(a) The Secretary of the Army has delegated to the Chief of Engineers the authority to issue or deny section 404 permits. The district engineer will review applications for permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States in accordance with guidelines promulgated by the Administrator, EPA, under authority of section 404(b)(1) of the CWA. (see 40 CFR part 230.) Subject to consideration of any economic impact on navigation and anchorage pursuant to section 404(b)(2), a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such a permit would not comply with the 404(b)(1) guidelines. If the district engineer determines that the proposed discharge would comply with the 404(b)(1) guidelines, he will grant the permit unless issuance would be contrary to the public interest.
(b) The Corps will not issue a permit where the regional administrator of EPA has notified the district engineer and applicant in writing pursuant to 40 CFR 231.3(a)(1) that he intends to issue a public notice of a proposed determination to prohibit or withdraw the specification, or to deny, restrict or withdraw the use for specification, of any defined area as a disposal site in accordance with section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. However the Corps will continue to complete the administrative processing of the application while the section 404(c) procedures are underway including completion of final coordination with EPA under 33 CFR part 325.
Notes of Decisions
Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt. v. Twin Eagle LLC, 798 N.E.2d 839 (Ind. 2003).
· cites it 2× “§ 1344 (2001); 33 C.F.R. 323.6 (2003). A state may also receive EPA approval to administer its own NPDES program to issue permits for waters within the state.”
All. to Save the Mattaponi v. Commonwealth, 519 S.E.2d 413 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “” 33 C.F.R. § 323.6 (a). Factors that the Corps must balance in making its public interest determination include, inter alia, “conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and -wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain…”
Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 714 F.3d 608 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
“Similarly, post-permit withdrawal is not precluded by 33 C.F.R. § 323.6 (b) (“The Corps will not issue a permit where the regional administrator of EPA has notified the district engineer and applicant in writing pursuant to 40 CFR 231.”
Nw. Bypass Grp. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 470 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.N.H. 2007).
“” 33 C.F.R. § 323.6 (a). The “public interest review” involves a weighing of the benefits of the proposed activity against the foreseeable detriments.”
Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 464 F. Supp. 2d 1171 (M.D. Fla. 2006).
“The Corps is required to evaluate all permits for compliance with the 404(b)(1) guidelines, 33 C.F.R. § 323.6 (a), and must deny a permit application that does not comply with them.”
Town of Huntington v. Marsh, 859 F.2d 1134 (2d Cir. 1988).
“The Clean Water Act’s permit review regulations, 33 C.F. R. § 323.6(a), require the Corps to “review applications for permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material .”
Nw. Bypass Grp. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 552 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.N.H. 2008).
“” 33 C.F.R. § 323.6 (a). The “public interest review” involves a weighing of the benefits of the proposed activity against the foreseeable detriments.”
— 33 C.F.R. § 323.6(a) — 1 case
Town of Huntington v. Marsh, 859 F.2d 1134 (2d Cir. 1988).
“The Clean Water Act’s permit review regulations, 33 C.F. R. § 323.6(a), require the Corps to “review applications for permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material .”
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.