420 F.Supp.3d 409
E.D.N.C.
2019
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiff National Audubon Society challenged USACE's 2017 Record of Decision and permit allowing the Town of Ocean Isle Beach to build a 750-foot terminal groin and associated beach fill at Ocean Isle Beach (Shallotte Inlet area), alleging NEPA and CWA violations.
  • USACE contracted Coastal Planning and Engineering (CPE) to prepare the EIS; CPE executed a disclosure statement denying financial interest in project outcome; USACE and CPE worked together on DEIS (2015) and FEIS (2016).
  • The FEIS compared five alternatives (no action; federal project variants; targeted dredging plus nourishment; terminal groin with fillet) using LiDAR, beach profiles, and the Delft3D model; USACE selected the terminal groin as the LEDPA in the ROD.
  • Key technical disputes concerned (1) whether CPE had a disqualifying conflict of interest and whether USACE independently evaluated CPE’s work; (2) reasonableness of modeling (Delft3D), erosion projections, and alternatives analysis under NEPA; and (3) adequacy of analysis of indirect/secondary effects and CWA LEDPA factors (including a 408,000 cu yd nourishment cap).
  • The court granted summary judgment to defendants, denying Audubon’s motion, concluding (inter alia) no disqualifying conflict, that USACE independently oversaw and evaluated the EIS, and that USACE’s NEPA and CWA analyses were not arbitrary and capricious.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
1) Contractor conflict of interest & independent agency evaluation under 40 C.F.R. §1506.5 CPE acted as applicant agent and prepared the EIS, creating a conflict and USACE failed to independently evaluate CPE’s work CPE disclosed no financial interest in project outcome; mere prior design/agency role without promise of future construction work is not a disqualifying interest; USACE provided substantive oversight and control No disqualifying conflict; USACE sufficiently supervised and independently evaluated CPE’s work; compliance with §1506.5 satisfied
2) Adequacy of alternatives analysis / modeling (Delft3D) and erosion estimates under NEPA Delft3D and proportional adjustments produced unreliable, unexplained erosion and habitat estimates, impairing meaningful alternatives comparison Model was calibrated, its limitations disclosed, and used reasonably for relative comparisons; engineering judgment justified proportional adjustment using historic rates Use of Delft3D and methodology for estimating relative erosion and impacts was reasonable; NEPA alternatives analysis not arbitrary
3) Indirect/secondary effects and timeframe of analysis USACE failed to model reasonably foreseeable long-term indirect/secondary effects (beyond 5 years) and ignored USFWS concerns for shorebirds/turtles Long-term coastal predictions are unreliable; USACE modeled short-term indirect effects, disclosed limitations, and supplemented with qualitative analysis; USFWS concerns were considered USACE took the required "hard look"; modeling horizon and qualitative analysis were reasonable and adequate under NEPA and CWA
4) CWA LEDPA determination, beach nourishment cap, and economic/property-loss analysis The 408,000 cu yd nourishment cap and property-loss accounting skewed cost comparisons and led to arbitrary LEDPA selection favoring the groin Cap tied to historically budgeted three‑year nourishment volume; property-loss costs were used consistently and transparently; groin avoids more frequent nourishment-related habitat damage USACE reasonably applied the nourishment threshold and cost analyses; LEDPA selection of the terminal groin was not arbitrary and capricious under the CWA

Key Cases Cited

  • Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (standard for arbitrary and capricious review)
  • Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (NEPA "hard look" and action‑forcing procedures)
  • Defenders of Wildlife v. North Carolina Dept. of Transportation, 762 F.3d 374 (4th Cir.) (importance of alternatives analysis in EIS)
  • National Audubon Society v. Department of the Navy, 422 F.3d 174 (4th Cir.) (holistic review of NEPA compliance; no "fliespecking")
  • Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir.) (deference to agency methodology if reasonable)
  • Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians v. Zinke (Colusa Indian Community), 889 F.3d 584 (9th Cir.) (contractor prior work does not automatically create §1506.5 conflict)
  • Associations Working for Aurora’s Residential Environment v. Colorado Dept. of Transportation, 153 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir.) (no conflict where future construction work not promised)
  • Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. Glickman, 81 F.3d 437 (4th Cir.) (NEPA and cost‑benefit distortion concerns)
  • Webster v. United States Dep't of Agriculture, 685 F.3d 411 (4th Cir.) (EIS must allow reasoned decisionmaking; misleading assumptions violate NEPA)
  • Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 16 F.3d 1395 (4th Cir.) (deference to reasonable modeling choices)
Read the full case