PERMFILE63616

• Permit No: M1999002
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 5/13/1999
• Doc Name: Response to 4-18-99 Adequacy Letter
• From: AMERICAN SODA LLP
• To: DNR
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

agencies' concerns were considered. Applicants are encouraeed to provide the Corps
multiple copies of nonfications to expedite agency notification.
(ii) Optional Agencv Coordination. For NWPs 5. 7, 12, 13, 17. 18. 27, 31,
and 34. where a Regional Administrator of EPA, a Regional Director of USFWS, ur a
Regional Director of NMFS has formally requested general notification from the District
Engineer for the activities covered by any of these NWPs the Corps will provide the
requesting agency with notification on the particular NWPs. !-Iowever, tivhere the agencies
have a record of not generally submi[ting substantive comments on activities covered by
any of these NWPs, the Corps district may discontinue providing notification to those
regional agency offices. The District Engineer will coordinate with the resources agencies
to identtfy which acttvities involving a PCN that the agencies will provide substantive
comments to the Corps. The District Engineer may also request comments from the
agencies on a case-by-case basis when the District Engineer determines that such comments
would assist the Corps in reaching a decision whether effects are more than minimal either
individually or cumulatively.
(iii) Optional Agency Coordination. 40l Denial. For NWP 2G only, where
the state has denied its 401 water quality certtficatton for activities with less [han one acre of
wetland impact, the EPA rretonal administrator may request acencv coordination of PCNs
between 1/3 and one acre. The revues[ may only tnciude acreage limitations wtthtn the 1/3
to one acre range for which the state has denied water quality certification. fn cases where
the EPA has requested coordination of projects as described here, the Corps will forward the
PCN to EPA oNy. The PCN will then be forwarded to the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Marine Fisheries Service by EPA under agreements among those agencies.
Any agency receiving the PCN will be bound by the EPA timeframes for providing
comments to the Corps.
(f) 1Velland Deliuea~ro~rs: Wetland delineations mus[ be prepared in accordance
with the current method required 6y the Corps. For NWP 2~ see paragraph (b)(6)(iii) for
parcels less than 0.5 acres in size. The petmietee may ask the Corps to delineate the special
aquatic site. Thete may he some delay if the Corps does the delineatton. ("urthermore, the
30-day penod (45 days tilt NWP 2G) will not start until the wetland delineation has been
completed and submitted to the Corps, where approprtate.
(g) ~lfit9gatrat: f actors that the Distnc[ Encincer ~~•ill constdcr when dctermming
the acceptability of approprtate and practicable mttigatton include, but are not limited to:
(i) To be practicable. tfie mitigation must be available and capable of being
done considering costs. extsttng technology, and logistics in light of the overall project
putposcs:
(ii) To the extent approprtate, pcrmittces shoulJ constdcr mttigatton banking
and other forms of mttigatton including contributions to wetland trust funds. "in lieu fees" to
~~rganizauuus such as The ;~'.~wre ('unscrvancy, :.tact ur county natural resource management
agenetes. where such fees contribute to the restoration, creation, replacement, enhancement.
or preservation of wetlands. Furthermore. examples of mttigatton that may be appropriate
and practtcable include, but arc not limited to: Reducing the size of the pro)ec[: establishing
wetland or upland buffer zones to protect aquatic resource i•atues: and replacing the loss of
.tyuauc resource values by crcatinc, restorme, and enhancme stmdar functions and values.
In addition. nu[i¢auon must address wetland impacts. such us tuncuans and v;ilues. and
cannot he simply used to offset the acreage tit wetland losses that a•~uld occur m order [o
5