Friends Challenges Army Corps of Engineers

Posted May 25, 2018 at 7:14 am by

Groups Chal­lenge Army Corps of Engi­neers’ Refusal to Pro­tect Puget Sound Shorelines

Corps’ Seat­tle Dis­trict vio­lates Clean Water Act, endan­gers Sound recovery

SEATTLE – A law­suit filed today against the U.S. Army Corps of Engi­neers (“Corps”) charges that the agency has refused to assert its Clean Water Act juris­dic­tion over most shore­line armor­ing in Puget Sound, and that endan­gered species and Sound shore­lines are suf­fer­ing the neg­a­tive impacts of the Corps’ con­tin­ued inaction.

Wash­ing­ton Envi­ron­men­tal Coun­cil, Sound Action and Friends of the San Juans filed the suit after the Corps reject­ed a sci­ence-based gov­ern­ment rec­om­men­da­tion to cor­rect its unlaw­ful def­i­n­i­tion of the Seat­tle Dis­trict Corps’ juris­dic­tion over shore­line armor­ing projects.

The coali­tion, rep­re­sent­ed by Earth­jus­tice, is call­ing for fed­er­al over­sight of shore­line armor­ing by rais­ing what the Corps’ Seat­tle Dis­trict con­sid­ers the “high tide line” in order to bet­ter pro­tect at-risk species and the shore­lines them­selves. The law­suit also calls for a response to the groups’ 2015 peti­tion ask­ing for juris­dic­tion­al deci­sions on four shore­line armor­ing projects. The groups con­tend a strong fed­er­al pol­i­cy to pro­tect shore­lines is crit­i­cal to Puget Sound recovery.

“Shore­line armor­ing impairs the health of Puget Sound by dam­ag­ing nearshore habi­tat impor­tant for for­age fish that feed salmon,” said Mindy Roberts, Puget Sound direc­tor for Wash­ing­ton Envi­ron­men­tal Coun­cil. “Cur­rent­ly, fed­er­al agen­cies don’t con­sid­er impacts from these struc­tures, because their def­i­n­i­tion of what con­sti­tutes ‘the shore­line’ is too lax.”


Back­ground: Armor­ing is the place­ment of hard struc­tures – boul­ders, jet­ties, sea­walls – on shore­lines to help pre­vent ero­sion. The Corps is required by law to review pro­posed armor­ing projects up to the “high tide line,” which is gen­er­al­ly the line at which land meets the water. But the Corps’ Seat­tle Dis­trict uses a much low­er tidal mark­er (known as the “mean high­er high water” mark). As a result, the Seat­tle Dis­trict does not review the major­i­ty of armor­ing projects in Puget Sound.

The Corps’ fail­ure to assert juris­dic­tion means there has been no fed­er­al over­sight of whether most armor­ing projects in the Sound meet the Clean Water Act, the Endan­gered Species Act or any oth­er fed­er­al requirement.

Fur­ther, the Corps recent­ly reject­ed an inter­a­gency rec­om­men­da­tion to use a high­er tidal mark­er, in vio­la­tion of the Admin­is­tra­tive Pro­ce­dure Act, which pro­hibits arbi­trary and capri­cious agency actions. In reject­ing the rec­om­men­da­tion, the Corps ignored sound sci­ence and the law.


“The Corps has known for years that its high tide line mark­er in Puget Sound is unlaw­ful­ly low,” said Anna Sewell, Earth­jus­tice attor­ney for the plain­tiffs. “But the Corps put its head in the sand and reject­ed a sci­ence-based rec­om­men­da­tion from three region­al fed­er­al agen­cies – includ­ing the Seat­tle Dis­trict Corps itself – to pro­tect 8,600 acres of shore­line area by rais­ing that marker.”

This trou­bling lack of fed­er­al sup­port puts Puget Sound shore­lines at risk of fur­ther dete­ri­o­ra­tion, par­tic­u­lar­ly when shore­line armor­ing is well doc­u­ment­ed to be one of the most sig­nif­i­cant risks to the Sound.

“Puget Sound is already on the brink of col­lapse due to con­tin­ued habi­tat loss, and it’s crit­i­cal that the laws put in place to pro­tect nearshore ecosys­tems are both fol­lowed and enforced,” said Sound Action Exec­u­tive Direc­tor Amy Carey. “Unless we act now, the for­age fish, the salmon and the orcas that are so des­per­ate­ly strug­gling to sur­vive will be lost for­ev­er. It’s up to all of us to ensure this doesn’t hap­pen – and it starts by hold­ing the per­mit­ting agen­cies account­able for doing their jobs.”

“By dis­avow­ing its statu­to­ry author­i­ty, the Corps has shield­ed harm­ful projects from a review of their impacts on crit­i­cal­ly endan­gered and cul­tur­al­ly vital North­west species,” added Kyle Lor­ing, staff attor­ney, Friends of the San Juans. “Its high-tide inter­pre­ta­tion also leaves state and local gov­ern­ments on their own, at a time when our pub­licly-fund­ed agen­cies should be work­ing togeth­er to do every­thing in their pow­er to pro­tect what remains of our region’s rich heritage.”

The Corps must respond to the law­suit with­in 60 days.

You can support the San Juan Update by doing business with our loyal advertisers, and by making a one-time contribution or a recurring donation.

No comments yet. Be the first!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By submitting a comment you grant the San Juan Update a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate, irrelevant and contentious comments may not be published at an admin's discretion. Your email is used for verification purposes only, it will never be shared.

Receive new post updates: Entries (RSS)
Receive followup comments updates: RSS 2.0