C.F.R. » Title 40 » CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY › SUBCHAPTER H—OCEAN DUMPING › PART 230—SECTION 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES FOR SPECIFICATION OF DISPOSAL SITES FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL › Subpart A—General

40 C.F.R. § 230.7

General permits

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

(a) Conditions for the issuance of General permits. A General permit for a category of activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material complies with the Guidelines if it meets the applicable restrictions on the discharge in § 230.10 and if the permitting authority determines that:

(1) The activities in such category are similar in nature and similar in their impact upon water quality and the aquatic environment;

(2) The activities in such category will have only minimal adverse effects when performed separately; and

(3) The activities in such category will have only minimal cumulative adverse effects on water quality and the aquatic environment.

(b) Evaluation process. To reach the determinations required in paragraph (a) of this section, the permitting authority shall set forth in writing an evaluation of the potential individual and cumulative impacts of the category of activities to be regulated under the General permit. While some of the information necessary for this evaluation can be obtained from potential permittees and others through the proposal of General permits for public review, the evaluation must be completed before any General permit is issued, and the results must be published with the final permit.

(1) This evaluation shall be based upon consideration of the prohibitions listed in § 230.10(b) and the factors listed in § 230.10(c), and shall include documented information supporting each factual determination in § 230.11 of the Guidelines (consideration of alternatives in § 230.10(a) are not directly applicable to General permits);

(2) The evaluation shall include a precise description of the activities to be permitted under the General permit, explaining why they are sufficiently similar in nature and in environmental impact to warrant regulation under a single General permit based on subparts C through F of the Guidelines. Allowable differences between activities which will be regulated under the same General permit shall be specified. Activities otherwise similar in nature may differ in environmental impact due to their location in or near ecologically sensitive areas, areas with unique chemical or physical characteristics, areas containing concentrations of toxic substances, or areas regulated for specific human uses or by specific land or water management plans (e.g., areas regulated under an approved Coastal Zone Management Plan). If there are specific geographic areas within the purview of a proposed General permit (called a draft General permit under a State 404 program), which are more appropriately regulated by individual permit due to the considerations cited in this paragraph, they shall be clearly delineated in the evaluation and excluded from the permit. In addition, the permitting authority may require an individual permit for any proposed activity under a General permit where the nature or location of the activity makes an individual permit more appropriate.

(3) To predict cumulative effects, the evaluation shall include the number of individual discharge activities likely to be regulated under a General permit until its expiration, including repetitions of individual discharge activities at a single location.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1998–2019 · leading case: Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2015) ca11 · cites it 10× “§ 1344 (e)(1); accord 40 C.F.R. § 230.7 (a). The 404(b) Guidelines require the Corps to predict cumulative effects by evaluating the number of individual discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States expected to be authorized by the general permit until…”
WY OUTDOOR COUNCIL POWDER RIVER BASIN RESOURCES COUNCIL v. US Army Corps of Engineers (2005) wyd · cites it 14× “§ 1344 (e), and its implementing regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 230.7 , by failing to support its findings that the impacts of GP 98-08 would be cumulatively minimal and that the activities permitted would be both similar in nature and similar in impact.”
Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (2006) flmd · cites it 10× “First, plaintiffs claim the Corps failed to comply with 40 C.F.R. § 230.7 (a)(1) which includes as a condition of issuing a general permit that the activities authorized by such permit be “similar in their impact upon water quality and the aquatic environment.”
Kentucky Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Robert Rowlette, Jr. (2013) ca6 · cites it 5× “at 27-28 (citing 40 C.F.R. §§ 230.7 (b), 230.11).) Though the Corps disputes its *412 failure to provide an explanation for its decision, it offers no response to River-keeper’s no-documentation charge.”
Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2016) ca11 · cites it 3× “The decision document must provide specific documentation showing that each of the § 1344(e) conditions has been met, and the evaluation “must be completed before any General permit is issued.”
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Hurst (2009) wvsd · cites it 2× “” 40 C.F.R. § 230.7 (b); see also id. § 230.”
Appalachian Voices v. State Water Control Board (2019) ca4 “Petitioners' rely on two federal regulations in arguing that a cumulative review is required, 40 C.F.R. § 230.7 (a) and 40 C.F.R. § 230.”
Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (2011) ord · cites it 2× “” 40 C.F.R. § 230.7 (b)(1); see also Sierra Club v.”
In Re Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act Rules (2002) njsuperctappdiv “Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA stated that: [T]he Guidelines at 40 CFR 230.7(b)(1) state that "consideration of alternatives in section 230.”
KENTUCKY RIVERKEEPER, INC. v. Midkiff (2011) kyed “” 40 C.F.R. § 230.7 (b)(2). The Corps also uses compensatory mitigation to “offset environmental losses resulting from unavoidable impacts.”
Alaska Center for the Environment v. West (1998) ca9 · cites it 4× “40 C.F.R. § 230.7 (a). Thus, the general permits allow the Corps to circumvent the process of specific approval “where numerous applications for similar activities are likely_” 40 C.”
Alaska Center for the Environment v. West (1998) akd “40 C.F.R. § 230.7 (b)(1). Where a general permit applies to a proposed fill, “the applicant needs merely to comply with its terms, and no further action by the [Corps] is necessary.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— 40 C.F.R. § 230.7(b) — 1 case
Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2015) ca11 “§ 1344 (e)(1); accord 40 C.F.R. § 230.7 (a). The 404(b) Guidelines require the Corps to predict cumulative effects by evaluating the number of individual discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States expected to be authorized by the general permit until…”
— 40 C.F.R. § 230.7(b)(1) — 1 case
In Re Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act Rules (2002) njsuperctappdiv “Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA stated that: [T]he Guidelines at 40 CFR 230.7(b)(1) state that "consideration of alternatives in section 230.”
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.