Plump et al v. Graham et al

Filing 101

ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Corps' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 71 ), is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plumps' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (Doc. 56 ), is DENIED. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 5/9/17.(SLQ) Modified on 5/9/2017 (SLQ).

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Richard Plump, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-00505-PHX-GMS

David J Graham, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Richard and Janine Plump’s (“Plumps”) and

16

Defendant United States Army Corps of Engineers’ (“Corps”) respective motions for

17

summary judgment, (Docs. 56, 71). For the following reasons, the Court grants the

18

Corps’ motion for summary judgment and denies the Plumps’ motion.

19

BACKGROUND

20

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) is an agency within the

21

United States Department of Defense entrusted with, among other things, managing the

22

discharge of material, including concrete and natural soils, into the navigable waters of

23

the United States, such as the Colorado River. (Doc. 57 at 2; Doc. 68 at 1, 2.) Generally,

24

due to concern for the cumulative effects of multiple jetties on the Colorado River, the

25

Corps does not permit the construction of new jetties, but the Corps will permit certain

26

improvements to existing jetties. (Doc. 57 at 2; Doc. 68 at 2.) To remove any doubt

27

whether improvements fall within the permissible scope, a landowner may apply for a

28

permit or seek a “verification letter” from the Corps. There is no requirement, however,

1

that the landowner do so. (Doc. 68 at 4–5.)

2

There is more than one type of permit; a landowner may seek a specialized permit,

3

unique to his situation, or may qualify to use a pre-existing nationwide permit. (Doc. 68

4

at 5.) A nationwide permit categorically authorizes “certain activities that have minimal

5

individual or cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic environment.” (Doc. 57 at 3;

6

Doc. 68 at 6.) Nationwide Permit No. 3 (“NWP 3”) permits the “repair, rehabilitation, or

7

replacement of any previously authorized, currently serviceable structure.” (Doc. 57 at 4;

8

Doc. 68 at 6.) While “minor deviations” from the original plans are authorized, a

9

landowner may not use the NWP 3 if he is seeking to “put [the jetty] to uses differing

10

from those uses specified or contemplated for it in the original permit or the most

11

recently authorized modification.” (Doc. 57 at 4; Doc. 68 at 6.)

12

The Plumps own property on the banks of the Colorado River, “directly to the

13

north of the Grahams’ property.” (Doc. 57 at 11.) In 1983, the previous owners of the

14

Grahams’ property constructed a jetty (“1983 Jetty”) that extended into the Colorado

15

River. (Doc. 57 at 2; Doc. 68 at 3.) By the time that the Grahams applied to renovate the

16

1983 Jetty, it was composed of dirt, rock, and vegetation.1 (Doc. 57 at 3; Doc. 68 at 3.)

17

The original measurements of the 1983 Jetty are disputed but the parties agree that in

18

2013 the Grahams’ plans to renovate the jetty involved creating a new structure (“New

19

Jetty”) with an approximate height of 14 feet and a total width of 21 feet. (Doc. 57 at 3,

20

5; Doc. 68 at 3–4, 7.) The plans for the proposed renovations to the 1983 Jetty were

21

approved by the Corps in 2013, as the Corps verified that the renovations complied with

22

NWP 3. (Doc. 57 at 5, Doc. 68 at 8.)

23

The Grahams altered their renovation plans in 2014. (Doc. 57 at 5, Doc. 68 at 8.)

24

These alterations included abandoning the original sloped design of the 1983 Jetty in

25

favor of a vertical wall. (Doc. 57 at 5; Doc. 68 at 8.) The Grahams submitted these

26
1

27
28

The Corps contends that although this was the 1983 Jetty’s status in 2013, the
Grahams indicated in their application to renovate the jetty that the dirt and vegetation
were not original components of the jetty; rather, these components were the result of
erosive forces. (Doc. 68 at 3.) The Corps also alleges that the 1983 Jetty was filled with
construction debris. (Id.)
-2-

1

updated plans to the Corps. (Id.) There is no evidence that the Grahams’ modified plans

2

ever led to a modification of the verification given by the Corps in 2013; however,

3

several documents in the administrative record indicate that the Corps continued to find

4

that the revised plans still complied with NWP 3. (Doc. 68 at 9.)

5

In September of 2014, the Grahams began demolishing the 1983 Jetty. (Doc. 57 at

6

6.) Beginning in October of 2014, the Plumps sent several emails and photographs to

7

Corps Senior Project Manager, William Miller, to voice their concerns over the New

8

Jetty. (Doc. 57 at 6–7; Doc. 68 at 10.) These concerns included the Plumps’ opinions

9

that the New Jetty: 1) moved several feet north in relation to the 1983 Jetty, 2) was

10

significantly larger than the 1983 Jetty, 3) could not provide a home for wildlife, 4)

11

contained drain pipes that were exposed at low tide, and 5) extended into the Plumps’

12

property. (Doc. 57 at 7; Doc. 68 at 10.) On October 29, 2014, William Miller sent an

13

email to the Grahams’ architect requesting the plans of both the 1983 Jetty and the New

14

Jetty. (Doc. 57 at 7; Doc. 68 at 11.) Mr. Miller indicated that he had a set of photos

15

indicating that the New Jetty was much larger than the jetty as it currently existed, but

16

that he also understood that pictures can be deceiving, and thus he requested “a set of

17

drawings be submitted that allows [the Corps] to compare the previous structure with the

18

new structure.” (Administrative Record (“AR”) at 169.) The Grahams provided updated

19

drawings and the Corps confirmed that the New Jetty complied with NWP 3. (Doc. 68 at

20

22.) However, the Plumps continued to compose letters and emails to the Corps to voice

21

their concerns over the New Jetty. (Doc. 57 at 6–9; Doc. 68 at 12–14.) These continued

22

concerns led the Corps to conduct an in-person inspection of the New Jetty in November

23

of 2014. (Doc. 68 at 23; AR at 273.) The Corps ultimately completed its investigation

24

into the matter in February of 2015, and found that the New Jetty was permissible under

25

NWP 3.

26

Memorandum for the Record (“MFR”), specifically noting that the New Jetty “should be

27

an improvement in terms of safety and stability.” (Doc. 68 at 23; AR at 326.) The Corps

28

related these findings to the Plumps in a letter soon after. (Doc. 68 at 24; AR at 336.)

(Doc 68 at 23; AR at 326.) The Corps summarized its findings in a

-3-

1

The Plumps continued to voice their concerns even after this final communication

2

from the Corps. (Doc. 57 at 10; Doc. 68 at 15.) The Plumps became particularly

3

concerned that the New Jetty presented risks to swimmers, trapped debris in front of the

4

Plumps’ property, and caused soil to be washed away from the Plumps’ land. (Doc. 57 at

5

10; Doc. 68 at 15.) In April, Mr. Plump composed a letter to the Corps reflecting these

6

concerns, and emphasizing that he did not believe that the scouring effect of the New

7

Jetty was considered before the New Jetty project received its permit. (Doc. 57 at 10;

8

Doc. 68 at 16; AR at 347.) There is no evidence that the Corps ever responded to this

9

letter. (Doc. 57 at 10; Doc. 68 at 16.)

10

The Plumps subsequently filed this lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure

11

Act (“APA”) to seek judicial review of the Corps’ determination that the NWP 3 applied

12

to the New Jetty. (Doc. 26 at 17.) The Plumps seek equitable relief in the form of an

13

injunctive order compelling the Corps to revoke the NWP 3 approval of the New Jetty

14

and a declaration that the Corps’ actions in approving the New Jetty under NWP 3 were

15

arbitrary and capricious. (Id. at 18.) Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.

16

(Docs. 56, 71.)

17
18
19

DISCUSSION
I.

Standard of Review
Under the APA, “[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or

20

adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute,

21

is entitled to judicial review thereof.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. “In reviewing an administrative

22

agency decision, summary judgment is an appropriate mechanism for deciding the legal

23

question of whether the agency could reasonably have found the facts as it did.” City &

24

Cty. of San Francisco v. United States, 130 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal

25

citations and quotations omitted). District courts are “not required to resolve any facts in

26

a review of an administrative proceeding,” because fact finding is in the realm of duties

27

delegated to the agency. Occidental Eng’g Co. v. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 766, 769 (9th Cir.

28

1985). Rather, “the function of the district court is to determine whether or not as a

-4-

1

matter of law the evidence in the administrative record permitted the agency to make the

2

decision it did.” Occidental Eng’g Co., 753 F.2d at 769. In making this review, “the

3

court shall review the whole [administrative] record.”2 Id.

4

Agency actions may be set aside if the agency’s “action, findings, and

5

conclusions” are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

6

accordance with law” or “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. §

7

706. This is a very narrow standard, and courts must not substitute their judgment for

8

that of the agency. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 384 F.3d 1163,

9

1170 (9th Cir. 2004). However, courts may set aside an agency’s finding if the agency

10

fails to “articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions

11

made.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). The United States Supreme Court

12

has explained that an agency’s determination is arbitrary and capricious where the agency

13

16

relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to
consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the
problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs
counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so
implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in
view or the product of agency expertise.

17

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43

18

(1983).

19

///

20

///

14
15

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Plumps hired a Certified Floodplain Manager and Geomorphologist to
analyze the New Jetty’s impact on the floodway and its scouring effect. (Doc. 57 at 11;
Doc. 68 at 16.) However, his report is not part of the administrative record before the
Court in this case, and therefore it will not be considered in this order. See First Nat’l
Bank & Trust, Wibaux, Mont. v. Dep’t of Treasury, Comptroller of Currency, 63 F.3d
894, 897 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Generally, judicial review of an agency decision is limited to
the administrative record.”). Further, as is explained in more detail below, to the extent
that the Corps correctly determined that the new project was appropriately within the
confines of NWP 3, the Corps was not required to undertake a complex public interest
analysis including, presumably, a separate scour analysis analyzing the difference, if any,
between the scour caused by the 1983 Jetty and the New Jetty.

-5-

1

II.

Analysis

2

Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and the Rivers and Harbors Act of

3

1899, the Army Corps of Engineers issues permits for the discharge of fill or other

4

materials into the navigable waters of the United States. 33 C.F.R. § 320.2. There are

5

two types of permits: individual permits and nationwide permits. Individual permits

6

“authorize specific activities on a case-by-case basis,” and are subject to an extensive

7

vetting process under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). Snoqualmie

8

Valley Pres. All. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 683 F.3d 1155, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012).

9

Nationwide permits “are a type of general permit issued by the Chief of Engineers and

10

are designed to regulate with little, if any, delay or paperwork certain activities having

11

minimal impacts” on the navigable waters of the United States. 33 C.F.R. § 330.1(b).

12

Nationwide permits, unlike individual permits, undergo extensive vetting under NEPA

13

“at the time the permit is promulgated, rather than at the time an applicant seeks to

14

discharge fill material under such a permit.” Snoqualmie Valley Pres. All., 683 F.3d at

15

1158.

16

NWP 3 is a nationwide permit. Specifically, it permits the “repair, rehabilitation,

17

or replacement” of any previously authorized and currently serviceable fill or structure,

18

“provided that the structure or fill is not to be put to uses differing from those uses

19

specified or contemplated for it in the original permit or the most recently authorized

20

modification.” Reissuance of Nationwide Permits, 77 Fed. Reg. 110184-01, 10,270

21

(Army Corp of Eng’rs Feb. 21, 2012). Pursuant to NWP 3, “[m]inor deviations in the

22

structure’s configuration or filled area, including those due to changes in materials,

23

construction techniques, or current construction codes or safety standards that are

24

necessary to make the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement are authorized.” Id.

25

“The verification decision at issue here involves a determination that the proposed

26

activity falls within the parameters of the Corps’ regulations enacting the nationwide

27

permits.”

28

interpretation of its own regulations,” and it is entitled to “controlling weight unless it is

Snoqualmie Valley Pres. All., 683 F.3d at 1161.

-6-

Therefore, it is “an

1

plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” Id. (quoting Miller v. Cal.

2

Speedway Corp., 536 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2008)).

3

A.

4

The Corps Did Not Violate Section 706(2) By Neglecting to Require the New
Jetty to Exactly Comply with the 1983 Jetty’s Dimensions or by Finding that
NWP 3 Authorized the Proposed 2014 Revisions.

5

The Army Corps of Engineers notified the Grahams that their proposed

6

renovations of the 1983 Jetty qualified for a national permit under NWP 3 on August 6,

7

2013 despite the fact that the proposed renovations would slightly shift the footprint of

8

the 1983 Jetty’s dimensions. (AR 40, 332; Doc. 71 at 17.) It is unclear exactly how large

9

the 1983 Jetty was when it was originally created, because subsequent accumulation of

10

soil and vegetation from the river, as well as impermissible dumping of construction

11

materials, increased its size over the years.3 (Doc. 57 at 3; Doc. 68 at 4.) However, the

12

Corps’ Nationwide Permit Verification Letter reflects that the Corps interpreted the

13

original plans for the 1983 Jetty to indicate that the original jetty was “approximately 15

14

feet high.” (AR at 40; see also AR at 12 (illustration of the original 1983 Jetty, showing

15

a height of 12 feet above the ordinary low water mark, with the footings being 3.5 feet

16

below the ordinary low water mark.) (Doc. 68 at 3.) Given these figures the Grahams’

17

improvements to the jetty would result in a refurbished jetty that is approximately “same

18

height as the original structure.” (AR 336.) The New Jetty’s highest point would be to

19

the north of the 1983 Jetty, but the overlay of the two structures indicates that the New

20

Jetty would fit largely within the same footprint as the 1983 Jetty. (Doc. 68 at 23; AR at

21

293.) The New Jetty has the same exact length as the 1983 Jetty.

22
3

23
24
25
26
27
28

In their reply, the Plumps allege, for the first time, that the Corps failed to
compare the 1983 Jetty with the jetty as it existed in 2013 and the plans for the New
Jetty. (Doc. 84 at 3.) First, this is simply incorrect, as the Corps included the 1983
permit in the administrative record, and did seemingly rely on the original permit to
formulate its opinion as to the size of the 1983 Jetty, although it differed from the
Plumps’ interpretation. (AR at 12.) Second, neither party has submitted any pictures of
the jetty as it existed in 1983, and thus the Corps relied on pictures of the jetty as it
existed in 2013 because that is the evidence it had at its disposal. Third, the Plumps
provide no legal support for their assertion that the Corps was obligated to compare these
three structures. And finally, the Plumps raise this argument in their reply, and thus it is
untimely. See United States ex rel. Giles v. Sardie, 191 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1127 (C.D. Cal.
2000) (“It is improper for a moving party to introduce new facts or different legal
arguments in the reply brief than those presented in the moving papers.”).
-7-

1

The Plumps dispute these findings, asserting that the original height of the 1983

2

Jetty was only eight feet tall, not fifteen feet tall as the Corps found, and that the original

3

width was twelve, not twenty feet. (Doc. 57 at 2.) They argue that the 1983 Jetty was

4

quite a bit smaller than the Corps says it was and that the New Jetty authorized in 2013

5

reflected the increased height and width that the 1983 Jetty had gradually accumulated

6

over the course of its existence prior to the 2013 approval (approximately seven

7

additional feet in height and eight additional feet in width). The Plumps thus allege that

8

the Corps erred both in their determinations about the size of the 1983 Jetty and in

9

finding that the proposed revisions to the 1983 Jetty were minor deviations, and therefore

10

the Corps’ authorization under NWP 3 was arbitrary.

11

But, the Corps determination that the change in the size of the Grahams’ jetty, if

12

any existed, and the slight shift in the jetty’s footprint constituted a “minor deviation”

13

that posed no bar to the application of NWP 3 is within the discretion of the Corps, and

14

may only be overturned if the determination was “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with

15

the regulation.” Snoqualmie Valley Pres. All., 683 F.3d at 1161 (quoting Miller v. Cal.

16

Speedway Corp., 536 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2008)).

17

The Corps’ determination is “consistent with the regulation,” and therefore the

18

Plumps’ argument fails. Id. at 1162. The Corps reviewed the design plans of the 1983

19

Jetty to determine that the change in size was minimal, if it existed at all.4 It then relied

20

on reports from a surveyor as well as design drawings submitted by the Grahams’

21

architect to investigate the change in the footprint between the two structures and

22

determine that the shift was a “minor deviation” as contemplated by NWP 3. (AR 198,

23

200, 280–285, 293.) The Corps also reviewed the pictures submitted by Mr. Plump and

24

sent an inspector to the site to conduct an in-person review of the jetty. (AR 235.) Given

25

these facts, the Plumps have failed to present evidence to support a finding that the Corps

26

determination regarding the change in the jetty’s size was clearly erroneous.

27
28

4

Some of the design drawings indicate that there may be an eight inch change in
height between the 1983 Jetty and the New Jetty. (AR 283.)
-8-

1

The Plumps also allege that the Corps actions violated the APA because it failed to

2

explain why the minor deviations were necessary. However, “language in the regulatory

3

history suggests that a general ‘public safety’ rationale suffices to bring a replacement

4

project with minor deviations under this nationwide permit.” Snoqualmie Valley Pres.

5

All., 683 F.3d at 1161–62. The administrative record in this case reflects that the Corps,

6

through its investigations, found that “although Mr. Plump feels that the renovation has

7

negatively impacted his property,” the renovation “should be an improvement in terms of

8

safety and stability.” (AR. 326.) The record noted that over the years, the 1983 Jetty was

9

illegally used as a dump site for “concrete, with rusted reinforcement bars, plastics, and

10

metals.” (AR 40.) The Corps ultimately determined that the New Jetty would eliminate

11

these items from the structure, and be “more functional to users, and include lighting for

12

safe navigation” of the river. (AR 336.) Therefore, contrary to the Plumps’ assertions,

13

the administrative record indicates that the Corps weighed public safety concerns during

14

the approval process, and ultimately found that a public safety rationale justified bringing

15

this project under NWP 3.

16

B.

17

The Corps Adequately Evaluated the 2013 Permit Application and its
Subsequent Design Change.

18

The Corps did not conduct a full scale public review, and thus did not conduct an

19

independent hydrology or scouring study, of the Grahams’ proposed 2013 or 2014

20

renovations because it was not required to do so. Nationwide permits such as NWP 3

21

“are designed to regulate with little, if any, delay or paperwork certain activities having

22

minimal impacts.” 33 C.F.R. § 330.1. The concept behind such permits is to essentially

23

frontload the research and public interest considerations to ensure that qualifying projects

24

can move forward efficiently, without bureaucratic backlog, once a nationwide permit for

25

the activity in question is issued. Id.; see also Snoqualmie Valley Pres. All., 683 F.3d at

26

1163 (“The purpose of this scheme is to enable the Corps to quickly reach determinations

27

regarding activities that will have minimal environmental impacts”); see also Sierra

28

Club, Inc. v. Bostick, 787 F.3d 1043, 1052 (10th Cir. 2015) (“As long as the proposed

-9-

1

activities were authorized by the nationwide permit, the Corps would have had little

2

reason to conduct a second NEPA review when issuing the verification letters.”).

3

Therefore, projects that qualify under a nationwide permit are not required to go

4

through the intensive public interest analysis outlined in 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a). Indeed,

5

“[r]equiring an elaborate analysis of the applicable regulations and the facts would

6

defeat” the purpose of nationwide permits. Snoqualmie Valley Pres. All., 683 F.3d at

7

1163. As one district court in the Southern District of Alabama explained, because the

8

nationwide permit is already in place, and was already subjected to intensive

9

environmental review, “the Corps’ heavy lifting for a verification request like Plains

10

Southcap’s (falling within that pre-cleared category of activities delineated by NWP 12)

11

has already been done.” Mobile Baykeeper, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No.

12

CIV.A. 14-0032-WS-M, 2014 WL 5307850, at *14 (S.D. Ala. Oct. 16, 2014). At this

13

point, the “only thing left to be done is for the Corps’ district engineers to verify that the

14

planned project does, in fact, fit within the category of activities that the Corps has

15

already authorized.” Sierra Club 990 at 27. In 2013, the Corps found that the Grahams’

16

proposed renovations to the 1983 Jetty qualified under NWP 3, and thus it was not

17

required to engage in the public interest analysis of 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a).5

18

Likewise, the Plumps argument that the Corps had an obligation to independently

19

perform a hydrology and scouring impact study on the New Jetty also fails. The Corps

20

relied on drawings, satellite images, site visitations, and other research to conclude that

21

the proposed renovations met the criteria of NWP 3. Once the Corps verified this

22

compliance, it was absolved of any duty to perform an independent, full scale review of

23

the New Jetty’s impacts. The Corps determined that the New Jetty would have “same

24

effects to water flow as the original structure,” and thus complied with the terms of NWP

25

3. (AR 337; see AR 40 (verifying the project’s compliance with NWP 3).)

26
5

27
28

The Plaintiffs in this case continue to suggest that the Corps should have
performed various reviews prior to “the issuance” of the permit under NWP 3. But,
NWP 3 was already issued, and it had been since 2012. The Corps did not issue a permit
to the Grahams; rather, it found that their renovations qualified under a pre-existing
permit, namely NWP 3.
- 10 -

1

The Plumps also allege that the Corps acted arbitrarily in failing to exercise its

2

discretion to revoke the NWP 3 authorization after the Grahams’ altered their proposed

3

revisions to the 1983 Jetty in 2014.

4

discretion) to modify, suspend, or revoke NWP authorization,” there is no requirement

5

that it do so. 33 C.F.R. § 330.4(e). The record reflects that the Corps reviewed the

6

alterations made by the Grahams in their 2014 plans, specifically due to the concerns

7

raised by the Plumps in their correspondence with Mr. Miller. (Doc. 68 at 23; AR at

8

336.)

9

reasons for concern: 1) the New Jetty negatively impacted navigation for boaters, 2) the

10

New Jetty negatively impacted aquatic life movements, 3) the New Jetty negatively

11

impacted migratory bird breeding areas, 4) the New Jetty is made out of concrete rather

12

than natural sources, 5) the New Jetty negatively impacted water flows, and 6) the

13

Grahams failed to revegetate the New Jetty.

14

investigation into the matter that spanned several months and involved an in-person

15

inspection of the New Jetty in November of 2014. (Doc. 68 at 23; AR at 275.) After the

16

investigation was completed, the Corps issued a detailed MFR to the Plumps to explain

17

why each of the issues they raised in their November correspondence was not a legitimate

18

reason to require the revocation of the Corps’ NWP 3 authorization. (Doc. 68 at 23; AR

19

at 336–37.) The Corps’ investigation, and the subsequent findings summarized in the

20

MFR, established that the Corps “articulate[d] a rational connection between the facts

21

found and the conclusions made,” and therefore its decision not to modify or revoke the

22

NWP 3 authorization is not “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not

23

in accordance with law.” Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 384 F.3d

24

at 1170 (internal citation and quotations omitted). To the extent that the Plumps allege

25

that the Corps decision not to revoke authorization under NWP 3 was arbitrary, summary

26

judgment is granted for the Corps.

27

///

28

///

Although the Corps “reserves the right (i.e.,

In their correspondence, the Plumps alleged that the New Jetty raised six major

- 11 -

(AR 264.)

The Corps launched an

1

C.

2

The Corps Adequately Considered FEMA Regulations and Executive Orders
11988 and 11990.

3

The Grahams’ property is located on a floodplain, and as a result, it is generally

4

subject to certain regulatory requirements. Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 require

5

every agency of the United States government to consider the potential implications of its

6

actions if it interferes with land on a floodplain. The Federal Emergency Management

7

Agency (“FEMA”) also requires federal executive agencies to “respond to a number of

8

floodplain management and wetland protection responsibilities before carrying out any of

9

their activities, including the provision of Federal financial and technical assistance.” 44

10

C.F.R. § 9.17. However, as outlined above, NWP 3 went through a rigorous vetting

11

process prior to its issuance in 2007, which included the limitation that “[i]f the proposed

12

activity will result in more than minimal adverse effects to floodplains or increases in

13

flood hazards, the district engineer will exercise discretionary authority and require an

14

individual permit for the proposed activity.” Reissuance of Nationwide Permits, 72 Fed.

15

Reg. 11092-01, 11157 (March 12, 2007); see also Reissuance of Nationwide Permits, 77

16

Fed. Reg. 10184-01, 10,270 (indicating that no commenter raised concerns with NWP 3’s

17

treatment of floodplains). By virtue of verifying that the Grahams’ jetty fell under the

18

range of activities authorized under NWP 3, the Corps considered the impact the New

19

Jetty would have on the flood plain and found them to be negligible. (See AR at 413

20

(explaining the limitations of NWP 3, “[t]he activities authorized by NWP 3 will have

21

negligible adverse effects on the flood-holding capacity of the 100-year floodplain, since

22

the NWP is limited to maintenance activities.”).

23

The Corps’ verification that a project is authorized under NWP 3 is also subject to

24

the general conditions outlined in the Reissuance of Nationwide Permits, including

25

General Condition 10 (“GC 10”) which specifically considers the potential impact of the

26

nationwide permits on floodplains. See Reissuance of Nationwide Permits, 77 Fed. Reg

27

10184-01, 10,283 (codifying GC 10 as “[t]he activity must comply with applicable

28

FEMA-approved state or local floodplain management requirements”).

- 12 -

However,

1

contrary to the Plumps’ assertions, it is not the Corps’ responsibility to ensure that the

2

Grahams comply with FEMA’s regulations or the general conditions contained in an

3

NWP. See Snoqualmie Valley Pres. All., 683 F.3d at 1164 (“The nationwide permit

4

system is designed to streamline the permitting process. We decline to impose a new

5

requirement of a full and thorough analysis of each general condition based on

6

documentation the Corps may or may not have.”). GC 10 “recognizes that FEMA, in

7

partnership with state and local governments, is the more appropriate authority for

8

floodplain management. It is not the responsibility of the Corps to ensure that project

9

proponents seek any required authorizations from state or local floodplain managers.” Id.

10

Therefore, while GC 10 effectively puts a permitee on notice of the existence of FEMA

11

regulations that he may be subject to, it also makes it clear that it is not the Corps’

12

responsibility to ensure that the applicant follows through with FEMA and actually

13

complies with its separate regulatory process. Id. Therefore, to the extent that the

14

Plumps claim that the Corps acted arbitrarily by failing to coordinate with FEMA or

15

ensure compliance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, summary judgment is

16

granted for the Corps.

17

CONCLUSION

18

“The scope of review under the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard is narrow and a

19

court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n,

20

463 U.S. at 43. Given the administrative record in this case, the Corps did not act

21

arbitrarily in determining that the Grahams’ New Jetty complied with the requirements of

22

NWP 3. Therefore, the Corps is entitled to summary judgment as to Count 1 of the

23

Plumps’ FAC.

24

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Corps’ Motion for Summary

25

Judgment, (Doc. 71), is GRANTED.

26

///

27

///

28

///

- 13 -

1
2
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plumps’ Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, (Doc. 56), is DENIED.
Dated this 9th day of May, 2017.

4
5
6
7

Honorable G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 14 -