Snoqualmie Valley Preservation Alliance v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
683 F.3d 1155
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- PSE operates Snoqualmie Falls hydroelectric plant; upstream flooding occurs due to a bottleneck in the river channel.
- PSE planned dam modification lowering the dam and extending riverbank to mitigate floods; license already held from FERC.
- CORPS verified that the project could proceed under NWPs 3, 33, and 39, instead of requiring an individual CWA §404 permit.
- Alliance filed suit challenging the verification under CWA, NEPA, and APA.
- District court granted summary judgment for the Corps and PSE; Alliance appeals.
- Court affirms, holding Corps’ interpretation of NWPs and its verification within regulatory deference and agency practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suit improperly collateral attacks the FERC license | Alliance argues actions attack FERC license | Court rejects collateral attack concern; claims arise from Corps verification | No improper collateral attack; claims cognizable in §404 context |
| Whether hydropower projects must use NWP 17 | Alliance contends NWP 17 exclusivity for hydropower | NWP 17 not exclusive; other NWPs may apply if criteria met | NWP 17 not exclusive; NWP 3/39 applicable where conditions met |
| Whether Corps properly verified NWPs 3 and 39 to cover project | Alliance challenges basis for verification | Corps’ interpretation of NWPs is consistent with regulations | Yes, within agency interpretation and practice; verification supported by record |
| Whether the Verification Letter adequately articulated the basis for decision under APA/NEPA | Alliance contends insufficient articulation of basis as to compliance with conditions | Short, focused articulation consistent with streamlined NWP scheme | Yes; letter reasonably explains minimal impacts and compliance under NWPs 3, 33, 39 |
Key Cases Cited
- Alaska Ctr. for the Env’t v. West, 157 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 1998) (arbitrary-and-capacious review standard; defer to agency interpretation)
- Butte Envtl. Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 620 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2010) (limits of APA review; need for rational connection)
- National Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 384 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2004) (requirement of rational basis; deference to agency interpretation)
- Miller v. Cal. Speedway Corp., 536 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (agency interpretations of own regulations entitled to deference)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (U.S. 2009) (agency action review; reasonable interpretation suffices)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. M. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capacious review guidance; courts defer to agency)
- Orleans Audubon Soc’y v. Lee, 742 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1984) (streamlining agency permitting; avoid excessive analysis)
- Frankl v. HTH Corp., 650 F.3d 1334 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency practice and longstanding interpretation)