Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation v. North Carolina Department of Transportation
843 F.3d 583
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- NCDOT and FHWA studied and selected the 22-mile Gaston East-West Connector ("Connector" or "Garden Parkway") through NEPA, publishing draft and final Environmental Impact Statements and a Record of Decision approving the project.
- The Agencies relied on socioeconomic forecasts—created with input from local planning organizations that assumed construction of the Connector—to produce "build" and "no-build" traffic and land-use forecasts, including a quantitative indirect and cumulative effects (ICE) analysis using a gravity model.
- Conservation groups (Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation and Clean Air Carolina) sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging NEPA violations for using socioeconomic data that assumed the Connector in the no-build baseline and for inadequate disclosure of impacts; the district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and vacated the Record of Decision.
- After the district court judgment, the North Carolina General Assembly changed the funding/prioritization scheme, stripped the Connector’s earmarked funding, and repealed the statutory authority for the project; local and state planners removed the Connector from transportation improvement plans, rendering it ineligible for federal funding.
- On appeal, NCDOT argued the case is moot because the Connector is no longer viable; the Conservation Groups argued the Record of Decision still exists and could be used later to revive the project.
- The Fourth Circuit concluded the appeal is moot given the remote likelihood of near-term construction and vacated the district court’s judgment, remanding with instructions to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness: whether subsequent legislative and planning actions eliminated a live controversy | The Record of Decision remains valid and could be used to restart the project; therefore litigation still presents a live, immediate dispute | Removal from plans, repeal of funding/authorization, and NCDOT representations make project nonviable; appeal is moot | Case is moot; subsequent events make relief impractical and speculative |
| Vacatur: whether the appellate court should vacate the district court's judgment after mootness | Mootness resulted from NCDOT’s lobbying and actions; appellants should not benefit from their own conduct—vacatur inappropriate | Actions that mooted the case were legislative and local planning decisions separate from NCDOT; thus mootness resulted from happenstance, so vacatur is proper | Vacatur is appropriate because state legislature and local planners, not NCDOT, caused mootness; judgment vacated and case dismissed on remand |
| NEPA baseline/ICE analysis (merits, preserved issue) | Agencies improperly used socioeconomic data that assumed the project in both build and no-build baselines, violating NEPA | Agencies’ modeling and gravity-model adjustments were proper; Record of Decision stands | Not decided on appeal (court declined to reach merits because case is moot) |
| Availability of declaratory/injunctive relief | Plaintiffs need declaratory relief to prevent future use of the Record of Decision | Relief is unnecessary because project is defunct and future harm speculative | Relief denied as moot; Court will not issue advisory opinion on hypothetical future events |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina Wildlife Fed'n v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 677 F.3d 596 (4th Cir. 2012) (discussing NEPA baseline and improper assumptions in road-project analyses)
- Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2007) (mootness doctrine originates from Article III case-or-controversy requirement)
- Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2013) (subsequent events can moot a suit even if plaintiff had standing at filing)
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. City of Alexandria, 608 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2010) (a case is moot when resolution cannot have any practical effect)
- Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975) (federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions on hypothetical future events)
- U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (vacatur generally inappropriate when losing party voluntarily moots a case)
- Valero Terrestrial Corp. v. Paige, 211 F.3d 112 (4th Cir. 2000) (vacatur inquiry focuses on fault and public interest; legislative action distinguished from executive act)
- United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (traditional rule permitting vacatur of lower-court judgments when cases become moot through happenstance)