(a) Notice of intent. As soon as practicable after determining that a proposed activity for which Corps authorization is sought is sufficiently developed to allow for meaningful public comment and requires an environmental impact statement, the District Engineer will publish a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

1. (1) The notice of intent for an environmental impact statement will include a request for public comment on alternatives or effects and on relevant information, studies, or analyses with respect to the proposed agency action.

2. (2) In addition to a request for comment required for notices of intent for environmental impact statements, notice of intent for any environmental document may include:

   1. (i) The purpose and need for the proposed action;
   2. (ii) A preliminary description of the proposed action and alternatives the environmental impact statement will consider;
   3. (iii) A brief summary of expected effects;
   4. (iv) Anticipated permits and other authorizations (i.e., anticipated related actions);
   5. (v) A schedule for the decision-making process;
   6. (vi) A description of the public scoping process, including any scoping meeting(s);
   7. (vii) Contact information for the project manager handling the permit application, who can answer questions about the proposed action and the environmental impact statement; and
   8. (viii) Identification of any cooperating and participating agencies (i.e., agencies responsible for related actions), and any information that such agencies require in the notice to facilitate their decisions or authorizations

(c) Scope of analysis. It is the exclusive responsibility of the District Engineer to determine the appropriate scope of analysis for the applicant's proposed activity based on the Corps' legal authority over the activity and whether the Corps has sufficient control and responsibility over any aspect of the applicant's proposed activity beyond the Corps' limited statutory authorities. When determining the scope of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement, the District Engineer must consider the following:

1. (1) In some situations, a permit applicant may propose to conduct a specific activity requiring a Department of the Army (DA) permit (e.g., construction of a pier in a navigable water of the United States), which is merely one component of a larger project (e.g., construction of an oil refinery on an upland area). The district engineer should establish the scope of the Corps' NEPA review to address the impacts of the specific activity requiring a DA permit or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission and those portions of the entire project over which the district engineer has sufficient control, responsibility, and legal authority to warrant Federal review.

2. (2) The District Engineer is considered to have control, responsibility, and legal authority for portions of the project beyond the limits of Corps jurisdiction where the Federal involvement is sufficient to turn an essentially private action into a Federal action, consistent with Congress's exclusions from the definition of “major Federal action” at NEPA Section 111(10) and the Supreme Court's holding in Seven County that NEPA does not require an agency to analyze effects from actions beyond the action the agency itself is taking or authorizing.. These are cases where the environmental consequences of the larger project are essentially products of the Corps permit or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission action. Typical factors to be considered in determining whether sufficient control, responsibility, and legal authority exist to turn an essentially private action occurring outside of Corps jurisdiction into a Federal action include:

   1. (i) Whether or not the regulated activity comprises merely a link in a corridor type project (e.g., a transportation or utility transmission project).
   2. (ii) Whether there are aspects of the upland facility in the immediate vicinity of the regulated activity which affect the location and configuration of the regulated activity.
   3. (iii) The extent to which the entire project will be within Corps jurisdiction.

   4. (iv) The extent of cumulative Federal control, responsibility, and legal authority.

      1. (A) Federal control, responsibility, and legal authority will include the portions of the project beyond the limits of Corps jurisdiction where the cumulative Federal involvement of the Corps and other Federal agencies is sufficient to grant legal control over such additional portions of the project. These are cases where the environmental consequences of the additional portions of the projects are essentially products of Federal financing, assistance, direction, regulation, or approval (not including funding assistance solely in the form of general revenue sharing funds, with no Federal agency control over the subsequent use of such funds, and not including judicial or administrative civil or criminal enforcement actions).
      2. (B) In determining whether sufficient cumulative Federal involvement exists to expand the scope of Federal action the district engineer should consider whether other Federal agencies are required to take Federal action under their statutory authorities, and/or other environmental review laws and executive orders.
      3. (C) The District Engineer should also refer to § 333.17 of this part for guidance on determining whether the Corps should be the lead or a cooperating agency in these situations.

3. (3) Examples:

   1. (i) If a non-Federal oil refinery, electric generating plant, or industrial facility is proposed to be built on an upland site and the only DA permit or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission requirement relates to a connecting pipeline, supply loading terminal, or fill road, that pipeline, terminal or fill road permit, in and of itself, normally would not constitute sufficient overall Federal involvement with the project to justify expanding the scope of a Corps NEPA document to cover upland portions of the facility beyond the structures in the immediate vicinity of the regulated activity that would affect the location and configuration of the regulated activity.

      Similarly, if an applicant seeks a DA permit to fill waters or wetlands or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission to alter a covered project on which other construction or work is proposed, the control, responsibility, and legal authority of the Corps, as well as its overall Federal involvement, would extend to the portions of the project to be located on the permitted fill or within the boundary of the project covered by 33 U.S.C. 408. However, the NEPA review would be extended to the entire project, including portions outside waters of the United States or the project area covered by 33 U.S.C. 408, only if sufficient Federal control, responsibility, and legal authority over the entire project is determined to exist; that is, if the regulated activities, and those activities involving regulation, funding, etc., by other Federal agencies, comprise a substantial portion of the overall project. In any case, once the scope of analysis has been defined, the NEPA analysis for that action should include the effects or impacts from the proposed action or alternatives on all Federal interests within the purview of the NEPA statute. The District Engineer should, whenever practicable, incorporate by reference and rely upon the reviews of other Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies.

   2. (ii) For those regulated activities that comprise merely a link in a transportation or utility transmission project, the scope of analysis should address the Federal action, i.e., the specific activity requiring a DA permit or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission and any other portion of the project that is within the control, responsibility, and legal authority of the Corps of Engineers (or other Federal agencies).

      For example, a 50-mile electrical transmission cable crossing a 1 1/4 mile-wide river that is a navigable water of the United States requires a DA permit. Neither the origin nor the destination of the cable, nor its route to and from the navigable water, except as the route applies to the location and configuration of the crossing, are within the control, responsibility, or legal authority of the Corps. Those matters would not be included in the Corps' scope of analysis which, in this case, would address the impacts of the specific cable crossing.

      As another example, the same 50-mile electrical transmission cable crossing a Corps civil works project requires a 33 U.S.C. 408 permission. As with the previous example, neither the origin nor the destination of the cable, nor its route to and from the civil works project, except as the route applies to the location and configuration of the crossing within the civil works project, are within the control, responsibility, or legal authority of the Corps. Those matters would not be included in the Corps' scope of analysis which, in this case, would address the impacts of the specific cable crossing on the Corps civil works project.

      Conversely, for those activities that require a DA permit or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission for a major portion of a transportation or utility transmission project, such that the Corps permit or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission bears upon the origin and destination as well as the route of the project outside the Corps regulatory boundaries (including those covered by 33 U.S.C. 408), the scope of analysis should include those portions of the project outside the boundaries of the Corps jurisdiction. To use the same example, if 30 miles of the 50-mile transmission line would cross jurisdictional wetlands, other “waters of the United States,” or Corps civil works boundaries covered by 33 U.S.C. 408, the scope of analysis should reflect impacts of the whole 50-mile transmission line.

   3. (iii) For those activities that require a DA permit for a major portion of a shoreside facility, the scope of analysis should extend to upland portions of the facility. For example, a shipping terminal normally requires dredging, wharves, bulkheads, berthing areas, and disposal of dredged material in order to function. Permits for such activities are normally considered sufficient Federal control, responsibility, and legal authority to warrant extending the scope of analysis to include the upland portions of the facility.
4. (4) In all cases, the scope of analysis used for analyzing both impacts and alternatives should be the same scope of analysis used for analyzing the benefits of a proposal.

5. (5) In preparing the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, the District Engineer will focus its analysis on whether the environmental effects of the regulated activity are significant.

   1. (i) Similarly, the District Engineer will document in the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement where and how it drew a reasonable and manageable line relating to its consideration of any environmental effects from the regulated activity that extend outside the geographical territory of the project or might materialize later in time.
   2. (ii) To the extent it assists in reasoned decision-making, the District Engineer may, but is not required to by NEPA, analyze environmental effects from other projects separate in time, or separate in place, or that fall outside of the Corps' regulatory authority, or that would have to be initiated by a third party. If the District Engineer determines that such analysis would assist it in reasoned decisionmaking, it will document this determination in the environmental assessment and explain where it drew a reasonable and manageable line relating to the consideration of such effects from such separate projects.