1 DRAFT DECISION DOCUMENT

NATIONWIDE PERMIT 10

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); and (2) a discussion of the environmental considerations necessary to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. 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

Mooring Buoys . Non-commercial, single-boat, mooring buoys. (Section 10)

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)

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 preconstruction 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 National2 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

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: a ssert 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]3 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 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 did not propose any changes to this NWP.

[ 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. The alternatives discussed below are based on an analysis of the potential environmental impacts and impacts to the Corps, Federal and state resource agencies, general public, and prospective permittees.

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, 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 the4 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 di strict 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 Co rps 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 the placement of non-commercial, single boat, mooring buoys that have minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. The Corps has considered modifying or adding NWP general conditions, as discussed in the preamble of the Federal Register notice announcing the issuance of this NWP.

In the February 16, 2011, Federal Register notice, the Corps requested comments on the proposed reissuance of this NWP. The Corps did not propose any changes to this NWP.5 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 addr ess 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 practi cable, 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 aut hority 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 alternativescannot 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 authorization to require compensatory mitigation to offset losses of 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 specific times of the year to protect spawning fish and shellfish. 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 reviewprocess requires a project-specific alternatives analysis, including the consideration of offsite alternatives, and a public interest review.

3.0 Affected Environment6 The affected environment consists of navigable waters of the United States, which are defined at 33 CFR part 329. Generally, navigable waters of the United States are defined as “those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.” [33 CFR 329.4] Using the estimate of the number of stream and river miles in the United States that was derived by Leopold, Wolman, and Miller (1964) (i.e., 3,250,000 miles), and further assuming that approximately one percent of the rivers and streams within a tributary system are navigable-in-fact (W ood 2004), the amount of traditionally navigable

rivers is estimated to be 325,000 miles.

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 20 acres in size. Navigable waters of the United States are found in the marine and estuarine systems, and some riverine systems constitute navigable waters.

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 3.1.7 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), which are navigable waters.

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).

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

Navigable waters of the United States also include marine habitats and estuarine subtidal8 habitats, the extent of which Dahl (2006) estimates to be 128,600 and 17,717,800 acres, respectively in the conterminous United States (see Table 3.1). There are approximately

97,537 miles of coast in the United States and its territories

( http://www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/czm/czmsitelist.html , accessed July 5, 2006).

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 ra re and endangered species, food production, plant production, flood conveyance, flood-peak reducti on, 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 func tions, 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 generati on, irrigation, and aquaculture; production of

finfish, waterfowl, and shellfish; and non-extractive services, such as flood control, transportation, recreation (e.g., swimming a nd 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 pollutant s 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 services that are valued by society. The mooring buoys authorized by this NWP will support the public’s right to navigation. These mooring buoys will provide facilities for the safe anchorage of non-commercial vessels, including recreational boats.

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, the anticipated cumulative effects of those activities, and the potential future losses of waters of the United States that are estimated to occur until the expiration date of the NWP. In the assessment of these individual and cumulative effects,9 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 and the public interest review specified in 33 CFR 320.4(a)(1) and (2).

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 th at a factor is not relevant to a particular NWP does not necessarily mean that the NWP woul d never have an effect on that factor, but that it is a factor not readily identified with th e 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 the installation of mooring buoys for non-commercial vessels. This NWP authorizes structures in navigable waters of the United States, but it does not authorize discharges of dredged or fill material into those waters.

Pre-construction notification is not required for activities authorized by this NWP, but the division engineer can add regional conditions to this NWP to require pre-construction notification for certain activities. 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.10 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 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) require notification for all activities in those waters; 3) add regional conditions to the NWP to ensure that the adverse environmental effects are minimal; or 4) 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 di vision 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 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 coastal waters, rivers, wetlands, 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 coastal waters, rivers, wetlands, 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 coastal waters, rivers, wetlands, 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 10 of11 the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Federal, non-federal, and private activities contribute cumulative effects to aquatic resources. Activities authorized by DA permits, including structures and work in navigable waters, can directly or indirectly cause the loss of, or adversely affect the functions provided by, coastal waters, rivers, wetlands, and other aquatic resources.

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 coastal waters, rivers, wetlands, and other aquatic resources, and adversely affect the quantity and quality of those resources. Changes in the use of uplands next to or near coastal waters, rivers, wetlands, and other aquatic resources may directly or indirectly diminish the ecological functions and services provided by those waters (e.g., Allan 2004 for rivers; Zedler and Kercher 2005 for wetlands).

Actions that affect wetland quantity and quality include: land use changes that alter local hydrology (including water withdrawal), cleari ng 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 activities that occurred between the 19th and mid-20th centuries (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.12 The cumulative impacts of an NWP generally depends on the number of times the permit is used on a national basis. However, in a speci fic 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.

Based on reported use of this NWP during the period of August 1, 2009, to July 31, 2010, the Corps estimates that this NWP will be used approximately 65 times per year on a national basis. The activities authorized by this NWP generally do not result in a loss of waters of the United States. Compensatory mitigation is not normally required to offset the impacts resulting from the activities authorized by this NWP. The demand for these types of activities could increase or decrease over the five-year duration of this NWP. Using the current trend, approximately 325 activities could be authorized over a five year period until this NWP expires. Because of the small amount of impacts to waters of the United States expected to result from the use of this NWP over a five year period and the size of the Nation’s aquatic resource base as described in Section 3.0 of this document, the net effects on the aquatic environment resulting from the activities authorized by this NWP will be minimal. 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.

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 factor s, 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 may modify the natural resource characteristics of the project area. Compensatory mitigation, if required for activities authorized by this NWP, will result in the restoration, enhancement, establishment, or13 preservation of aquatic habitats that will offset losses of conservation values. The adverse effects of activities authorized by this NWP on conservation will be minor.

(b) Economics : The installation of mooring buoys will have positive impacts on the local economy. These activities will generate jobs and revenue for local contractors as well as revenue to marine supply companies that sell mooring buoys and associated materials, such as rope, chains, and anchors.

(c) Aesthetics : Mooring buoys may alter the visual character of some waters of the United States. The extent and perception of these changes will vary, depending on the size and configuration of the mooring buoy, the nature of the surrounding area, and the public uses of the area. The increased human use of the project area and surrounding land will also alter

local aesthetic values.

(d) General environmental concerns : Activities authorized by this NWP have negligible adverse effects on general environmental concerns, such as water, air, noise, and land pollution. The adverse effects of the activities authorized by this NWP on general environmental concerns will be minor. Compensatory mitigation may be required by district engineers to ensure that the net adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal. It is important to note that the Corps scope of analysis is usually limited to impacts to aquatic resources. Specific environmental concerns are addressed in other sections of this

document.

(e) Wetlands : The installation of non-commercial, single-boat mooring buoys will have little or no adverse effects on wetlands, since these structures are located in open waters. This NWP does not authorize discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Some wetlands may be temporarily impacted by the work through the use of temporary staging areas and access roads. These wetlands will be restored, unless the district engineer authorizes another use for the area, but the plant community may be different.

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. We tlands may act as groundwater discharge or recharge areas. 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. General condition 21 requires submittal of a pre-construction14 notification prior to use of this NWP in designated critical resource waters and adjacentwetlands, which may include high value wetlands. District engineers can also add casespecific special conditions to the NWP author ization to provide protection to 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 navigable waters of the United States, including rivers, estuaries, oceans, and lakes, which provide habitat to many species of fish and wildlife. Activities authorized by this NWP will cause negligible changes to the habitat values of these waters. Open waters, including vegetated shallows, provide foraging areas, resting areas, and ne sting and breeding grounds. Compensatory mitigation may be required by district engineers to restore, enhance, establish, and/or preserve wetlands and other aquatic habitats to offset losses of waters of the United States. These methods of compensatory mitigation w ill provide fish and wildlife habitat values.

General condition 2 will reduce the adverse effects to fish and other aquatic species by prohibiting activities that substantially disrupt the necessary life cycle movements 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 birds, 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.), includi ng 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 NWPactivities 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 not affect the flood-holding capacity of 100-year floodplains, including surface water flow velocities, because the activities authorized by this NWP occur in open, navigable waters.

(i) Floodplain values : Activities authorized by this NWP will have no adverse effects on the flood-holding capacity of floodplains, or other floodplain values. The fish and wildlife habitat values of floodplains will not be adversely affected by activities authorized by this NWP, since the NWP authorizes activities in open, navigable waters.15 (j) Land use : Activities authorized by this NWP will not result in changes in land use, since it authorizes the installation of non-commercial, single-boat mooring buoys in navigable waters of the United States. Since the primary responsibility for land use decisions is held by state, local, and Tribal governments, the Corps scope of analysis 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 must comply with general condition 1, which states that no activity may cause more than minimal adverse effects on navigation.

(l) Shore erosion and accretion : The activities authorized by this NWP will have no adverse effects on shore erosion and accretion pro cesses, since the NWP authorizes only noncommercial, single-boat mooring buoys in navigable waters of the United States. This NWP does not authorize discharges of dredged or fill material that could affect shore erosion and accretion processes.

(m) Recreation : Activities authorized by this NWP may change the recreational uses of the area. The installation of non-commercial, single-boat mooring buoys may increase the use of particular waterways by recreational boaters. Certain recreational activities, such as bird watching, hunting, and fishing may be affected by the installation of mooring buoys and their use, but such effects are likely to be negligible.

(n) Water supply and conservation : Activities authorized by this NWP will have no adverse effects on surface water and groundwater supplies. This NWP authorizes the installation of non-commercial, single-boat mooring buoys in navigable waters of the United States. Activities authorized by this NWP will not change demands for potable water in the region. Activities authorized by this NWP are unlikely to affect the quality of water supplies by adding pollutants and toxic chemicals to surface waters and groundwater. Many causes of water pollution, such as discharges regulated under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, are outside the Corps scope of analysis.

(o) Water quality : The activities authorized by this NWP will have negligible adverse effects on water quality. This NWP does not authorize discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. During the installation of mooring buoys authorized by this NWP, 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.

(p) Energy needs : The activities authorized by this NWP will have negligible adverse effects on energy consumption in the area.

(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.16 (r) Food and fiber production : Activities authorized by this NWP will have no adverse effects on food and fiber production, since it authorizes only non-commercial, single-boat mooring buoys in navigable waters of the United States.

(s) Mineral needs : Activities authorized by this NWP are unlikely to increase demand for aggregates and stone, although some project proponents may use aggregates and stone to construct anchors for mooring buoys. Activities authorized by this NWP may increase the

demand for cables and chains made from metals, 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 owne rship is a right to reasonable private use. The NWP provides expedited DA authorization for the installation of non-commercial, singleboat mooring buoys in navigable waters of the United States. The installation of mooring buoys may improve navigable access for certain landowners.

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 the placement of mooring buoys in navigable waters of the United States, provided those structures have minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment, individually and cumulatively. These activities satisfy public and private needs for anchorage structures for non-commercial vessels. 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.17 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 structures. Activities authorized by this NWP will have minimal adverse effects on the aquatic

environment.

The terms, conditions, and provisions of the NW P 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 required by law. The NWPs do not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges (see 33 CFR 330.4(b) for further information). Additi onal 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.

5.2.4 Endangered and threatened 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 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 dest roy 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 Fede ral 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 designa ted 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 have18 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 Fi sheries 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 aut horization 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 informationprovided 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 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 ot her coordination with the USFWS and/or the19 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.

6.0 Determinations

6.1 Finding of No Significant Impact

[ To be determined after review of comments received in response to the proposal. ]

6.2 Public Interest Determination

[ To be determined after review of comments received in response to the proposal. ]

6.3 Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule Review

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.

6.4 Compliance with Relevant Executive Orders

6.4.1 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.

6.4.2 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.

6.4.3 EO 12898, Environmental Justice20 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 ha ve a disproportionate effect on minority or lowincome communities.

6.4.4 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 e ngineer 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.

6.4.5 EO 13212 and 13302, Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects

The issuance of this NWP will support the policy established in these Executive Orders, byproviding an efficient form of DA authorization for minor activities associated with energyrelated projects.21 7.0 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 Ec ology: 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.

Hall, J.V., W.E. Frayer, and B.O. Wilen. 1994. St atus 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 Re search 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. Restor ation 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 (Washington, DC). pp. 177-194.

Postel, S. and S. Carpenter. 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services, in Nature’s Services:22 Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Edited by G.C. Daily. Island Press (Washington, DC). pp. 195-214.

Wood, L.D. 2004. Don’t be mislead: CWA jurisdiction extends to all non-navigable tributaries of the traditional navigable waters and to their adjacent wetlands (A response to the Virginia Albrecht/Stephen Nickelsburg ELR ar ticle, to the Fifth Circuit’s decision In re

Needham , and to the Supreme Court’s dicta in SWANCC ). Environmental Law Reporter, 34

ELR 10193.

Zedler, J.B. and S. Kercher. 2005. Wetland resources: Status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annual Review Environmental Resources. 30:39-74.