City of Sausalito v. O'Neill

No. C-01-01819 EDL (211 F. Supp. 2d 1175) (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA July 3, 2002)

ELR Digest

The court grants summary judgment in favor of the National Park Service (NPS) in a city's lawsuit alleging that the NPS violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and several other statutes in connection with its environmental impact statement (EIS) for the redevelopment of Fort Baker, a former military base in California. The EIS for the site focuses on new uses for historic buildings at Fort Baker, expansion of the Bay Area Discovery Museum, visitor recreation, and the protection, restoration, and maintenance of natural areas. The court first holds that although the city demonstrated an injury-in-fact sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing, the city failed to show prudential standing with regard to the CZMA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, NPS regulations, and the 1996 Parks and Public Lands Omnibus Act. The court, therefore, grants summary judgment in favor of the NPS on those claims.

The court next holds that the city failed to show that the NPS violated NEPA under the applicable "rule of reason" standard of review. The NPS' choice of alternatives was reasonable, the EIS contained a reasonably thorough discussion of the project's impacts on marine life and mitigation efforts, and its discussion of the removal of trees was sufficient. Likewise, the failure of the NPS to append the economic analysis from the administrative record to the final EIS and its decision to set forth scientific sources in an index rather than in footnotes were not arbitrary and capricious. Further, the EIS reflects that the NPS took a hard look at the FWS' biological opinion and incorporated its recommendations. The court then holds that the NPS did not act arbitrarily or capriciously under the ESA. Its draft EIS complied with the Act's requirement to prepare a biological assessment. Although the draft EIS could have contained more analysis on the project's effect on salmon, that finding does not support a determination that the NPS acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Similarly, the NPS adequately considered scientific evidence with regard to salmon and the mission blue butterfly. Lastly, the court holds that the Fort Baker plan constitutes a reasoned exercise of discretion by the NPS under the NPS Organic Act.

The full text of this decision is a vailable from ELR (39 pp., ELR Order No. L-548).

[Counsel not available at this printing.]

[OPINION OMITTED BY PUBLISHER IN ORIGINAL SOURCE]