The court of appeals affirmed a judgment of the district court. The court held that a finding of the Corps of Engineers that environmental effects of a proposed development would result in no adverse modification of any threatened or endangered species’ critical habitat was not arbitrary or capricious.
The City of Redding, California, decided to construct a business park on wetlands that contained critical habitat for several species that were listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), including two shrimp species and a grass species. The development would require discharge of dredged or fill material into protected wetlands, which would have to be permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under §404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). In a draft environmental impact statement (EIS), the city compared a number of potential sites and concluded that the wetlands site was the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative that satisfied both the project’s purpose and the feasibility criteria.
