714 F.3d 186
4th Cir.2013Background
- Village of Bald Head Island sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the APA and admiralty jurisdiction over the Wilmington Harbor Project, alleging the Corps failed to honor sand management and beach protection commitments.
- District court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding no final agency action and no maritime contracts.
- Project revisions realigned the channel and included a Sand Management Plan and Wilmington Harbor Monitoring Plan; an Environmental Assessment and a FONSI were prepared in 2000.
- Col. DeLony's June 9, 2000 and Moffitt's June 15, 2000 letters stated commitments and coordination requirements with state and local entities; North Carolina approved conditions under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
- Construction occurred 2000–2002 with beach sand placed on Bald Head Island in 2001; maintenance dredging occurred 2004–2010 with sand placements on Bald Head Island and Oak Island; in 2010 funding shortfall led to alleged failure to maintain commitments; Counts VII–VIII alleged maritime contracts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Corps action is final agency action under the APA | Village argues ongoing implementation is final action | Corps action is not final, only ongoing management | Not final agency action under the APA. |
| Whether Corps failed to act is reviewable under the APA | Failure to perform commitments is reviewable as inaction | Inaction here is not a discrete action; not reviewable | Inaction not subject to APA review as framed. |
| Whether DeLony and Moffitt letters create maritime contracts subject to admiralty | Letters constitute maritime contracts to nourish and protect beaches | Letters are not maritime contracts; not enforceable in admiralty | Counts VII–VIII dismissed for lack of admiralty jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (final agency action and scope of review under the APA)
- Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. SUWA, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (limitations on review of ongoing agency actions; finality and discrete action)
- Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) (APA review limits; day-to-day agency management not reviewable)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (finality and legal consequences of agency actions)
- Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14 (2004) (admiralty jurisdiction over contracts depends on maritime character)