Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Friends of Back Bay v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
681 F.3d 581 (2012)


Facts

The Wilkins Project (Project), a private marina, was proposed for a location near the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (defendant) prepared an environmental assessment for the Project, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) suggested that the Corps prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) under NEPA to address the Project’s adverse effects on wildlife and vegetation, including habitat loss associated with boating. Instead of preparing an EIS, the Corps established a restricted area called a no-wake zone (NWZ), and authorized the NWZ’s enforcement by federal, state, and local authorities. However, enforcement was problematic due to local staffing constraints. In September 2008, the Corps expressed the hope that compliance would result from education, signage, and public pressure. On October 3, 2008, the FWS conditioned its acquiescence to the Project on the NWZ’s adequate funding and enforcement. The Corps issued a permit for the Project on October 10, 2008, and issued a final environmental assessment (EA) along with the permit. Although the final EA stated that the NWZ would limit and reduce the Project’s adverse impacts, the permit did not mandate the NWZ’s enforcement or guarantee its funding. The EA resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which stated that no EIS would be prepared. The NWZ remained unmarked with signage, as well as unenforced. Friends of Back Bay and others (plaintiffs) brought a complaint against the Corps and various federal officials (defendants) in district court, claiming that the Corps should have prepared an EIS. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted the defendants’ motion, and the plaintiffs appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (King, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.