C.F.R. » Title 40 » CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY › SUBCHAPTER H—OCEAN DUMPING › PART 227—CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUATION OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR OCEAN DUMPING OF MATERIALS › Subpart D—Impact of the Proposed Dumping on Esthetic, Recreational and Economic Values

40 C.F.R. § 227.18

Factors considered

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

The assessment of the potential for impacts on esthetic, recreational and economic values will be based on an evaluation of the appropriate characteristics of the material to be dumped, allowing for conservative rates of dilution, dispersion, and biochemical degradation during movement of the materials from a disposal site to an area of significant recreational or commercial value. The following specific factors will be considered in making such an assessment:

(a) Nature and extent of present and potential recreational and commercial use of areas which might be affected by the proposed dumping;

(b) Existing water quality, and nature and extent of disposal activities, in the areas which might be affected by the proposed dumping;

(c) Applicable water quality standards;

(d) Visible characteristics of the materials (e.g., color, suspended particulates) which result in an unacceptable estetic nuisance in recreational areas;

(e) Presence in the material of pathogenic organisms which may cause a public health hazard either directly or through contamination of fisheries or shellfisheries;

(f) Presence in the material of toxic chemical constituents released in volumes which may affect humans directly;

(g) Presence in the material of chemical constituents which may be bioaccumulated or persistent and may have an adverse effect on humans directly or through food chain interactions;

(h) Presence in the material of any constituents which might significantly affect living marine resources of recreational or commercial value.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1982–1987 · leading case: Manatee Cnty. v. Gorsuch, 554 F. Supp. 778 (M.D. Fla. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Manatee Cnty. v. Gorsuch, 554 F. Supp. 778 (M.D. Fla. 1982). “For example, 40 C.F.R. § 227.18 , in pertinent part, requires the defendants to consider the following factors: (a) Nature and extent of present and potential recreational and commercial use of areas which might be affected by the proposed dumping; (b) Existing water quality,…”
Mall Props., Inc. v. Marsh, 672 F. Supp. 561 (D. Mass. 1987). “” 40 C.F. R. § 227.18(a) and (h). The example provided by the regulations of what should be considered is the “reduction in use days of recreational areas, or dollars lost in commercial fishery profits or the profitability of other commercial enterprises.”
— 40 C.F.R. § 227.18(a) — 1 case
Mall Props., Inc. v. Marsh, 672 F. Supp. 561 (D. Mass. 1987). “” 40 C.F. R. § 227.18(a) and (h). The example provided by the regulations of what should be considered is the “reduction in use days of recreational areas, or dollars lost in commercial fishery profits or the profitability of other commercial enterprises.”
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.