Friends of the Santa Clara v. US Army Corps of Engineers
887 F.3d 906
9th Cir.2018Background
- Newhall Land sought a Corps Section 404 permit to discharge dredged/fill material for the Newhall Ranch development in Los Angeles County; the project would affect ~12,000 acres including portions of the Santa Clara River and wetlands.
- The Corps served as NEPA lead, prepared a combined EIS/EIR, issued a ROD and a provisional Section 404 permit in August 2011, and appended a Final Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Evaluation selecting a modified on-site alternative (Modified Alternative 3) as the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.
- Environmental groups (SCOPE and Friends of the Santa Clara River, among others) sued alleging violations of the Clean Water Act (404(b)(1) practicable-alternatives requirement), NEPA (insufficient EIS/cumulative-impact analysis), and the ESA (failure to consult with NMFS, erroneous "no effect" finding for Southern California steelhead).
- Key technical dispute centered on whether project discharges (notably dissolved copper concentrations) could affect downstream steelhead during storm events that connect flows past a normally dry reach (“Dry Gap”); Corps concluded modeled and background concentrations were below applicable benchmarks (California Toxics Rule) and would not affect steelhead.
- District court granted summary judgment to Corps and Newhall Land; Ninth Circuit reviewed under the APA arbitrary-and-capricious standard, considered standing for NEPA and ESA claims, and addressed CWA, NEPA, and ESA challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Corps defined an impermissibly narrow "overall project purpose" for 404(b)(1) alternatives analysis | Corps adopted applicant/Specific Plan objectives to narrow alternatives and preclude less-damaging sites | Corps may and must consider applicant objectives and local land‑use decisions; it need not adopt a broader purpose | Corps acted permissibly; considering applicant and county objectives was proper and not arbitrary |
| Whether Corps selected the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative and properly considered costs | Corps should have required additional avoidance/minimization and used different cost metrics (per-unit, consider revenues, exclude land acquisition) | Regulations permit cost consideration; Corps’ per‑acre and inclusion of land costs were reasonable and revenues need not be treated as "cost" | Corps’ cost methodology and impracticability conclusion were reasonable and entitled to deference |
| Whether Corps violated ESA by determining Project "will have no effect" on steelhead and not consulting NMFS | Project discharges may cause sublethal effects per NMFS technical memo; Corps failed to use best available science and should have consulted | Corps relied on project-specific modeling, background data, and CTR benchmarks showing discharges below background/criteria; NMFS memo not directly applicable | Corps’ no‑effect determination was not arbitrary or capricious; consultation not required |
| Whether Corps violated NEPA (inadequate cumulative‑impact analysis / failure to recirculate EIS after supplemental analysis) | Final EIS/EIR failed to analyze cumulative dissolved‑copper impacts and Corps improperly relied on post‑EIS Supplemental Analysis without recirculation | Final EIS/EIR adequately explained no‑effect conclusion; Supplemental Analysis merely confirmed findings and did not present significant new information | NEPA requirements satisfied; no recirculation required; cumulative impacts discussion adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121 (recognizing Corps authority over wetlands as "navigable waters")
- Bering Strait Citizens for Responsible Res. Dev. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 524 F.3d 938 (9th Cir.) (standard for least environmentally damaging practicable alternative)
- Jones v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 741 F.3d 989 (9th Cir.) (Corps must determine overall project purpose and consider applicant objectives)
- Sylvester v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 882 F.2d 407 (9th Cir.) (applicant's project purpose may be accepted if genuine)
- Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defs. of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (agency decisions reviewed for arbitrary and capricious standard)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (framework for arbitrary and capricious review)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing requirements explained)