## Facts

- The Port of Oakland pursued (1) a federally partnered navigation improvement project to deepen harbor channels and berths from 42 to 50 feet and (2) a separate Port-led project to construct new container berths, cargo terminals, and related shoreline improvements requiring a Clean Water Act § 404 permit.
- The deeper-draft project aimed to accommodate larger post-Panamax vessels that could not efficiently use the Port at existing depths without operational constraints.
- For the navigation project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
- For the berths project, the Corps prepared an environmental assessment (EA) and issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), rather than preparing a separate EIS.
- Because the Corps’ approvals constituted federal action, the Corps consulted under Endangered Species Act (ESA) § 7 with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), resulting in biological opinions addressing effects on listed species and required measures.
- Plaintiffs challenged the NEPA and ESA compliance, emphasizing risks tied to project-enabled changes in shipping and ballast-water discharges that could facilitate invasive species introductions.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) standard of review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Corps’ NEPA documentation (EIS for the navigation project and EA/FONSI for the berths project) adequately analyzed and disclosed environmental impacts, including invasive-species risk, and whether the berths project required an EIS.
2. Whether the Corps, FWS, and NMFS complied with ESA § 7 by using the best scientific and commercial data available and issuing legally sufficient biological opinions regarding effects on listed species and habitat.
3. Whether the challenged agency actions were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under the APA.

## Decision

- Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was denied, and defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment was granted.
- The court held the navigation project EIS satisfied NEPA because the Corps addressed ballast-water and invasive-species concerns, explained methodological limits, and supported its conclusions with reasoned analysis.
- The court upheld the Corps’ EA/FONSI for the berths project, concluding the Corps reasonably found no significant impacts and could rely on the broader EIS analysis for related and cumulative effects.
- The court sustained the ESA consultation process and biological opinions, finding FWS and NMFS reasonably evaluated effects using the best available data and were not required to generate new studies to resolve scientific uncertainty.
- The agencies’ determinations were upheld as not arbitrary or capricious under APA review.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA is procedural; it requires a reasoned evaluation of environmental consequences (“hard look”) but does not compel a particular substantive result.
- Under the APA, courts uphold agency action when the agency considered relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the record and its decision; technical and predictive judgments receive deference when reasonably explained.
- NEPA permits agencies to address scientific uncertainty through disclosure and rational explanation and does not require use of unavailable or undeveloped quantitative methodologies.
- An agency may support a FONSI with an EA that considers direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and may reasonably rely on analysis from related NEPA documents when the record supports that approach.
- ESA § 7 biological opinions must rely on the best scientific and commercial data available; agencies need not commission new studies where existing information reasonably supports their conclusions.
- Courts generally defer to FWS and NMFS technical determinations on species effects and mitigation measures absent a showing that the agencies ignored important data or failed to address key aspects of the problem.

## Conclusion

The court upheld federal approvals for the Port of Oakland dredging and berths projects, concluding that the Corps’ NEPA analyses and the ESA consultations and biological opinions reflected reasoned decisionmaking supported by the record and were not arbitrary or capricious under the APA.


San Francisco Baykeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (N.D. Cal. 2002)