North Carolina Wildlife Federation v. North Carolina Department of Transportation
677 F.3d 596
4th Cir.2012Background
- Conservation Groups sued to enjoin the Monroe Connector Bypass in NC, arguing NEPA violations in the Agencies' approval of construction.
- Agencies prepared a Statement of Purpose and Need and an Environmental Impact Statement evaluating build options, including the Monroe Connector and a no-build baseline.
- No-build baseline data used MUMPO projections derived from a regional travel demand model; the model incorporated travel times to employment that assumed Monroe Connector in its network.
- Public comments questioned whether the no-build baseline truly excluded the Monroe Connector; agencies publicly asserted it did not, while later admitting it did.
- Record of Decision selected the Monroe Connector site with significant projected cost; district court granted summary judgment for the Agencies, which was later vacated on appeal.
- Court held that the Agencies violated NEPA by mischaracterizing the no-build baseline and failing to disclose underlying assumptions, necessitating remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Agencies violate NEPA by mischaracterizing the no-build baseline? | Conservation Groups | Agencies | Yes; mischaracterization violated NEPA and required remand |
| Was the public misled by failure to disclose baseline assumptions during the NEPA process? | Conservation Groups | Agencies | Yes; disclosures were required and were not adequately provided |
| Could post hoc litigation admissions cure NEPA deficiencies? | Conservation Groups | Agencies | No; litigation admissions cannot cure the agency's process deficiencies |
Key Cases Cited
- Pub. L. Corp. v. Citizens, 541 U.S. 752 (2004) (NEPA is procedural; requires reasoned analysis)
- Marsh v. Or. Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) (hard look NEPA scrutiny; need thorough analysis)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. S. Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious review; reasoned basis required)
- National Audubon Soc'y v. Dep't of the Navy, 422 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2005) (NEPA baseline and data integrity)
- Shenandoah Valley Network v. Capka, 669 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2012) (need for a thorough assessment of environmental consequences)
- Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne, 520 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2008) (baseline data accuracy and NEPA compliance considerations)