(a) The Corps is neither an opponent nor proponent of the applicant's proposal; therefore, the applicant's final proposal will be identified as the “applicant's preferred alternative” in the final EIS. Decision options available to the District Engineer, which embrace all of the applicant's alternatives, are issue the permit, issue with modifications or conditions, or deny the permit.

(b) The environmental impact statement will include a detailed statement on:

(1) Reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the applicant's preferred alternative;

(2) Any reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the applicant's preferred alternative be implemented;

(3) A reasonable range of alternatives to the applicant's preferred alternative, including an analysis of any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the applicant's preferred alternative in the case of a no action alternative.

(i) Only reasonable alternatives need be considered in detail. Reasonable alternatives must be those that are, in the District Engineer's expert judgment, technically, legally, and economically feasible and such feasibility must focus on the accomplishment of the underlying purpose and need.

(ii) The alternatives analysis should be thorough enough to use the 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR part 230) where applicable.

(iii) Those alternatives that are unavailable to the applicant, whether or not they require Federal action (permits), should normally be included in the analysis of the no-Federal-action (denial) alternative.

(iv) The EIS should discuss geographic alternatives, e.g., changes in location and other site-specific variables, and functional alternatives, e.g., project substitutes and design modifications.

(v) The “no-action” alternative is one which results in no construction requiring a Corps permit or permission. It may be brought by either the applicant electing to modify their proposal to eliminate work under the jurisdiction of the Corps or by the denial of the permit or permission. District engineers, when evaluating this alternative, should discuss, when appropriate, the consequences of other likely uses of a project site, should the permit be denied.

(4) The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and

(5) Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of Federal resources which would be involved in the proposed agency action should it be implemented; and

(6) Any means identified to mitigate adverse environmental effects of the proposed action. (To note, NEPA itself does not require or authorize the Corps to impose any mitigation measures); and

(7) Such alternatives should be evaluated only to the extent necessary to allow a complete and objective evaluation and a fully informed decision regarding the permit application or request for permission.

(b) Environmental impact statements will discuss effects in proportion to their significance. With respect to issues that are not of a substantive nature and do not meaningfully inform the consideration of environmental effects and the resulting decision on how to proceed, there will be no more than the briefest possible discussion to explain why those issues are not substantive and therefore not worthy of any further analysis. Environmental impact statements will be analytic, concise, and no longer than necessary to comply with NEPA in light of the congressionally mandated page limits and deadlines.

(c) The District Engineer will not include a cost-benefit analysis for projects requiring a Corps permit or permission, but may indicate any cost considerations relevant to the permit decision or 33 U.S.C. 408 permission decision.