36. 115 Cong. Rec. H9030 (April 15, 1969) (House debate); 115 

 Cong. Rec. S28958-59 (Oct. 1, 1969) (Senate debate). 



37. C.F.R. §323. 2(d). However, in Reid v. Marsh, a case 

 predating these regulations, the U.S. District Court for the 

 Northern Corps District of Ohio ruled that "even minimal 

 discharges of dredged material are not exempt from Section 404 

 review". In this district, the Corps treats all dredging 

 projects under Section 404. . 



38. West Virginia Code, §47-5A~l (emphasis added). 



39. Clean Hater Act, §401 (a) (2). 



40. 40 C.F.R. §230. 10(a). > 



41. 40 C.F.R. §230. 10(d). 



42. Arnold Irrigation District v. Department of Env ironmental 

 Qualitv . 717 Pac.Rptr.2d 1274 (Or.App. 1986) . 



43. Marmac Corporation v. Department of Natural Reso urces of the 

 State of West Virginia . C.A. No. CA-81-1792 (Cir. Ct. , Kanawha 

 Coiinty 1982) . 



44. 33 U.S. C. §1313 (C) (2) (A). 



45. West Va. Admin. Code, §47-5A-9.3 (a). 



46. Unpublished paper by Dr. Paul Hill of West Virginia's 

 Department of Natiiral Resources. Prepared for EPA-sponsored 

 December 1987 wor)cshop on "The Role of Section 401 Certification 

 in Wetlands Protection". 



47. 33 C.F.R. §325.2(b) (ii). 



48. 18 C.F.R. §4. 38(e) (2). 



49. 40 C.F.R. §124. 53(C) (3). 



50. Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 299.04. 



51. West Va. Admin. Code, §47-5A-4.3. 



52. Id. 



53. 40 C.F.R. §121.2. EPA's regulations implementing Section 401 

 were issued under the 1970 Water Pollution Control Act, (not the 

 later Clean Water Act) and thus, may have some anomalies as a 

 result. 



IV 



