39 C.F.R. § 776.5

Review procedures

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Officials shall follow the decision-making process outlined in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section, when a facility action may involve floodplain issues. Under certain circumstances, this process may be carried out with fewer steps if all objectives of the decision-making process can be achieved. A general principle underlying this process is that a postal facility action requiring construction in a floodplain may be considered only when there is no practicable alternative.

(a) Analysis of alternatives. If a postal facility action would involve construction in a floodplain, alternative actions shall be considered.

(b) Early public notice. If a facility action at the contending site(s) could require construction in a floodplain, public notice must be provided.

(c) Floodplain location and information. (1) Personnel shall determine whether construction would occur within a floodplain. The determination shall be made by reference to appropriate Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) floodplain maps (sometimes referred to as Floodplain Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)), or Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps, or more detailed maps if available. If such maps are not available, floodplain location must be determined based on the best available information.

(2) Once the preferred site has been identified, potential floodplain impacts must be determined. As part of this determination process, specific floodplain information should be developed, which is to consider:

(i) Whether the proposed action will directly or indirectly support floodplain development;

(ii) Flood hazard and risk to lives and property;

(iii) Effects on natural and beneficial floodplain values, such as water quality maintenance, groundwater recharge, and agriculture; and

(iv) Possible measures to minimize harm to, or impact on, the floodplain.

(d) Reevaluation. After the above steps have been followed, if the determination is that there appears to be no practicable alternative to constructing in a floodplain, a further review of alternatives must be conducted by the facilities organization in conjunction with the operations organization requesting the construction of the facility. The further review of alternatives must be conducted by the operations organization for projects within the delegated authority of the Vice President, Area Operations.

(e) Final public notice. As a result of the reevaluation, if it is determined that there is no practicable alternative to constructing in a floodplain, public notice shall be provided as soon as possible for the proposed action. The notice should be publicized and should include:

(1) Identification of the project's location;

(2) Provision for a 30-day public commenting period before irrevocable action is taken by the Postal Service; and

(3) Name and complete address of a postal contact person responsible for providing further information on the decision to proceed with a facility action or construction project in a floodplain. Upon request, that person shall provide further information as follows:

(i) A description of why the proposed action must be located in a floodplain;

(ii) A listing of alternative actions considered in making the determination; and

(iii) A statement indicating whether the action conforms to applicable state and local floodplain protection standards.

(f) Distribution. The above public notice will be sent to appropriate officials, local newspapers, and other parties who express interest in the project.

(g) NEPA coordination. If either an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment is required under the Postal Service's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, the above review procedures must be incorporated into and evaluated in that document.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1987–1993 · leading case: City of Waltham v. United States Postal Serv., 786 F. Supp. 105 (D. Mass. 1992).
City of Waltham v. United States Postal Serv., 786 F. Supp. 105 (D. Mass. 1992). · cites it 14× “39 C.F.R. §§ 776.5 , 776.8.” Id. at 349 .”
United States v. 27.09 Acres of Land, 737 F. Supp. 277 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). · cites it 5× “39 C.F.R. § 776.5 states: (a) Restriction of Consideration of Floodplain/Wetland.”
United States v. 27.09 Acres of Land, in Town of Harrison, 760 F. Supp. 345 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). · cites it 3× “3 39 C.F.R. § 776.5 . If the Postal Service determines that there is no alternative to construction that would affect a wetland or floodplain, it may proceed with the project, but only after providing detailed public notice and a thirty day public comment period prior to…”
Savia v. United States Postal Serv., 659 F. Supp. 653 (D.D.C. 1987). · cites it 12× “The disputed part of the regulation concerns “New Construction,” 39 C.F.R. § 776.5 , and reads: (a) Restriction of Consideration of Floodplain/Wetland.”
Vill. of Palatine v. United States Postal Serv., 742 F. Supp. 1377 (N.D. Ill. 1990). “Yet even with a retention basin, the amount of runoff that eventually reaches the floodplain will increase, and the EA did not assess this impact. Even when a project does not entail actual construction within a floodplain, administrative regulations require the Postal Service…”
Vill. of Palatine v. United States Postal Serv., 756 F. Supp. 1079 (N.D. Ill. 1991). “It now contains a detailed analysis of the facility's impact on the floodplain in accordance with the mandate of 39 C.F.R. § 776.5 (b) (1989), not only in terms of building on the McDade site, but also for the alternatives of building the facility on the Brandt site, building…”
City of Waltham v. United States Postal Serv., 11 F.3d 235 (1st Cir. 1993). “See 39 C.F.R. § 776.5 (a). Furthermore, the third assessment says that the project will not involve wetland construction.”
City of Waltham v. U.S. Postal Serv. (1st Cir. 1993). “See 39 C.F.R. 776.5(a). Furthermore, the third assessment ___ says that the project will not involve wetland construction.”
— 39 C.F.R. § 776.5(a) — 2 cases
Savia v. United States Postal Serv., 659 F. Supp. 653 (D.D.C. 1987). “The disputed part of the regulation concerns “New Construction,” 39 C.F.R. § 776.5 , and reads: (a) Restriction of Consideration of Floodplain/Wetland.”
City of Waltham v. U.S. Postal Serv. (1st Cir. 1993). “See 39 C.F.R. 776.5(a). Furthermore, the third assessment ___ says that the project will not involve wetland construction.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.