## Facts

- Hyundai Electronics of America planned to build a semiconductor fabrication plant on a 205-acre parcel in west Eugene, Oregon, containing about 63.6 acres of wetlands.
- The project required filling approximately 10.4 acres of wetlands and was not water-dependent.
- Hyundai applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a Clean Water Act (CWA) § 404 permit to discharge fill material into wetlands.
- The site was within the geographic scope of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, though the plan did not specifically address the parcel.
- The Corps conducted an extensive administrative review, considered public and agency input, analyzed environmental impacts (including cumulative impacts), and evaluated multiple alternative sites.
- Under NEPA, the Corps prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), concluding an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was unnecessary.

## Issues

1. Whether the Corps violated the CWA § 404(b)(1) Guidelines by defining the project purpose so narrowly that it improperly limited the practicable alternatives analysis for a non-water-dependent project.
2. Whether the Corps acted unlawfully under NEPA by issuing an EA and FONSI rather than preparing an EIS for the wetlands-fill permit decision.
3. Whether, under the APA, the Corps’ permit and NEPA determinations were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for the federal defendants and intervenor-defendants and denied plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief.
- The court upheld the Corps’ issuance of the § 404 permit, concluding the Corps reasonably defined the project purpose and adequately evaluated practicable alternatives.
- The court upheld the Corps’ NEPA compliance, finding the EA and FONSI reflected a sufficient review of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and supported the decision not to prepare an EIS.
- The court limited judicial review largely to the administrative record.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, review of agency decisions is deferential; a court asks whether the agency considered relevant factors and reasonably explained its decision, not whether the court would have made the same choice.
- In § 404 permitting, the Corps may define a project’s purpose with reference to the applicant’s objectives, but not so narrowly that it forecloses reasonable alternatives by definition.
- For non-water-dependent projects, the Corps must assess practicable alternatives with less adverse impact; an alternatives analysis supported by the administrative record will generally be upheld.
- Under NEPA, an agency may proceed with an EA and FONSI (rather than an EIS) if it reasonably concludes the action will not significantly affect the human environment, including when mitigation measures are incorporated and cumulative impacts are addressed.
- APA record review is ordinarily confined to the administrative record, with only limited exceptions.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the Corps’ wetlands-fill permit and its decision to forgo an EIS because the administrative record supported the Corps’ project-purpose definition, alternatives analysis, public-interest balancing, and NEPA finding of no significant impact under deferential APA review.


Nw. Env’t Def. Ctr. v. Wood, 947 F. Supp. 1371 (D. Or. 1996)