El Puente v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
100 F.4th 236
D.C. Cir.2024Background
- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers planned to dredge San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico to accommodate larger vessels, prompting an environmental review under NEPA and endangered species consultation under the ESA.
- The Corps’ Environmental Assessment (EA) found no significant impact and thus no Environmental Impact Statement was required; the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Service) concurred that impacts to threatened corals would be unlikely.
- Three environmental groups sued, challenging the adequacy of the agencies’ environmental review on multiple grounds, including segmentation, cumulative impacts, environmental justice, and coral impact analysis.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the agencies, holding their analyses were not arbitrary or capricious; plaintiffs dismissed remaining claims and appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo for NEPA/ESA compliance, scrutinizing whether agency action was arbitrary or capricious under the APA standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Segmentation and LNG consideration | Corps must assess LNG development as part of project | LNG conversion too uncertain/not within Corps' remit | Arguments forfeited—not raised at agency stage |
| Cumulative impact analysis sufficiency | Did not define area or assess related actions enough | Corps identified study area/actions—analysis sufficient | Corps’ analysis adequate |
| Environmental justice scope/notice | Impact review area too small; Spanish translation missing, comment period inadequate | Supplemental analysis expanded scope; translation/notice reasonable | Supplemental analysis cured flaws, process sufficient |
| Coral impacts/scientific basis | Did not consider Miami data or baseline surveys; mitigation too vague | Agencies used available science; mitigation concrete; surveys adequate | Agencies’ analysis sufficient, not arbitrary |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra Club v. DOE, 867 F.3d 189 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (NEPA is procedural; ensures agencies make informed, not predetermined, decisions)
- Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (sets standard for cumulative impact analyses under NEPA)
- FCC v. Fox TV Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009) (agencies must explain change in policy or position)
- Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004) (parties must raise NEPA arguments before agency to preserve them on appeal)