## Facts

- Environmental organizations challenged mechanized land-clearing on the “Lake Long Tract,” an approximately 20,000-acre bottomland hardwood area in the Red River floodplain in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.
- Private landowners sought to convert forested, flood-prone land to soybean production.
- Clearing was performed with heavy equipment (including bulldozers and backhoes) that sheared and uprooted vegetation, pushed it into windrows and piles, and in places buried or redeposited vegetative and soil material into holes created during the work.
- Plaintiffs alleged the tract included jurisdictional wetlands and that the clearing involved discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, requiring a permit under Clean Water Act (CWA) § 404, 33 U.S.C. § 1344.
- EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers made wetlands determinations for portions of the tract; the district court also made wetlands findings and issued injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether wetlands on the tract constituted “waters of the United States” subject to CWA § 404 jurisdiction.
2. Whether the mechanized land-clearing activities, including redeposit of soil and vegetative material, constituted a “discharge of dredged or fill material” (and thus a “discharge of a pollutant”) requiring a § 404 permit.
3. Whether the district court improperly made a de novo wetlands delineation instead of reviewing EPA’s final wetlands determination on the administrative record under the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit agreed that wetlands of the type present on the tract may fall within “waters of the United States” and therefore within § 404 jurisdiction.
- The court upheld the conclusion that the challenged mechanized clearing, to the extent it involved redeposit/placement of soil and vegetative debris that altered wetland areas, constituted a regulated discharge requiring a § 404 permit.
- The court indicated that EPA’s final wetlands determination is an administrative action ordinarily reviewed on the administrative record under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard, not relitigated through de novo judicial delineation.
- The disposition largely preserved the injunction’s core effect (preventing additional unpermitted clearing in wetlands), while modifying and/or remanding aspects related to the proper treatment and review of agency wetlands determinations.

## Legal Principles

- Wetlands functionally connected to navigable waters or their tributary systems can qualify as “waters of the United States” under the CWA and fall within § 404 permitting authority.
- Mechanized land-clearing in wetlands may require a § 404 permit when the operation results in the addition or redeposit (“sidecasting”) of dredged or fill material that replaces water with dry land or changes bottom elevation or wetland character.
- The § 404 inquiry focuses on the fact of a discharge into jurisdictional waters; material originating on-site may still be “discharged” when it is excavated and redeposited in waters of the United States.
- EPA wetlands determinations are subject to Administrative Procedure Act review; courts generally evaluate such determinations on the administrative record under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that substantial wetlands on the Lake Long Tract were subject to Clean Water Act § 404 and that mechanized clearing involving redeposit of soil and vegetative material could constitute a regulated discharge requiring a permit, while also clarifying that EPA wetlands determinations should ordinarily be reviewed on the administrative record under arbitrary-and-capricious review rather than by de novo judicial delineation.


Avoyelles Sportsmen’s League, Inc. v. Marsh, 715 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1983)