## Facts

- Fox Bay Partners, a private developer, applied for a federal permit to build a 512-slip recreational marina on the Fox River near McHenry, Illinois, with related commercial amenities and nearby mixed-use development.
- The proposal required filling about 1.13 acres of wetlands and constructing structures in navigable waters, triggering permitting under the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act.
- The Corps issued public notice, solicited comments, and conducted an environmental evaluation and public-interest review, including coordination with state agencies.
- The administrative record reflected substantial public opposition, including concerns about environmental harm and increased boating congestion.
- The Corps evaluated cumulative effects together with existing and reasonably foreseeable marinas, launches, and docks on the Fox River.
- The Corps concluded the project would increase powerboat traffic, resuspend sediments, add pollutants, and cause physical, chemical, and biological changes to the aquatic environment.
- The Corps found that claimed economic and recreational benefits were outweighed by predicted long-term significant degradation of the aquatic ecosystem and severe overcrowding of recreational boats.
- The Corps denied the permit as inconsistent with the public interest and with the Clean Water Act § 404(b)(1) guidelines.
- Fox Bay sued under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the denial was arbitrary and capricious; the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Corps acted arbitrarily and capriciously by conducting a broad public-interest review, including cumulative environmental and boating-congestion effects, rather than a narrower assessment limited to the direct footprint of fill and structures.
2. Whether the Corps’ environmental and cumulative-impact determinations lacked an adequate scientific or evidentiary basis such that the permit denial was arbitrary and capricious.
3. Whether the Corps misapplied the Clean Water Act § 404(b)(1) guidelines and Rivers and Harbors Act permitting regulations in denying the permit.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to the Corps and denied Fox Bay’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court upheld the permit denial, holding the Corps’ decision was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.
- The court held the Corps permissibly (and under the guidelines, necessarily) considered cumulative impacts and broader public-interest factors, including recreation and navigation impacts from increased boat traffic.
- The court declined to reweigh technical judgments where the Corps identified relevant factors and explained a rational connection between record evidence and its conclusions.

## Legal Principles

- Under APA review, a court sustains an agency action unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law; the court does not substitute its judgment for the agency’s on technical matters.
- Corps permitting decisions may consider a broad set of public-interest factors and weigh probable benefits against probable detriments, including environmental concerns, navigation, and recreation.
- The Clean Water Act § 404(b)(1) guidelines require consideration of cumulative and secondary impacts, and prohibit issuance of permits that would cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters.
- An agency need not perform every requested study; it must compile an administrative record sufficient to support reasoned decisionmaking and explain its choice in light of relevant factors.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the Corps’ denial of Fox Bay’s marina permit because the Corps reasonably applied a broad public-interest and cumulative-impact analysis under the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act, and its technical findings and balancing were supported by the administrative record under the APA’s deferential standard of review.


Fox Bay Partners v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 831 F. Supp. 605 (N.D. Ill. 1993)