40 C.F.R. § 230.41

Wetlands

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

(a)(1) Wetlands consist of areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

(2) Where wetlands are adjacent to open water, they generally constitute the transition to upland. The margin between wetland and open water can best be established by specialists familiar with the local environment, particularly where emergent vegetation merges with submerged vegetation over a broad area in such places as the lateral margins of open water, headwaters, rainwater catch basins, and groundwater seeps. The landward margin of wetlands also can best be identified by specialists familiar with the local environment when vegetation from the two regions merges over a broad area.

(3) Wetland vegetation consists of plants that require saturated soils to survive (obligate wetland plants) as well as plants, including certain trees, that gain a competitive advantage over others because they can tolerate prolonged wet soil conditions and their competitors cannot. In addition to plant populations and communities, wetlands are delimited by hydrological and physical characteristics of the environment. These characteristics should be considered when information about them is needed to supplement information available about vegetation, or where wetland vegetation has been removed or is dormant.

(b) Possible loss of values: The discharge of dredged or fill material in wetlands is likely to damage or destroy habitat and adversely affect the biological productivity of wetlands ecosystems by smothering, by dewatering, by permanently flooding, or by altering substrate elevation or periodicity of water movement. The addition of dredged or fill material may destroy wetland vegetation or result in advancement of succession to dry land species. It may reduce or eliminate nutrient exchange by a reduction of the system's productivity, or by altering current patterns and velocities. Disruption or elimination of the wetland system can degrade water quality by obstructing circulation patterns that flush large expanses of wetland systems, by interfering with the filtration function of wetlands, or by changing the aquifer recharge capability of a wetland. Discharges can also change the wetland habitat value for fish and wildlife as discussed in subpart D. When disruptions in flow and circulation patterns occur, apparently minor loss of wetland acreage may result in major losses through secondary impacts. Discharging fill material in wetlands as part of municipal, industrial or recreational development may modify the capacity of wetlands to retain and store floodwaters and to serve as a buffer zone shielding upland areas from wave actions, storm damage and erosion.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2021 · leading case: John Buttrey and John Buttrey Developments, Inc. v. United States of America
John Buttrey and John Buttrey Developments, Inc. v. United States of America (1982) ca5 · cites it 3× “” 40 C.F.R. § 230.41 (b) (1981). The regulations further state that the Corps shall begin its analysis of a proposed project with the presumption that the “unnecessary alteration or destruction of [wetlands] should be discouraged as contrary to the public interest.”
Utahns for Better Transportation v. United States Department of Transportation (2002) ca10 “40 (b)(1); impacts to wetlands that are likely to damage or destroy habitat and adversely affect the biological productivity of the wetlands’ ecosystem, 40 C.F.R. § 230.41 (3)(b). The Appellants contend that the COE violated CWA by its “unbelievably cursory” analysis of impacts…”
Norman v. United States (2004) uscfc · cites it 2× “2 (c) (1978); 40 C.F.R. § 230.41 (a)(1) (2004). 2 Wetlands tend to be marshes, bogs, or tidal areas that serve important ecological functions, including protecting erosion and flood control.”
Hillsdale Environmental Loss Prevention, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (2012) ca10 “40 C.F.R. § 230.41 . 5 . These cases involved challenges to a NEPA analysis, rather than a CWA analysis.”
Louisiana Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. Dennis J. York, Colonel (1985) ca5 “See 40 C.F.R. § 230.41 (1984). . Id. § 230.1(d); see also 33 C.”
Precon Development Corp. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (2009) vaed · cites it 3× “The regulations define “special aquatic site” to include “wetlands,” 40 C.F.R. § 230.41 , 19 but Plaintiff argues that the *768 Site Wetlands are not wetlands of the “special aquatic” sort.”
Louisiana Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. York (1984) lawd “See 40 C.F.R. § 230.41 . 27 . 40 C.F.R. § 230.”
City of Shoreacres v. Waterworth (2005) ca5 “(citations omitted); see also 40 C.F.R § 230.41(a)(2) (stating that determining the extent of wetlands is a task for specialists).”
Korteweg v. Corps of Engineers of the United States Army (1986) ctd “The law specifically refers to such as a factor, 40 C.F.R. Section 230.41, and if plaintiff did not know of these provisions, he should have.”
Brace v. United States (2000) uscfc “4 (b); 40 C.F.R. § 230.41 . The Government’s actions in this case were implemented to protect plaintiffs wetlands.”
United States v. Deaton (2000) ca4 “See 40 C.F.R. § 230.41 (b) (explaining how discharge of dredged or fill material in wetlands “can degrade water quality by obstructing circulation patterns that flush large expanses of wetland systems, by interfering with the filtration function of wetlands, or by changing the…”
Northwest Bypass Group v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2008) nhd “40 C.F.R. § 230.41 . 17 . The Plaintiffs cite Whistler in paragraph 109 of the Complaint.”
— 40 C.F.R. § 230.41(a)(2) — 1 case
City of Shoreacres v. Waterworth (2005) ca5 “(citations omitted); see also 40 C.F.R § 230.41(a)(2) (stating that determining the extent of wetlands is a task for specialists).”
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.