## Facts

- Landowners, marine contractors, and an industry association sought permits to build residential/recreational docks on Florida inland waterways inhabited by West Indian manatees.
- The docks were intended to support recreational motorboat use, including launching, operating, and mooring boats.
- State permitting authorities forwarded the applications to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for federal permitting under Clean Water Act § 404.
- The Corps determined the projects might affect manatees and initiated Endangered Species Act § 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
- FWS concluded that increased recreational boat traffic associated with the docks would cause incidental takes of manatees exceeding a “negligible impact” level, given the absence of protective measures (e.g., speed zones).
- FWS determined the projects did not qualify for an exception to the Marine Mammal Protection Act’s (MMPA) moratorium on taking marine mammals and recommended permit denial.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing the MMPA did not reach recreational activities on inland state waters and that FWS lacked authority to apply the Act to these permits.

## Issues

1. Whether the MMPA applies to incidental takes of manatees caused by recreational motorboat activity associated with residential docks on Florida inland waterways.
2. Whether FWS’s interpretation and application of the MMPA in the permitting process was unlawful under the APA (arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law).

## Decision

- The court held that the MMPA applies to manatees in Florida inland waters and reaches recreational activities that may result in incidental takes.
- The court concluded that nothing in the MMPA’s text creates a geographic exclusion for inland waters where marine mammals naturally occur.
- The court rejected a commercial-only limitation on MMPA coverage, finding the statutory “take” prohibition and moratorium apply broadly to human activities.
- Applying APA review and administrative-law deference, the court found FWS’s interpretation and determination reasonable and adequately supported.
- The court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, leaving the agency’s permit-denial recommendation in place.

## Legal Principles

- The MMPA’s moratorium on the “take” of marine mammals is broadly protective and is not confined to offshore waters or commercial conduct absent a textual limitation.
- Recreational boating activity can constitute a source of incidental take within the MMPA’s regulatory framework when it foreseeably increases risk of harm to protected marine mammals.
- Under the APA, an agency action applying an environmental statute will be upheld if it reflects a reasonable statutory construction and is not arbitrary or capricious in light of the administrative record.
- Courts generally defer to a responsible agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute it administers, particularly where the interpretation aligns with statutory purpose and structure.

## Conclusion

The court upheld FWS’s use of the MMPA to address non-negligible incidental takes of manatees linked to recreational boating from proposed residential docks on inland waterways and rejected the plaintiffs’ APA challenge to the agency’s permitting position.


Florida Marine Contractors Ass’n v. Williams, 378 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (M.D. Fla. 2005)