, resting 

areas, corridors for fish movement, and nesting and breeding grounds. Open waters provide 

habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms. Pre-construction notification is required if: (1) 

the project area is greater than 100 acres; or (2) there is any reconfiguration of the aquaculture 

activity, such as relocating existing operations into portions of the project area not 

previously used for aquaculture activities; or (3) there is a change in species being cultivated; 

or (4) there is a change in culture methods (e.g., from bottom culture to off-bottom culture); 

or (5) dredge harvesting, tilling, or harrowing is conducted in areas inhabited by submerged 

aquatic vegetation. The pre-construction notification requirements provides the district 

engineer with an opportunity to review those activities and assess potential impacts on fish 
18 

and wildlife values and ensure that the authorized activity results in minimal adverse effects 

on the aquatic environment. Compensatory mitigation may be required by district engineers 

to restore, enhance, establish, and/or preserve wetlands and other aquatic habitats to offset 

impacts to waters of the United States. These methods of compensatory mitigation will 

provide fish and wildlife habitat values. 

General condition 2 will reduce adverse effects to fish and other aquatic species by 

prohibiting activities that substantially disrupt the movement of indigenous aquatic species, 

unless the primary purpose of the activity is to impound water. Compliance with general 

conditions 3 and 5 will ensure that the authorized work has minimal adverse effects on 

spawning areas and shellfish beds, respectively. The authorized work cannot have more 

than minimal adverse effects on breeding areas for migratory , due to the requirements of 

general condition 4. 

Compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668(a)-(d)), the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703; 16 U.S.C. 712), and the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), including any requirements to obtain take permits, 

is the responsibility of the project proponent for a particular NWP activity. 

Consultation pursuant to the essential fish habitat provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act will occur as necessary for proposed NWP 

activities that may adversely affect essential fish habitat. Consultation may occur on a caseby-case or programmatic basis. Division and district engineers can impose regional and 

special conditions to ensure that activities authorized by this NWP will result in minimal 

adverse effects on essential fish habitat. 

(h) Flood hazards. The activities authorized by this NWP will have little or no adverse 

effects on the flood-holding capacity of 100-year floodplains, since these activities occur in 

either open navigable waters or intertidal waters. Changes in the flood-holding capacity of 

100-year floodplains may impact human health, safety, and welfare. To minimize these 

adverse effects, general condition 10 requires the activity to comply with applicable FEMAapproved state or local floodplain management requirements. The requirements of general 

condition 10 will help ensure that the activities authorized by this NWP will have minimal 

adverse effects on flood hazards. Compliance with general condition 9 will also reduce 

flood hazards. This general condition requires the permittee to maintain, to the maximum 

extent practicable, the pre-construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open 

waters, except under certain circumstances. Much of the land area within 100-year 

floodplains is upland, and outside of the Corps scope of review.

(i) Floodplain values. Activities authorized by this NWP will have negligible adverse 

effects on the flood-holding capacity of the floodplain, as well as other floodplain values, 

since it authorizes only existing commercial shellfish aquaculture activities. The fish and 

wildlife habitat values of floodplains may be adversely affected by support activities for the 

commercial shellfish activity, by modifying or eliminating areas used for nesting, foraging, 

resting, and reproduction. For those activities that require notification, district engineers 

will review the proposed work to ensure that those activities result in minimal adverse 
19 

effects on floodplain values. 

Compensatory mitigation may be required for activities authorized by this NWP, which will 

offset losses of waters of the United States and provide water quality functions and wildlife 

habitat. General condition 22 requires avoidance and minimization of impacts to waters of 

the United States to the maximum extent practicable at the project site, which will reduce 

losses of floodplain values. The mitigation requirements of general condition 22 will help 

ensure that the adverse effects of these activities on floodplain values are minimal. The 

requirements of general condition 10 will minimize adverse effects to the flood storage 

capacity of 100-year floodplains. Compliance with general condition 9 will also ensure that 

activities in 100-year floodplains will not cause more than minimal adverse effects on flood 

storage and conveyance. 

(j) Land use. Activities authorized by this NWP will have little or no adverse effect on land 

use, since it is limited to existing commercial shellfish aquaculture activities, and those 

activities usually occur in state-owned submerged lands. Since the primary responsibility 

for land use decisions is held by state, local, and Tribal governments, the Corps scope of 

review is limited to significant issues of overriding national importance, such as navigation 

and water quality (see 33 CFR 320.4(j)(2)). 

(k) Navigation. Activities authorized by this NWP will not adversely affect navigation, 

because these activities must comply with general condition 1. Certain activities authorized 

by this NWP require pre-construction notification, which will allow district engineers to 

review those activities and determine if there will be any adverse effects on navigation. 

(l) Shore erosion and accretion. The activities authorized by this NWP will have minor 

direct effects on shore erosion and accretion processes, since the NWP is limited to existing 

commercial shellfish aquaculture activities. These activities generally occur in tidal waters. 

However, NWP 13, regional general permits, or individual permits may be used to authorize 

bank stabilization projects associated with commercial shellfish aquaculture activities, 

which may have minor effects on shore erosion and accretion. 

(m) Recreation. Activities authorized by this NWP are unlikely to change the recreational 

uses of the area, since the NWP authorizes only existing commercial shellfish aquaculture 

activities. Certain recreational activities, such as bird watching, hunting, and fishing would 

still be available in the area. 

(n) Water supply and conservation. Activities authorized by this NWP will not adversely 

affect surface water and groundwater supplies. This NWP authorizes only existing 

commercial shellfish aquaculture activities, which usually occur in tidal waters. These 

activities will not increase demand for potable water in the region. Activities authorized by 

this NWP will not adversely affect the quality of water supplies, since they generally occur 

in marine and estuarine waters. Many causes of water pollution, such as discharges 

regulated under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, are outside the Corps scope of review. 

Some water pollution concerns can be addressed through water quality management 

measures that may be required for activities authorized by this NWP. General condition 7 
20 

prohibits discharges in the vicinity of public water supply intakes. 

(o) Water quality. Commercial shellfish aquaculture activities may have adverse effects on 

water quality. Large populations of the species raised through commercial shellfish 

aquaculture activities can increase in nutrients and other and pollutants in the water. 

During commercial shellfish aquaculture operations, small amounts of oil and grease from 

construction equipment may be discharged into the waterway. Because most of the 

construction will occur during a relatively short period of time, the frequency and 

concentration of these discharges are not expected to have more than minimal adverse 

effects on overall water quality. 

This NWP requires water quality certification, since it authorizes discharges of dredged or 

fill material into waters of the United States. Most water quality concerns are addressed by 

the state or Tribal water quality certification agency. In accordance with general condition 

24, the permittee may be required to develop and implement water quality management 

measures that minimizes the degradation of the downstream aquatic environment, including 

water quality. The district engineer may require water quality management measures to 

ensure that adverse effects to water quality are minimal. 

(p) Energy needs. The activities authorized by this NWP will not result in a net increase in 

energy consumption in the area, because the NWP does not authorize the expansion of the 

project area. Therefore, consumption of electricity, natural gas, and petroleum products is 

unlikely to change. 

(q) Safety. The activities authorized by this NWP will be subject to Federal, state, and local 

safety laws and regulations. Therefore, this NWP will not adversely affect the safety of the 

project area. 

(r) Food and fiber production. Activities authorized by this NWP will normally increase 

food production, through the production of commercial molluscan shellfish species. These 

activities will have negligible adverse effects on fiber production. The activities authorized 

by this NWP will not adversely affect fiber production. These activities will not change the 

amount of available agricultural land in the nation. The loss of farmland is more 

appropriately addressed through the land use planning and zoning authority held by state 

and local governments. 

(s) Mineral needs. Activities authorized by this NWP will have little or no adverse effects 

on demand for aggregates and stone, since these materials are usually not used for 

commercial shellfish aquaculture activities. Activities authorized by this NWP may 

increase the demand for other building materials, such as steel, aluminum, and copper, 

which are made from mineral ores. 

(t) Considerations of property ownership. The NWP complies with 33 CFR 320.4(g), which 

states that an inherent aspect of property ownership is a right to reasonable private use. The 

NWP provides expedited DA authorization for commercial shellfish aquaculture activities, 
21 

provided the activity complies with the terms and conditions of the NWP and results in 

minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. 

5.2 Additional Public Interest Review Factors (33 CFR 320.4(a)(2)) 

5.2.1 Relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed structure or work

This NWP authorizes activities in waters of the United States, especially navigable waters, 

for existing commercial shellfish aquaculture activities as long as those activities have 

minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment, individually and cumulatively. These 

activities satisfy public and private needs for food and other products. The need for this 

NWP is based upon the large number of these activities that occur annually with minimal 

adverse effects on the aquatic environment. 

5.2.2 Where there are unresolved conflicts as to resource use, the practicability of using 

reasonable alternative locations and methods to accomplish the objective of the 

proposed structure or work

Most situations in which there are unresolved conflicts concerning resource use arise when 

environmentally sensitive areas are involved (e.g., special aquatic sites, including wetlands) 

or where there are competing uses of a resource. The nature and scope of the activity, when 

planned and constructed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this NWP, reduce 

the likelihood of such conflict. In the event that there is a conflict, the NWP contains 

provisions that are capable of resolving the matter (see Section 1.2 of this document). 

General condition 22 requires permittees to avoid and minimize adverse effects to waters of 

the United States to the maximum extent practicable on the project site. Consideration of 

off-site alternative locations is not required for activities that are authorized by general 

permits. General permits authorize activities that have minimal individual and cumulative 

adverse effects on the aquatic environment and overall public interest. District engineers 

will exercise discretionary authority and require an individual permit if the proposed work 

will result in more than minimal adverse environmental effects on the project site. The 

consideration of off-site alternatives can be required during the individual permit process. 

5.2.3 The extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects which the 

proposed structure or work is likely to have on the public and private uses to which 

the area is suited

The nature and scope of the work authorized by the NWP will most likely restrict the extent 

of the beneficial and detrimental effects to the area immediately surrounding the commercial 

shellfish aquaculture activity. Activities authorized by this NWP will have minimal adverse 

effects on the aquatic environment. 

The terms, conditions, and provisions of the NWP were developed to ensure that individual 

and cumulative adverse environmental effects are minimal. Specifically, NWPs do not 

obviate the need for the permittee to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations 
22 

required by law. The NWPs do not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges (see 33 

CFR 330.4(b) for further information). Additional conditions, limitations, restrictions, and 

provisions for discretionary authority, as well as the ability to add activity-specific or 

regional conditions to this NWP, will provide further safeguards to the aquatic environment 

and the overall public interest. There are also provisions to allow suspension, modification, 

or revocation of the NWP. 

6.0 Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Analysis 

The 404(b)(1) compliance criteria for general permits are provided at 40 CFR 230.7. 

6.1 Evaluation Process (40 CFR 230.7(b)) 

6.1.1 Alternatives (40 CFR 230.10(a))

General condition 22 requires permittees to avoid and minimize discharges of dredged or fill 

material into waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable on the project 

site. The consideration of off-site alternatives is not directly applicable to general permits. 

6.1.2 Prohibitions (40 CFR 230.10(b))

This NWP authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, 

which require water quality certification. Water quality certification requirements will be 

met in accordance with the procedures at 33 CFR 330.4(c). 

No toxic discharges will be authorized by this NWP. General condition 6 states that the 

material must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. 

This NWP does not authorize activities that jeopardize the continued existence of any listed 

threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Reviews of preconstruction notifications, regional conditions, and local 

operating procedures for endangered species will ensure compliance with the Endangered 

Species Act. Refer to general condition 19 and to 33 CFR 330.4(f) for information and 

procedures. 

This NWP will not authorize the violation of any requirement to protect any marine 

sanctuary. Refer to section 6.2.3(j)(1) of this document for further information. 

6.1.3 Findings of Significant Degradation (40 CFR 230.10(c))

Potential impact analysis (Subparts C through F): The potential impact analysis specified in 

Subparts C through F is discussed in section 6.2.3 of this document. Mitigation required by 

the district engineer will ensure that the adverse effects on the aquatic environment are 

minimal. 
23 

Evaluation and testing (Subpart G): Because the terms and conditions of the NWP specify 

the types of discharges that are authorized, as well as those that are prohibited, individual 

evaluation and testing for the presence of contaminants will normally not be required. If a 

situation warrants, provisions of the NWP allow division or district engineers to further 

specify authorized or prohibited discharges and/or require testing. 

Based upon Subparts B and G, after consideration of Subparts C through F, the discharges 

authorized by this NWP will not cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters of 

the United States. 

6.1.4 Factual determinations (40 CFR 230.11)

The factual determinations required in 40 CFR 230.11 are discussed in section 6.2.3 of this 

document. 

6.1.5 Appropriate and practicable steps to minimize potential adverse impacts (40 CFR 

230.10(d))

As demonstrated by the information in this document, as well as the terms, conditions, and 

provisions of this NWP, actions to minimize adverse effects (Subpart H) have been 

thoroughly considered and incorporated into the NWP. General condition 22 requires 

permittees to avoid and minimize discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the 

United States to the maximum extent practicable on the project site. Compensatory 

mitigation may be required by the district engineer to ensure that the net adverse effects on 

the aquatic environment are minimal. 

6.2 Evaluation Process (40 CFR 230.7(b)) 

6.2.1 Description of permitted activities (40 CFR 230.7(b)(2)) 

As indicated by the text of this NWP in section 1.0 of this document, and the discussion of 

potential impacts in section 4.0, the activities authorized by this NWP are sufficiently 

similar in nature and environmental impact to warrant authorization under a single general 

permit. Specifically, the purpose of the NWP is to authorize discharges of dredged or fill 

material for existing commercial shellfish aquaculture activities. The nature and scope of 

the impacts are controlled by the terms and conditions of the NWP. 

The activities authorized by this NWP are sufficiently similar in nature and environmental 

impact to warrant authorization by a general permit. The terms of the NWP authorize a 

specific category of activity (i.e., discharges of dredged or fill material for the continued 

operation of commercial shellfish aquaculture activities) in a specific category of waters 

(i.e., navigable waters of the United States). The restrictions imposed by the terms and 

conditions of this NWP will result in the authorization of activities that have similar impacts 

on the aquatic environment, namely the modification of aquatic habitats, such as estuarine 

and marine waters, through commercial shellfish aquaculture activities. 
24 

If a situation arises in which the activity requires further review, or is more appropriately 

reviewed under the individual permit process, provisions of the NWPs allow division and/or 

district engineers to take such action. 

6.2.2 Cumulative effects (40 CFR 230.7(b)(3))

The 404(b)(1) Guidelines at 40 CFR 230.11(a) define cumulative impacts as “...the changes 

in an aquatic ecosystem that are attributable to the collective effect of a number of 

individual discharges of dredged or fill material.” If a situation arises in which cumulative 

effects are likely to be more than minimal and the proposed activity requires further review, 

or is more appropriately reviewed under the individual permit process, provisions of the 

NWPs allow division and/or district engineers to take such action. 

Based on reported use of this NWP since NWP 48 was first issued in 2007, the Corps 

estimates that this NWP will be used approximately 3,200 times on a national basis, 

resulting in impacts to approximately 32 acres of waters of the United States, including 

jurisdictional wetlands. Compensatory mitigation is not normally required for discharges of 

dredged or fill material associated with the operation of commercial shellfish aquaculture 

activities. The Corps expects that the convenience and time savings associated with the use 

of this NWP will encourage applicants to design their projects within the scope of the NWP 

rather than request individual permits for projects which could result in greater adverse 

impacts to the aquatic environment. 

6.2.3 Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Impact Analysis, Subparts C through F

(a) Substrate: Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States will 

alter the substrate of those waters, usually replacing the aquatic area with dry land, and 

changing the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the substrate. The original 

substrate will be removed or covered by other material, such as sand or gravel. Temporary 

fills may be placed upon the substrate, but must be removed upon completion of the work 

(see general condition 13). 

(b) Suspended particulates/turbidity: Depending on the method of operation, soil erosion 

and sediment control measures, equipment, composition of the bottom substrate, and wind 

and current conditions during construction, fill material placed in open waters will 

temporarily increase water turbidity. Pre-construction notification is required for certain 

activities, which will allow the district engineer to review those activities and ensure that 

adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal. Particulates will be resuspended in 

the water column during removal of temporary fills. The turbidity plume will normally be 

limited to the immediate vicinity of the disturbance and should dissipate shortly after each 

phase of the construction activity. General condition 12 requires the permittee to stabilize 

exposed soils and other fills, which will reduce turbidity. NWP activities cannot create 

turbidity plumes that smother important spawning areas downstream (see general condition 

3). 

(c) Water: Commercial shellfish aquaculture activities can affect some characteristics of 
25 

water, such as water clarity, chemical content, dissolved gas concentrations, pH, and 

temperature. The operation of these activities can change the chemical and physical 

characteristics of the waterbody by introducing suspended or dissolved chemical compounds 

or sediments into the water. Changes in water quality can affect the species and quantities 

of organisms inhabiting the aquatic area. Water quality certification is required for activities 

authorized by this NWP that result in discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of 

the United States, which will ensure that the work does not violate applicable water quality 

standards. Permittees may be required to implement water quality management measures to 

ensure that the authorized work does not result in more than minimal degradation of water 

quality. 

(d) Current patterns and water circulation: Activities authorized by this NWP may adversely 

affect the movement of water in the aquatic environment. Certain activities authorized by 

this NWP require pre-construction notification to the district engineer, which will help 

ensure that adverse effects to current patterns and water circulation are minimal. General 

condition 9 requires the authorized activity to be designed to withstand expected high flows 

and to maintain the course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters to the maximum 

extent practicable. General condition 10 requires activities to comply with applicable 

FEMA-approved state or local floodplain management requirements, which will reduce 

adverse effects to surface water flows. 

(e) Normal water level fluctuations: The activities authorized by this NWP will not 

adversely affect normal patterns of water level fluctuations due to tides and flooding, since it 

authorizes only existing commercial shellfish aquaculture activities. To ensure that the 

NWP does not authorize activities that adversely affect normal flooding patterns, general 

condition 10 requires NWP activities to comply with applicable FEMA-approved state or 

local floodplain management requirements. General condition 9 requires the permittee to 

maintain the pre-construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters, to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

(f) Salinity gradients: The activities authorized by this NWP are unlikely to adversely affect 

salinity gradients, since it is limited to existing commercial shellfish aquaculture activities. 

(g) Threatened and endangered species: The Corps believes that the procedures currently in 

place result in proper coordination under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

and ensure that activities authorized by this NWP will not jeopardize the continued 

existence or any listed threatened and endangered species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. The Corps also believes that current local 

procedures in Corps districts are effective in ensuring compliance with ESA. 

Under general condition 19, no activity is authorized under any NWP which “may affect” a 

listed species or critical habitat, unless Section 7 consultation addressing the effects of the 

proposed activity has been completed. 

Each activity authorized by an NWP is subject to general condition 19, which states that 

“[n]o activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to directly or indirectly 
26 

jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species 

proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), or which will directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of 

such species.” In addition, general condition 19 explicitly states that the NWP does not 

authorize the taking of threatened or endangered species, which will ensure that permittees 

do not mistake the NWP authorization as a Federal authorization to take threatened or 

endangered species. General condition 19 also requires non-federal permittees to notify the 

district engineer if any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is in 

the vicinity of the project, or if the project is located in designated critical habitat. This 

general condition also states that, in such cases, non-federal permittees shall not begin work 

on the activity until notified by the district engineer that the requirements of the ESA have 

been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. 

Under the current Corps regulations (33 CFR 325.2(b)(5)), the district engineer must review 

all permit applications for potential impacts on threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat. For the NWP program, this review occurs when the district engineer evaluates the 

pre-construction notification or request for verification. Based on the evaluation of all 

available information, the district engineer will initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as appropriate, if 

he or she determines that the regulated activity may affect any threatened and endangered 

species or critical habitat. Consultation may occur during the NWP authorization process or 

the district engineer may exercise discretionary authority to require an individual permit for 

the proposed activity and initiate consultation through the individual permit process. If ESA 

consultation is conducted during the NWP authorization process without the district 

engineer exercising discretionary authority, then the applicant will be notified that he or she 

cannot proceed with the proposed activity until ESA consultation is complete. If the district 

engineer determines that the activity will have no effect on any threatened and endangered 

species or critical habitat, then the district engineer will notify the applicant that he or she 

may proceed under the NWP authorization. 

 

Corps districts have, in most cases, established informal or formal procedures with local 

offices of the USFWS and NMFS, through which the agencies share information regarding 

threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat. This information helps district 

engineers determine if a proposed activity may affect endangered species or their critical 

habitat and, if necessary, initiate consultation. Corps districts may utilize maps or databases 

that identify locations of populations of threatened and endangered species and their critical 

habitat. Where necessary, regional conditions are added to NWPs to require notification for 

activities that occur in known locations of threatened and endangered species or critical 

habitat. For activities that require agency coordination during the pre-construction 

notification process, the USFWS and NMFS will review the proposed work for potential 

impacts to threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat. Any information 

provided by local maps and databases and any comments received during the preconstruction notification review process will be used by the district engineer to make a “no 

effect” or “may affect” decision. 

Based on the safeguards discussed above, especially general condition 19 and the NWP 
27 

regulations at 33 CFR 330.5(f), the Corps has determined that the activities authorized by 

this NWP will not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed threatened or endangered 

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 

Although the Corps continues to believe that these procedures ensure compliance with ESA, 

the Corps has taken some steps to provide further assurance. Corps district offices have met 

with local representatives of the USFWS and NMFS to establish or modify existing 

procedures, where necessary, to ensure that the Corps has the latest information regarding 

the existence and location of any threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. 

Corps districts can also establish, through local procedures or other means, additional 

safeguards that ensure compliance with ESA. Through formal consultation under Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act, or through other coordination with the USFWS and/or the 

NMFS, as appropriate, the Corps will establish procedures to ensure that the NWP will not 

jeopardize any threatened and endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical habitat. Such procedures may result in the development 

of regional conditions added to the NWP by the division engineer, or in special conditions to 

be added to an NWP authorization by the district engineer. 

(h) Fish, crustaceans, molluscs, and other aquatic organisms in the food web. Certain 

activities authorized by this NWP, require notification to the district engineer, which will 

allow review of those activities to ensure that adverse effects to fish and other aquatic 

organisms in the food web are minimal. Fish and other motile animals will avoid the project 

site while aquaculture activities such as transplantation and harvesting are conducted. 

Sessile or slow-moving animals in the path of discharges and equipment may be destroyed. 

Some aquatic animals may be smothered by the placement of fill material. Motile animals 

will return to those areas that are temporarily impacted by the work and restored or allowed 

to revert back to pre-construction conditions. Shellfish populations will increase as a result 

of the activities authorized by this NWP. 

Division and district engineers can place conditions on this NWP to prohibit discharges 

during important stages of the life cycles of certain aquatic organisms. Such time of year 

restrictions can prevent adverse effects to these aquatic organisms during reproduction and 

development periods. General conditions 3 and 5 address protection of spawning areas and 

shellfish beds, respectively. General condition 3 states that activities in spawning areas 

during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, 

general condition 3 also prohibits activities that result in the physical destruction of 

important spawning areas. General condition 5 prohibits activities in areas of concentrated 

shellfish populations. General condition 9 requires the maintenance of pre-construction 

course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters to the maximum extent practicable, 

which will help minimize adverse impacts to fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms in 

the food web. 

(i) Other wildlife: Activities authorized by this NWP will result in negligible adverse effects 

on other wildlife associated with aquatic ecosystems, such as resident and transient fish, 

since the NWP authorizes only existing commercial shellfish aquaculture activities. This 

NWP does not authorize activities that jeopardize the continued existence of Federally-listed 

endangered and threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
28 

critical habitat. General condition 4 states that activities in breeding areas for migratory 

birds must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 

(j) Special aquatic sites: The potential impacts to specific special aquatic sites are discussed 

below: 

(1) Sanctuaries and refuges: The activities authorized by this NWP will have 

minimal adverse effects on waters of the United States within sanctuaries or refuges 

designated by Federal or state laws or local ordinances. District engineers will exercise 

discretionary authority and require individual permits for specific projects in waters of the 

United States in sanctuaries and refuges if those activities will result in more than minimal 

adverse effects on the aquatic environment. 

(2) Wetlands: The activities authorized by this NWP will have minimal adverse 

effects on wetlands. District engineers will review activities that require pre-construction 

notification to ensure that the adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal. 

Division engineers can regionally condition this NWP to restrict or prohibit its use in certain 

high value wetlands. See paragraph (e) of section 5.1 for a more detailed discussion of 

impacts to wetlands. 

(3) Mud flats: The activities authorized by this NWP will have minimal adverse 

effects on mud flats, since the NWP authorizes only existing commercial shellfish 

aquaculture activities. This NWP does not authorize the expansion of the project area for 

those activities. 

(4) Vegetated shallows: The activities authorized by this NWP will have minimal 

adverse effects on vegetated shallows. Pre-construction notification is required if there is 

dredge harvesting, tilling, or harrowing is conducted in areas inhabited by submerged 

aquatic vegetation. District engineers will review pre-construction notifications to determine 

if those activities will result in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. If the 

vegetated shallows are high value and the proposed work will result in more than minimal 

adverse effects on the aquatic environment, the district engineer will exercise discretionary 

authority to require the project proponent to obtain an individual permit. The presence of 

suspension feeding bivalve mollusks in estuarine and marine waters has been shown to help 

improve the productivity of species of submerged aquatic vegetation in those waters (e.g., 

Peterson and Heck 2001). 

(5) Coral reefs: The activities authorized by this NWP will have minimal adverse 

effects on coral reefs, since the NWP authorizes only existing commercial shellfish 

aquaculture activities. 

(6) Riffle and pool complexes: The activities authorized by this NWP will have 

minimal adverse effects on riffle and pool complexes, since it is limited to existing 

commercial shellfish aquaculture activities. District engineers will review those activities 

that require pre-construction notification to determine if those activities will result in 

minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. 
29 

(k) Municipal and private water supplies: See paragraph (n) of section 5.1 for a discussion 

of potential impacts to water supplies. 

(l) Recreational and commercial fisheries, including essential fish habitat: The activities 

authorized by this NWP will have minor adverse effects on waters of the United States that 

act as habitat for populations of economically important fish and shellfish species, since it 

authorizes only existing commercial shellfish aquaculture activities. Division and district 

engineers can condition this NWP to prohibit discharges during important life cycle stages, 

such as spawning or development periods, of economically valuable fish and shellfish. 

Compliance with general conditions 3 and 5 will ensure that the authorized work does not 

adversely affect important spawning areas or concentrated shellfish populations. As 

discussed in paragraph (g) of section 5.1, there are procedures to help ensure that impacts to 

essential fish habitat are minimal, individually or cumulatively. For example, division and 

district engineers can impose regional and special conditions to ensure that activities 

authorized by this NWP will result in minimal adverse effects on essential fish habitat. 

(m) Water-related recreation: See paragraph (m) of section 5.1 above. 

(n) Aesthetics: See paragraph (c) of section 5.1 above. 

(o) Parks, national and historical monuments, national seashores, wilderness areas, research 

sites, and similar areas: This NWP can be used to authorize activities in parks, national and 

historical monuments, national seashores, wilderness areas, and research sites if there are 

existing commercial shellfish aquaculture activities in those areas, and those activities result 

in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. Division engineers can regionally 

condition the NWP to prohibit its use in designated areas, such as national wildlife refuges 

or wilderness areas. 

7.0 Determinations 

7.1 Finding of No Significant Impact 

[To be determined after review of comments received in response to the proposal.] 

7.2 Public Interest Determination 

[To be determined after review of comments received in response to the proposal.] 

7.3 Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Compliance 

[To be determined after review of comments received in response to the proposal.] 

7.4 Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule Review 
30 

This NWP has been analyzed for conformity applicability pursuant to regulations 

implementing Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. It has been determined that the activities 

authorized by this permit will not exceed de minimis levels of direct emissions of a criteria 

pollutant or its precursors and are exempted by 40 CFR 93.153. Any later indirect 

emissions are generally not within the Corps continuing program responsibility and 

generally cannot be practicably controlled by the Corps. For these reasons, a conformity 

determination is not required for this NWP. 

7.5 Compliance with Relevant Executive Orders 

7.5.1 EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

The issuance of this NWP does not have tribal implications. It is generally consistent with 

current agency practice and will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution 

of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. Regional 

conditions or other local NWP modifications may be added to this NWP by division and 

district engineers to protect aquatic resources of interest to Tribes, as part of the Corps 

responsibility to protect trust resources. 

7.5.2 EO 11988, Floodplain Management

Compliance with NWP general condition 10, fills in 100-year floodplains, will minimize 

impacts of potential flooding on human health, safety, and welfare, as well as the natural and 

beneficial values of floodplains. 

7.5.3 EO 12898, Environmental Justice

In accordance with Title III of the Civil Right Act of 1964 and Executive Order 12898, it 

has been determined that the issuance of this NWP would not directly or through contractual 

or other arrangements, use criteria, methods, or practices that discriminate on the basis of 

race, color, or national origin nor would it have a disproportionate effect on minority or lowincome communities. 

7.5.4 EO 13112, Invasive Species

The issuance of this NWP will not cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive 

species in the United States. The district engineer may add special conditions to an NWP 

authorization to require the permittee to control the introduction or spread of invasive 

species at the project site. 

7.5.5 EO 13212 and 13302, Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects

The issuance of this NWP will support the policy established in these Executive Orders, by 

providing an efficient form of DA authorization for minor activities associated with energyrelated projects. 
31 
32 

8.0 Literature Cited 

Allan, J.D. 2004. Landscapes and Riverscapes: The Influence of Land Use on Stream 

Ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 35:257–284. 

Allan, J.D. and M.M. Castillo. 2007. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running 

Waters, 2nd edition. Springer (The Netherlands). 436 pp. 

Brinson, M.M. and A.I. Malvárez. 2002. Temperate freshwater wetlands: type, status and 

threats. Environmental Conservation 29:115-133. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands 

and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79-31. 131 pp. 

Dahl, T.E. 2006. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 

2004. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 112 pp. 

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 21 pp. 

Hall, J.V., W.E. Frayer, and B.O. Wilen. 1994. Status of Alaska Wetlands. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 33 pp. 

Hansen, W.F. 2001. Identifying stream types and management implications. Forest Ecology 

and Management 143:39-46. 

King, D.M., Wainger, L.A., C.C. Bartoldus, and J.S. Wakely. 2000. Expanding wetland 

assessment procedures: Linking indices of wetland function with services and values. 

ERDC/EL TR-00-17, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vickburg, 

MS. 

Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. 

Dover Publications, Inc. (New York). 522 pp. 

Leopold, L.B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press (Cambridge). 298 pp. 

Meyer, J.L. and J.B. Wallace. 2001. Lost linkages and lotic ecology: rediscovering small 

streams. In Ecology: Achievement and Challenge. Ed. by M.C. Press, N.J. Huntly, and S. 

Levin. Blackwell Science (Cornwall, Great Britain). pp. 295-317. 

National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National 

Academy Press (Washington, DC). 552 pp. 

Peterson, C.H. and J. Lubchenco. 1997. Marine ecosystem services, in Nature’s Services: 

Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Edited by G.C. Daily. Island Press 
33 

(Washington, DC). pp. 177-194. 

Postel, S. and S. Carpenter. 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services, in Nature’s Services: 

Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Edited by G.C. Daily. Island Press 

(Washington, DC). pp. 195-214. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2009. Summary Report: 2007 National Resources 

Inventory, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, and Center for Survey 

Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 123 pages. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2007/2007_NRI_Summary.pdf (accessed 

10/26/2010) 

Tiner, R.W. 2003. Geographically isolated wetlands in the United States. Wetlands 23:494-

516. 

Tiner, R. 1997. NWI maps: Basic information on the Nation’s wetlands. Bioscience 47:269. 

Zedler, J.B. and S. Kercher. 2005. Wetland resources: Status, trends, ecosystem services, 

and restorability. Annual Review Environmental Resources. 30:39-74.