39 C.F.R. § 776.8

Scope

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

(a) The regulations in this subpart are applicable to the following proposed postal facility actions located in a wetland:

(1) New construction, owned or leased; or

(2) Construction projects at an existing facility that would alter the external configuration of the facility.

(b) These procedures are not applicable to the following postal facility actions:

(1) Construction of foot and bike trails, or boardwalks, including signs, the primary purposes of which are public education, interpretation, or enjoyment of wetland resources;

(2) Construction at existing postal facilities pursuant to the Architectural Barriers Act or postal accessibility standards;

(3) Any facility construction project deemed necessary to comply with federal, state, or local health, sanitary, or safety code standards to ensure safe working conditions;

(4) Construction of facilities that are functionally dependent on water, such as piers, docks, or boat ramps; or

(5) Maintenance, repair, or renovation of existing facilities.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1990–1992 · leading case: United States v. 27.09 Acres of Land, 737 F. Supp. 277 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. 27.09 Acres of Land, 737 F. Supp. 277 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). · cites it 2× “Finally, and most significantly, 39 C.F.R. § 776.8 (a)-(c) requires that “[pjublic notice of Postal Service plans for locating a proposed project in a floodplain or wetland” be provided, which “must contain a provision for a 30-day public commenting period before any action is…”

City of Waltham v. United States Postal Serv., 786 F. Supp. 105 (D. Mass. 1992). “39 C.F.R. § 776.8 (c). Waltham alleges that the Postal Service failed to comply with the requirements (i) that it conduct a “wetlands study”, (ii) that it conduct a “no practicable alternatives” analysis, and (iii) that it provide public notice of the proposed action’s wetland…”

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.