Army Corps Issues New and Modified Nationwide Permits

On March 12, 2007, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released new and modified Nationwide Permits (NWP), which authorize dredge and fill activities that will cause minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects.  The revised NWPs include modified versions of several of the existing 43 NWPs, along with 6 new NWPs.  The NWPs include new and revised definitions and will be subject to 28 revised General Conditions.  (Final notice submitted to the Federal Register on March 12, 2007)  The new permits take effect on March 19, 2007 and will expire on March 18, 2012.  Under a grandfathering provision, projects that have commenced or are under contract to commence under prior NWPs will have until March 18, 2008 to complete the activity under the terms and conditions of those NWPs.  In addition, the Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco Army Corps Districts have published notices of proposed regional conditions that could significantly change the requirements of obtaining NWP coverage in those areas.  (See proposed regional conditions for Sacramento and Los Angeles.)  These regional conditions are still under consideration and no final regional conditions have been issued.  Also, the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards will consider whether any or all of the NWPs should be certified under Section 401 or whether individual certification for each project authorized under a NWP will be required.

 

Continue Reading...

Clean Water Act Update: District Courts on the East, West Coasts Explain and Apply the Rapanos Decision to Adjacent Wetlands and Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams

District courts for the Northern District of California and the District of Connecticut recently applied the Supreme Court’s 2006 Rapanos decision to decide whether certain intermittent and ephemeral streams and adjacent wetlands were subject to Clean Water Act regulatory jurisdiction.  (Please click for further discussion of Rapanos).  In both instances, the courts found that plaintiffs had not presented sufficient evidence that the streams or wetlands in question had a significant effect on downstream navigable waters.

 

Continue Reading...