Ocean Advocates v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

BP’s (defendant) oil refinery on Cherry Point had one dock for tankers. BP applied for a permit to build an additional dock, stating it would decrease the risk of oil spills by limiting tanker anchorage time and adding oil-spill containment systems. BP stated the refinery was operating at full capacity and there would be no increase in tanker traffic. The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (defendant) granted the permit without preparing an environmental-impact statement (EIS), issuing a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on the human environment. The Corps concluded there was no adverse environmental impact and that the project would reduce the oil-spill risk. The Corps did not investigate the environmental risks of increased tanker traffic. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WSDNR) then issued a report stating the additional dock would increase oil-spill risks, but that market forces alone would increase BP’s tanker traffic. Ocean Advocates (plaintiff) sued the Corps, demanding an EIS because (1) BP’s permit was issued based on the inaccurate assumption the refinery was operating at full capacity and (2) the Corps failed to investigate the risk of cumulative environmental impact. BP intervened as a defendant. The district court granted summary judgment, finding that an EIS was not required because tanker traffic would increase even without the additional dock. Ocean Advocates appealed.