33 C.F.R. § 331.1

Purpose and policy

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

(a) General. The purpose of this part is to establish policies and procedures to be used for the administrative appeal of approved jurisdictional determinations (JDs), permit applications denied with prejudice, and declined permits. The appeal process will allow the affected party to pursue an administrative appeal of certain Corps of Engineers decisions with which they disagree. The basis for an appeal and the specific policies and procedures of the appeal process are described in the following sections. It shall be the policy of the Corps of Engineers to promote and maintain an administrative appeal process that is independent, objective, fair, prompt, and efficient.

(b) Level of decision maker. Appealable actions decided by a division engineer or higher authority may be appealed to an Army official at least one level higher than the decision maker. This higher Army official shall make the decision on the merits of the appeal, and may appoint a qualified individual to act as a review officer (as defined in § 331.2). References to the division engineer in this part shall be understood as also referring to a higher level Army official when such official is conducting an administrative appeal.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2023 · leading case: Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 417 F.3d 1272 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 417 F.3d 1272 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “See 33 C.F.R. § 331.1 . Indeed, a disappointed applicant must exhaust his administrative remedies before heading to federal court.”

Normandy Corp. v. South Carolina Dep't of Transp., 688 S.E.2d 136 (S.C. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Booth’s 1997 delineation was “the final word” regarding the amount of jurisdictional wetlands existing on the parcel and that Normandy’s failure to adhere to the appeals process set forth in *407 33 C.F.R. §§ 331.1 to 331.12 precludes it from now utilizing the state court system…”

United States v. White (E.D.N.C. 2023). “A charitable reading produces the argument that the United States does not have standing for its enforcement action, which is also not ripe, because it did not first exhaust the administrative appeals for jurisdictional determinations under 33 C.F.R. § 331.1 . This argument…”

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.