33 C.F.R. § 230.1
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1984–2014 · leading case: Sierra Club v. Flowers, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (S.D. Fla. 2006).
Sierra Club v. Flowers, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (S.D. Fla. 2006). “In preparing an EIS, the Corps is required to follow its own regulations implementing NEPA, 33 C.F.R. 230.1, as well as the regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 105 See, e.”
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 746 F.3d 698 (6th Cir. 2014). “See 33 C.F.R. § 230.1 ; id. pt. 325, app. B. And because the Corps promulgated the specific regulations that govern the question of how great the scope of the Corps’s NEPA review is, see 40 C.”
Missouri v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 516 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2008). “However, these provisions must be read in conjunction with CEQ’s implementing regulations, see 33 C.F.R. § 230.1 , which sensibly provide that “[ajgencies may prepare an environmental assessment on any action at any time in order to assist agency planning and decisionmaking.”
Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 709 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (S.D. Fla. 2009). “§ 4332 (2)(c), which is governed by Corps regulations found at 33 C.F.R. 230.1 and Appendix B of 33 C.F.”
All. to Save the Mattaponi v. Commonwealth, 519 S.E.2d 413 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). “” 33 C.F.R. § 230.1 (a), (b). The guidelines are “applicable to the specification of disposal sites for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States,” 33 C.”
Fritiofson v. Alexander, 592 F. Supp. 120 (S.D. Tex. 1984). “Although the Court’s consideration of cumulative impact is limited to how the CEQ regulations employ and define the term, the Corps’ own regulations, designed to supplement the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA, 33 C.F.R. § 230.1 (1983), also discuss the concept of cumulative…”
Pogliani v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 306 F.3d 1235 (2d Cir. 2002). “The Corps’ NEPA implementing procedures, which supplement the CEQ regulations, see 33 C.F.R. § 230.1 ; 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500.6 , 1507.”
Sierra Club v. Froehlke, 630 F. Supp. 1215 (S.D. Tex. 1986). “See 33 C.F.R. § 230.1 , et seq. (1985). C. Congressional Role By requiring an impact statement under NEPA, Congress wanted to ensure that during the resolution process, the envi *1225 ronmental impingements of any action would be considered by all federal agencies.”
Bd. of Mississippi Levee Commissioners v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 785 F. Supp. 2d 592 (N.D. Miss. 2011). “” 33 C.F.R. § 230.1 7 .Specifically, the 1982 Yazoo Area Pump Project Post Authorization Change Notification Report — which is discussed in more detail below — provides that: Although levees, channel work, and pumps were authorized by the Flood Control Act .”
State of Missouri v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng. (8th Cir. 2008). “However, these provisions must be read in conjunction with CEQ’s implementing regulations, see 33 C.F.R. § 230.1 , which sensibly provide that “[a]gencies may prepare an environmental 6 An EA may be tiered to an earlier EIS “to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues…”
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.