South Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
789 F.3d 475
4th Cir.2015Background
- South Coast Mitigation Group owns an almost 700-acre tract in Jasper County, SC; 485 acres (the Embanked Tract) are freshwater impoundments separated from the brackish Back River by 150‑year‑old earthen embankments with water‑control structures controlled solely by South Coast.
- South Coast sought Corps verification that removal of the embankments and placement of fill into adjacent ditches fit within Nationwide Permit 27 and applied to establish the Clydesdale Mitigation Bank; the Corps issued verification and approved the mitigation banking instrument after an EA and a FONSI.
- The South Carolina Coastal Conservation League sued under the APA, NEPA, the CWA (citizen‑suit provisions), and the ESA, seeking declarations, vacatur of the Corps’ actions, and injunctive relief to prevent conversion of freshwater wetlands to saltwater wetlands.
- After initial briefing, South Coast performed salinity testing showing average salinity inside the impoundments (3.4 ppt) higher than immediately outside (2.8 ppt); the district court, relying on these facts, dismissed the case as moot for lack of redressability and denied leave to amend as futile.
- The League offered expert declarations asserting conversion had not occurred and that freshwater could be reintroduced via a federal diversion canal; the court found vacatur of the Corps’ approvals would not likely reduce salinity or redress the League’s alleged injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness / Article III standing (redressability) | League: Corps’ approvals imminently threaten conversion; vacatur would prevent further harm and development of a mitigation bank. | South Coast/Agencies: Site already exposed to brackish water; measured salinity inside impoundments is not decreased by vacatur and conversion (or salinity) has occurred; relief would be non‑redressive. | Affirmed dismissal as moot: plaintiff lacks redressable injury; vacatur would not likely reduce salinity or prevent harm. |
| Reliance on competing expert evidence at mootness stage | League: Expert declarations show wetlands remain freshwater and conversion is reversible; district court should view facts in League’s favor. | Defendants: Measured salinity and control of water by owner show relief cannot remedy alleged injury. | Court: Even accepting League’s experts, relief sought would not likely redress injury; mootness stands. |
| Leave to amend to add cumulative‑impact NEPA claim | League: Proposed amendment raises failure to consider nearby Murray Hill mitigation bank; merits further litigation. | Defendants: Amendment is futile because jurisdiction is lacking (mootness) and League offers no new standing basis. | Denial of leave to amend affirmed as not an abuse of discretion (futile given lack of standing). |
| Standard for judicial review of Corps’ administrative actions (scope of relief) | League: APA/NEPA/ESA/CWA claims warrant vacatur and injunctive relief if approvals arbitrary or unlawful. | Agencies: Even if procedural defects existed, relief that cannot redress plaintiffs’ injuries is insufficient for Article III jurisdiction. | Court reiterated that Article III limits require a concrete, redressable injury before reviewing/affecting agency approvals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized injury, traceable and redressable)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (standing requires injury traceable to defendant and likely redressable by relief)
- Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67 (case or controversy requirement and mootness)
- Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (disagreement alone insufficient for Article III standing)
- Young v. United States Parcel Serv., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1338 (on summary judgment courts must view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)