Ocean Advocates v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

Rule of Law:

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a federal agency must prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if substantial questions are raised as to whether a project may cause significant environmental degradation. An agency cannot satisfy its duty to take a 'hard look' at environmental consequences by relying on conclusory or self-serving statements from a permit applicant, particularly regarding the indirect, growth-inducing effects of a project.

Facts:

• BP West Coast Products (BP) operated an oil refinery at Cherry Point, Washington, with a single dock platform used for both unloading crude oil and loading refined products since 1971.
• The original 1969 permit for the refinery allowed for two platforms, but BP deferred construction of the second platform.
• In 1992, BP applied for a new permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) to build the second, northern platform, which would double the refinery's berthing capacity.
• During the public comment period, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and local Indian tribes raised concerns that the new platform would facilitate an increase in tanker traffic and the risk of a major oil spill.
• BP contended that the expansion would decrease spill risks by reducing tanker wait times and that any traffic increase would be caused by external market forces, not the dock itself.
• The Corps, relying heavily on BP's assertions, granted the permit in 1996 and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), concluding an EIS was not required.
• Ocean Advocates (OA) repeatedly contacted the Corps, arguing that new data showed BP's refinery output had increased and that the expansion would promote more tanker traffic, necessitating an EIS.
• In 2000, the Corps granted BP a one-year extension on the permit, again finding that an EIS was not necessary and adopting BP's reasoning on environmental impacts.

Procedural Posture:

• Ocean Advocates (OA) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
• BP West Coast Products (BP) was permitted to intervene in the case as a defendant.
• The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
• The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Corps and BP on OA's environmental claims.
• The district court denied BP's motion for summary judgment, which argued that OA lacked standing and that the claim was barred by laches.
• OA, the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the adverse summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
• BP, the defendant-appellee, cross-appealed the district court's denial of its motion on standing and laches.