
    Craig SMALLWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-16730.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 21, 2011.
    Craig Smallwood, Ewa Beach, HI, pro se.
    Thomas A. Helper, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, Joan M. Pepin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Michael H.Q.L. Lau, Paul H. Sato, Sandra L. Wilhide, Morihara Lau & Fong LLP, Don Sadao Kitaoka, Esquire, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Office of Corporation Counsel, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Craig Smallwood appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging various environmental claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Aloha-Care v. Haw. Dep’t of Human Servs., 572 F.3d 740, 744 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed as time-barred Smallwood’s National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) challenges to the federal agency actions that occurred in 1993 and 2002. See Wind River Mining Corp. v. United States, 946 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir.1991) (six-year statute of limitations).

The district court properly dismissed Smallwood’s NEPA claim concerning the 2005 permit amendment and the Clean Water Act claim because Smallwood failed to allege facts showing that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ decisions were arbitrary or capricious. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (standard for reviewing agency decisions).

The district court properly dismissed Smallwood’s Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) claim because Smallwood did not comply with the statutory notice requirement. See 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(A); Save the Yaak Comm. v. Block, 840 F.2d 714, 721 (9th Cir.1988) (the ESA notice requirement is jurisdictional).

Smallwood’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     