. "Appendix G Army Corps of Engineers Standard Operating Procedures for the Regulatory Program." Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2001.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT
WATERSHED APPROACHES (0%–20%)
ABOVE THE LINE
Watershed Plans (SAMPs) should result in a more expedient permit process (RGPs, PGPs, no permit by permit alternatives analysis).
Focus priority on watersheds with a high volume of regulatory activity.
Coordinate Corps programs to minimize conflict and identify potential opportunities.
Coordinate with other agencies to minimize conflict and identify potential opportunities.
BELOW THE LINE
Be innovative and flexible.
Use for cumulative impact assessment.
Work/develop partnerships with state/federal/local agencies. Encourage partner funding of watershed plans/efforts.
Use USGS mapping and stream classification.
Use and encourage GIS analysis
Use HGM
PERMIT EVALUATION (60%–80%)
ABOVE THE LINE
Resource permit evaluation for timely decisions.
Maximize use of lowest form of authorizations (RGP, NWP).
Ensure decision documents are concise and minimal length necessary.
Ensure scope of analysis is properly defined.
Define overall project purpose and ensure alternatives analysis is commensurate with project impacts.
BELOW THE LINE
Field wetland delineations for non-“Mom and Pop”.
Extensive negotiation with other agencies to reach consensus.
Project specific EIS, where “significance” of impact is questionable.
Expend GRF funds on special studies and external reviews.
Multiple site visits/meetings of extensive pre-applications.
