## Facts

- Sarasota County, Florida proposed construction of a municipal landfill on a site containing wetlands, requiring a Clean Water Act (CWA) § 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
- Environmental organizations and individuals opposed the project, alleging harm to wetlands and impacts on the endangered Florida panther and threatened eastern indigo snake.
- The County applied for a § 404 permit in 1989; the Corps solicited comments in 1990, and EPA initially recommended denial.
- The County revised the project in 1993 to reduce wetland impacts; EPA withdrew objections in 1994.
- In 1994, the Corps completed an Environmental Assessment (EA), issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a federal public hearing were unnecessary; the Corps issued the § 404 permit.
- After the permit issued, the plaintiffs notified agencies of intent to sue, asserting the consultation record had not addressed the panther and indigo snake; the Corps suspended the permit during further Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation.
- The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) produced multiple Biological Opinions, ultimately concluding the project (with mitigation) was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the panther or indigo snake.
- The Corps reinstated the permit with modifications reflecting additional consultation and mitigation measures.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal district court, challenging the permit and related decisions under the CWA, NEPA, and ESA, and sought discovery into alleged political influence on the agencies.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants and denied the requested discovery; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Corps’ issuance and reinstatement of the CWA § 404 permit was arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
2. Whether the Corps acted arbitrarily or capriciously under NEPA by issuing an EA/FONSI and not preparing an EIS.
3. Whether FWS’s “no jeopardy” Biological Opinion, and the Corps’ reliance on it during ESA § 7 consultation, were arbitrary or capricious.
4. Whether the Corps acted arbitrarily or capriciously in declining to hold a federal public hearing on the permit application.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying extra-record discovery into alleged political influence over agency decision-making.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants on all claims.
- The Corps’ § 404 permit decisions were upheld as supported by the administrative record and consistent with applicable permitting guidelines.
- The Corps’ decision to proceed with an EA and FONSI, rather than an EIS, was upheld as a reasonable NEPA determination.
- The ESA consultation and FWS “no jeopardy” Biological Opinion were upheld; the Corps reasonably relied on FWS’s technical judgment.
- The Corps’ decision not to hold a federal public hearing was upheld as reasonable given prior state hearings and extensive written comments.
- The district court’s denial of discovery was affirmed because APA review was properly limited to the administrative record absent a strong showing of bad faith or improper conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, agency action is set aside only if arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; courts require a rational connection between the record and the decision and do not substitute their judgment for the agency’s.
- In CWA § 404 permitting, courts defer to the Corps’ record-based analysis of wetland impacts, mitigation, and alternatives when the decision reflects consideration of relevant factors and compliance with governing guidelines.
- NEPA is procedural; an EA and FONSI may satisfy NEPA when the agency takes a hard look at environmental consequences and reasonably explains why impacts are not significant, including reliance on mitigation and related expert analysis.
- Under ESA § 7, an action agency may rely on FWS’s Biological Opinion absent a showing that the opinion ignored relevant data or rested on clear error; deference is given to the expert wildlife agency’s technical determinations.
- Judicial review in APA cases is generally confined to the administrative record; extra-record discovery requires more than speculation and typically demands a substantial showing of bad faith or improper behavior.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld federal approvals for a wetlands-affecting landfill project, holding that the Corps’ § 404 permitting, NEPA no-EIS determination, and reliance on FWS’s ESA “no jeopardy” opinion were adequately supported by the administrative record and were not arbitrary or capricious, and that extra-record discovery based on alleged political influence was properly denied.


Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Rice, 85 F.3d 535 (11th Cir. 1996)