Defenders of Wildlife v. North Carolina Department of Transportation
762 F.3d 374
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- The Project replaces the Bonner Bridge and involves NC 12 segments on Hatteras Island, with refuges and seashore nearby under federal management.
- Defendants pursued a multi-phase plan rather than a single, all-encompassing project, including a Transportation Management Plan for future NC 12 actions through 2060.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on NEPA but held that Section 4(f) applied or not, and concluded the joint planning exception applied.
- Plaintiffs challenged NEPA segmentation (arguing that the EIS covered only part of the project) and challenged 4(f) analyses and the alleged reliance on the joint planning exception.
- Key NEPA documents analyzed multiple alternatives over time (2005, 2007 supplements; 2008 FEIS) with Phase I consisting of a new Oregon Inlet bridge; later phases were to be decided under a Transportation Management Plan.
- The Fourth Circuit ultimately affirmed NEPA judgment but reversed on the 4(f) issue, remanding to determine whether the joint planning exception applies and, if not, to evaluate FHWA’s 4(f) compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Project's phased approach violate NEPA’s segmentation rule? | Plaintiffs argue segmentation hides the full project from review. | Defendants contend a full end-to-end analysis exists and phase-by-phase approval is permissible. | No NEPA segmentation violation; full analysis of five studied alternatives supports phased implementation. |
| Does the joint planning exception apply to Section 4(f) for the Refuge? | Plaintiffs contend Refuge NC 12 development predates reservation and joint planning. | Defendants rely on joint planning to avoid 4(f) requirements. | District court’s application of the joint planning exception is reversed; no substantial evidence shows formal reservation and concurrent planning as of the Refuge’s establishment. |
| If the joint planning exception does not apply, did FHWA satisfy Section 4(f) substantively? | Plaintiffs argue 4(f) substantive standards were not met. | Defendants maintained 4(f) analysis was not required due to the exception or adequate planning. | Remand required to determine compliance with 4(f)’s substantive requirements and whether the selected alternative causes the least harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1989) (NEPA requires a hard look at environmental consequences, not mandating particular results)
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1989) (NEPA process must provide full discussion of environmental impacts)
- National Wildlife Federation v. Department of Transportation, 677 F.3d 596 (4th Cir. 2012) (NEPA segmentation and tiering framework in Fourth Circuit)
- Webster v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 685 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 2012) (NEPA segmentation constraints and meaningful evaluation of alternatives)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary and capricious review standard for agency action)