descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Save Greers Ferry Lake, Inc., an Arkansas Not-For-Profit Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee, John E. Allen, Richard E. Atkins, Clement Valys, Paul E. Barley, Jim Wallis, John Gillenwater, Jim Hale, Bill Hebert, Gene Rudd, Charles Purtle, Joe Coe, Neil Beisenstein, Samual Boellner, James Bolhuis, Wesley Harris, Chuck Case, S.C. Cooke, Carol Fick, Jim Gowen, William Avrett, Timothy Henwood, Gene Cutrell, Stacy Schmidt, Bob Pittman, John Reaves, Shelby Moore, Edmund Massey, Kenneth Nadeau, Cecil Roberts, Michael Stuart, Larry Jolley, John C. Olsen, Bill Julian, Intervenor v. Department of Defense, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Thomas A. Holden, Jr., Colonel, District Engineer, Little Rock District Corps of Engineers, Edwin J. Arnold, Brigadier General, Division Commander, Southwest Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joseph N. Ballard, Lt. Gen., Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Joseph Westphal, Assistant Secretary, Civil Works, U.S. Department of the Army, Louis Caldera, Secretary

Citations: 255 F.3d 498; 31 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20852; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 14999Docket: 00-3320

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; July 3, 2001; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, a not-for-profit organization, Save Greers Ferry Lake, Inc. (SGFL), challenged the United States Army Corps of Engineers' issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for its 2000 Shoreline Management Plan (SMP). SGFL argued that the Corps failed to comply with NEPA by not preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), given the plan's potential environmental impacts. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, halting the issuance of permits under the 2000 SMP. The Corps subsequently withdrew the plan and reverted to its 1994 version, agreeing to prepare an EIS. The appellants, permit holders under the 2000 SMP, contested this decision, but the court found the appeal moot as the 2000 SMP was no longer valid. The court determined that the Corps acted arbitrarily in issuing the FONSI, rendering permits issued under the 2000 SMP unenforceable. However, existing docks could remain temporarily pending compliance with NEPA under a new plan. The case was remanded with instructions to dismiss as moot, dissolving the preliminary injunction. The court maintained jurisdiction under federal question jurisdiction, and the Corps' motion for summary judgment was denied.

Legal Issues Addressed

Jurisdiction under Federal Question Jurisdiction

Application: The case was filed under the Administrative Procedure Act, asserting jurisdiction based on federal question jurisdiction due to the NEPA compliance issue.

Reasoning: The case was filed under the Administrative Procedure Act, asserting jurisdiction based on federal question jurisdiction.

Mootness of Appeals in Environmental Cases

Application: SGFL argued the appeal was moot since the 2000 SMP was no longer in effect, eliminating any case or controversy.

Reasoning: SGFL contends that the appeal is moot since the 2000 SMP is no longer in effect, thereby eliminating any case or controversy.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance

Application: The court determined that the Corps' Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was arbitrary and that the 2000 Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) violated NEPA by not preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Reasoning: Upon de novo review, it is determined that the Corps acted arbitrarily in issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and that the 2000 SMP was adopted in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Preliminary Injunctions under the Administrative Procedure Act

Application: The district court granted SGFL's motion for a preliminary injunction, halting the issuance of permits under the 2000 SMP due to non-compliance with NEPA.

Reasoning: Following hearings, the district court granted SGFL's motion for a preliminary injunction on June 1, 2000.

Validity and Enforcement of Permits

Application: Permits issued under the 2000 SMP were deemed unenforceable due to the SMP's invalidation; however, constructed docks may remain but cannot be used unless compliant with a new valid plan.

Reasoning: Consequently, permits issued during the 2000 SMP are deemed unenforceable.