40 C.F.R. § 230.10

Restrictions on discharge

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

Because other laws may apply to particular discharges and because the Corps of Engineers or State 404 agency may have additional procedural and substantive requirements, a discharge complying with the requirement of these Guidelines will not automatically receive a permit.

Although all requirements in § 230.10 must be met, the compliance evaluation procedures will vary to reflect the seriousness of the potential for adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystems posed by specific dredged or fill material discharge activities.

(a) Except as provided under section 404(b)(2), no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences.

(1) For the purpose of this requirement, practicable alternatives include, but are not limited to:

(i) Activities which do not involve a discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States or ocean waters;

(ii) Discharges of dredged or fill material at other locations in waters of the United States or ocean waters;

(2) An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. If it is otherwise a practicable alternative, an area not presently owned by the applicant which could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity may be considered.

(3) Where the activity associated with a discharge which is proposed for a special aquatic site (as defined in subpart E) does not require access or proximity to or siting within the special aquatic site in question to fulfill its basic purpose (i.e., is not “water dependent”), practicable alternatives that do not involve special aquatic sites are presumed to be available, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise. In addition, where a discharge is proposed for a special aquatic site, all practicable alternatives to the proposed discharge which do not involve a discharge into a special aquatic site are presumed to have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise.

(4) For actions subject to NEPA, where the Corps of Engineers is the permitting agency, the analysis of alternatives required for NEPA environmental documents, including supplemental Corps NEPA documents, will in most cases provide the information for the evaluation of alternatives under these Guidelines. On occasion, these NEPA documents may address a broader range of alternatives than required to be considered under this paragraph or may not have considered the alternatives in sufficient detail to respond to the requirements of these Guidelines. In the latter case, it may be necessary to supplement these NEPA documents with this additional information.

(5) To the extent that practicable alternatives have been identified and evaluated under a Coastal Zone Management program, a section 208 program, or other planning process, such evaluation shall be considered by the permitting authority as part of the consideration of alternatives under the Guidelines. Where such evaluation is less complete than that contemplated under this subsection, it must be supplemented accordingly.

(b) No discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if it:

(1) Causes or contributes, after consideration of disposal site dilution and dispersion, to violations of any applicable State water quality standard;

(2) Violates any applicable toxic effluent standard or prohibition under section 307 of the Act;

(3) Jeopardizes the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, or results in likelihood of the destruction or adverse modification of a habitat which is determined by the Secretary of Interior or Commerce, as appropriate, to be a critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If an exemption has been granted by the Endangered Species Committee, the terms of such exemption shall apply in lieu of this subparagraph;

(4) Violates any requirement imposed by the Secretary of Commerce to protect any marine sanctuary designated under title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.

(c) Except as provided under section 404(b)(2), no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted which will cause or contribute to significant degradation of the waters of the United States. Findings of significant degradation related to the proposed discharge shall be based upon appropriate factual determinations, evaluations, and tests required by subparts B and G, after consideration of subparts C through F, with special emphasis on the persistence and permanence of the effects outlined in those subparts. Under these Guidelines, effects contributing to significant degradation considered individually or collectively, include:

(1) Significantly adverse effects of the discharge of pollutants on human health or welfare, including but not limited to effects on municipal water supplies, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites.

(2) Significantly adverse effects of the discharge of pollutants on life stages of aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on aquatic ecosystems, including the transfer, concentration, and spread of pollutants or their byproducts outside of the disposal site through biological, physical, and chemical processes;

(3) Significantly adverse effects of the discharge of pollutants on aquatic ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability. Such effects may include, but are not limited to, loss of fish and wildlife habitat or loss of the capacity of a wetland to assimilate nutrients, purify water, or reduce wave energy; or

(4) Significantly adverse effects of discharge of pollutants on recreational, aesthetic, and economic values.

(d) Except as provided under section 404(b)(2), no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted unless appropriate and practicable steps have been taken which will minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem. Subpart H identifies such possible steps.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 219 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Ohio Valley Env't Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2009).
Ohio Valley Env't Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2009). · cites it 10× “" [9] 40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (c) (2008). A discharge contributes to significant degradation if it has "[s]ignificantly adverse effects" on human health or welfare, on aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on aquatic ecosystems, on aquatic ecosystem diversity, productivity, and…”
Friends of the Santa Clara v. US Army Corps of Engineers, 887 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 12× “40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (a). That is, the Corps must analyze alternatives to the proposed discharge and “select the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.”
Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 526 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 10× “" 40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (a). A presumption that practical, environmentally preferable alternatives exist arises if the "activity associated with a discharge which is proposed for a [wetland] does not require access or proximity to or siting within the [wetland] in question to…”
Utahns for Better Transp. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 305 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2002). · cites it 7× ““Practicable” is defined at 40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (a)(2) as “available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.”
Bering Strait Citizens for Responsible Resource Dev. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 524 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 9× “40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (a) provides that “no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other…”
Town of Norfolk & Town of Walpole v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 968 F.2d 1438 (1st Cir. 1992). · cites it 11× “First, the Towns claimed that the MWRA had failed to demonstrate that no practicable alternative having less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem existed as required under 40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (a). Second, the Towns argued that the landfill would eliminate over fifty percent of…”
City Club of New York v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 246 F. Supp. 3d 860 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). · cites it 16× “” 40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (a). The Corps’ own regulations further require the Corps to conduct a public interest review for each proposed discharge, and prohibit the Corps from granting a permit that (1) would “not comply with [EPA’S] 404(b)(1) [Guidelines” and/or (2) that would be…”
Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 869 F.3d 148 (3rd Cir. 2017). · cites it 16× “In performing its alternatives analysis, the Corps may rely on the environmental report prepared by FERC pursuant to NEPA, The agencies memorialized their cooperative relationship in a 2005 Memorandum of Understanding, which states that the Corps will “use the FERC record to the…”
Sierra Club v. Flowers, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (S.D. Fla. 2006). · cites it 17× “The regulations implementing the CWA, found at 40 C.F.R. 230.10, prohibit the issuance of a dredge and fill (into wetlands) permit if, inter alia, practicable alternatives exist.”
City of Shoreacres v. Waterworth, 332 F. Supp. 2d 992 (S.D. Tex. 2004). · cites it 14× “According to Plaintiffs, if significant degradation is found, 40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (c) requires that the permit be denied.”
All. for Legal Action v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 314 F. Supp. 2d 534 (M.D.N.C. 2004). · cites it 15× “” 40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (a). The Guidelines further provide: An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.”
Audubon Naturalist Soc'y of the Cent. Atl. States, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 524 F. Supp. 2d 642 (D. Maryland 2007). · cites it 8× “40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (c)(l)-(4). EPA’s 404(b)(1) Guidelines generally prohibit issuing permits for projects where there “is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have…”
— 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(4) — 1 case
Env't Def. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 515 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D.D.C. 2007).
— 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a) — 11 cases
Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 709 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (S.D. Fla. 2009).
Bersani v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 674 F. Supp. 405 (N.D.N.Y. 1987).
City of Shoreacres v. Waterworth, 332 F. Supp. 2d 992 (S.D. Tex. 2004). “According to Plaintiffs, if significant degradation is found, 40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (c) requires that the permit be denied.”
Sierra Club v. Flowers, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (S.D. Fla. 2006). “The regulations implementing the CWA, found at 40 C.F.R. 230.10, prohibit the issuance of a dredge and fill (into wetlands) permit if, inter alia, practicable alternatives exist.”
Pamlico-Tar River Found. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 329 F. Supp. 2d 600 (E.D.N.C. 2004).
— 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(1) — 4 cases
Sierra Club v. Flowers, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (S.D. Fla. 2006). “The regulations implementing the CWA, found at 40 C.F.R. 230.10, prohibit the issuance of a dredge and fill (into wetlands) permit if, inter alia, practicable alternatives exist.”
Sierra Club v. Marsh, 701 F. Supp. 886 (D. Me. 1988).
Conservation Law Found. v. Fed. High. Admin., 827 F. Supp. 871 (D.R.I. 1993).
Dep't of Admin. v. City of St. Petersburg, 12 Fla. Supp. 2d 112 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1985).
— 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(2) — 14 cases
Sierra Club v. Flowers, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (S.D. Fla. 2006). “The regulations implementing the CWA, found at 40 C.F.R. 230.10, prohibit the issuance of a dredge and fill (into wetlands) permit if, inter alia, practicable alternatives exist.”
Audubon Naturalist Soc'y of the Cent. Atl. States, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 524 F. Supp. 2d 642 (D. Maryland 2007). “40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (c)(l)-(4). EPA’s 404(b)(1) Guidelines generally prohibit issuing permits for projects where there “is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have…”
City Club of New York v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 246 F. Supp. 3d 860 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). “” 40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (a). The Corps’ own regulations further require the Corps to conduct a public interest review for each proposed discharge, and prohibit the Corps from granting a permit that (1) would “not comply with [EPA’S] 404(b)(1) [Guidelines” and/or (2) that would be…”
Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 709 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (S.D. Fla. 2009).
Pamlico-Tar River Found. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 329 F. Supp. 2d 600 (E.D.N.C. 2004).
— 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(3) — 14 cases
Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 709 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (S.D. Fla. 2009).
Sierra Club v. Flowers, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (S.D. Fla. 2006). “The regulations implementing the CWA, found at 40 C.F.R. 230.10, prohibit the issuance of a dredge and fill (into wetlands) permit if, inter alia, practicable alternatives exist.”
Bering Strait Citizens for Responsible Resource Dev. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 524 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2008). “40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (a) provides that “no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other…”
1902 Atl. Ltd. v. Hudson, 574 F. Supp. 1381 (E.D. Va. 1983).
Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822 (9th Cir. 1986).
— 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(4) — 2 cases
Sierra Club v. Flowers, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (S.D. Fla. 2006). “The regulations implementing the CWA, found at 40 C.F.R. 230.10, prohibit the issuance of a dredge and fill (into wetlands) permit if, inter alia, practicable alternatives exist.”
Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 709 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (S.D. Fla. 2009).
— 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(8) — 1 case
Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 709 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (S.D. Fla. 2009).
— 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(b) — 3 cases
Forest Props., Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 56 (Fed. Cl. 1997).
Bersani v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 674 F. Supp. 405 (N.D.N.Y. 1987).
— 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(c) — 5 cases
Bersani v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 674 F. Supp. 405 (N.D.N.Y. 1987).
Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 709 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (S.D. Fla. 2009).
Kentucky Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Midkiff, 800 F. Supp. 2d 846 (E.D. Ky. 2011).
Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 614 F. Supp. 1475 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
— 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(c)(1) — 2 cases
Sierra Club v. Flowers, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (S.D. Fla. 2006). “The regulations implementing the CWA, found at 40 C.F.R. 230.10, prohibit the issuance of a dredge and fill (into wetlands) permit if, inter alia, practicable alternatives exist.”
Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 709 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (S.D. Fla. 2009).
— 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(c)(3) — 2 cases
— 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(d) — 2 cases
Audubon Naturalist Soc'y of the Cent. Atl. States, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 524 F. Supp. 2d 642 (D. Maryland 2007). “40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (c)(l)-(4). EPA’s 404(b)(1) Guidelines generally prohibit issuing permits for projects where there “is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have…”
Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 709 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (S.D. Fla. 2009).
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.