fourth circuit ruling on bonner bridge replacement

8/12/2019 Fourth Circuit ruling on Bonner Bridge Replacement

1/58

PUBLISHED

UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CI RCUI T

No. 13-2215

DEFENDERS OF WI LDLI FE; NATI ONAL WI LDLI FE REFUGE ASSOCI ATI ON,

Pl ai nt i f f s Appel l ant s ,

v.

NORTH CAROLI NA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI ON; ANTHONY J .TATA, Secr et ar y, Nor t h Car ol i na Depar t ment ofTr ansport at i on; FEDERAL HI GHWAY ADMI NI STRATI ON; J OHN F.SULLI VAN, I I I ,

Def endant s Appel l ees,

and

CAPE HATTERAS ELECTRI C MEMBERSHI P CORPORATI ON,

I nt er venor / Def endant - Appel l ee.

Appeal f r om t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he East er nDi st r i ct of Nor t h Car ol i na, at El i zabet h Ci t y. Loui se W.Fl anagan, Di st r i ct J udge. ( 2: 11- cv- 00035- FL; 2: 12- mc- 00001- FL)

Ar gued: May 13, 2014 Deci ded: August 6, 2014

Bef ore DUNCAN and WYNN, Ci r cui t J udges, and J . Mi chel l e CHI LDS,

Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge f or t he Di st r i ct of Sout h Car ol i na,si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.

Af f i r med i n par t , r ever sed i n par t , and r emanded by publ i shedopi ni on. J udge Wynn wr ote t he opi ni on, i n whi ch J udge Duncanand J udge Chi l ds j oi ned.


2/58

2

ARGUED: J ul i a Fur r Youngman, SOUTHERN ENVI RONMENTAL LAW CENTER,Chapel Hi l l , Nor t h Car ol i na, f or Appel l ant s. Rober t Lundman,UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF J USTI CE, Washi ngt on, D. C. ; J ohnFost er Maddr ey, NORTH CAROLI NA DEPARTMENT OF J USTI CE, Ral ei gh,Nor t h Car ol i na, f or Appel l ees. ON BRIEF: Ni chol as S. Tor r ey,

SOUTHERN ENVI RONMENTAL LAW CENTER, Chapel Hi l l , Nor t h Carol i na;J ason C. Ryl ander , DEFENDERS OF WI LDLI FE, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f orAppel l ant s. Et han G. Shenkman, Act i ng Pr i nci pal Deput yAssi st ant At t orney Gener al , UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF J USTI CE,Washi ngt on, D. C. ; Thomas G. Wal ker , Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,Mat t hew L. Fesak, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Envi r onment& Nat ural Resources Di vi si on, OFFI CE OF THE UNI TED STATESATTORNEY, Ral ei gh, Nor t h Car ol i na; Roy Cooper , At t or ney Gener al ,Scot t T. Sl usser , Speci al Deput y At t or ney Gener al , Thomas D.Henr y, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Col i n A. J ust i ce, Assi st antAt t or ney Gener al , NORTH CAROLI NA DEPARTMENT OF J USTI CE, Ral ei gh,Nor t h Car ol i na, f or Appel l ees.


3/58

3

WYNN, Ci r cui t J udge:

At t he hear t of t hi s case ar e t he past and f ut ur e of t he

Out er Banks, bar r i er i sl ands al ong Nor t h Car ol i na s At l ant i c

coast . For decades, t he Her ber t C. Bonner Br i dge ( Bonner

Br i dge) has provi ded hi ghway access between mai nl and Nor t h

Car ol i na and t he Out er Banks s Hat t er as I sl and. But t he ef f ect s

of t i me t hr eat en t he st r uct ur al i nt egr i t y of t he Bonner Br i dge,

whi l e l ar ge st or ms and changi ng coast al condi t i ons t hr eat en t he

vi abi l i t y of t he non- el evat ed por t i ons of Nor t h Car ol i na Hi ghway

12 ( NC 12) sout h of t he Bonner Br i dge.

The Nor t h Car ol i na Depar t ment of Tr anspor t at i on ( NCDOT)

and t he Feder al Hi ghway Admi ni st r at i on ( FHWA) ( col l ect i vel y,

Def endant s) sought a l ong- t er m t r anspor t at i on sol ut i on t o

t hese pr obl ems and set t l ed on a pl an t hat essent i al l y mi r r or s

what cur r ent l y exi st s: r epl aci ng t he Bonner Br i dge and

mai nt ai ni ng NC 12 on Hat t er as I sl and.

Def ender s of Wi l dl i f e and t he Nat i onal Wi l dl i f e Ref uge

Associ at i on ( Pl ai nt i f f s) r esponded wi t h t hi s l awsui t .

Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m t hat Def endant s vi ol at ed t he Nat i onal

Envi r onment al Pol i cy Act ( NEPA) and Sect i on 4( f ) of t he

Depart ment of Transpor t at i on Act of 1966 by, among other t hi ngs,

commi t t i ng t o t he const r uct i on of onl y one segment of t he

t r anspor t at i on pr oj ect namel y the r epl acement br i dgeand denyi ng

t he publ i c t he f ul l r evi ew of t he ent i r e pr oj ect and i t s


4/58

4

envi r onment al i mpact , as NEPA r equi r es. Pl ai nt i f f s al so cont end

t hat Def endant s vi ol at ed Sect i on 4( f ) by, among ot her t hi ngs,

i mpr oper l y rej ect i ng al t er nat i ves t hat woul d not have used

pr ot ect ed wi l dl i f e r ef uge l and.

The di st r i ct cour t brought Pl ai nt i f f s sui t t o a hal t by

gr ant i ng summar y j udgment i n f avor of Def endant s. The di st r i ct

cour t hel d, i n par t , t hat Def endant s compl i ed wi t h NEPA and

Sect i on 4( f ) i n r esear chi ng, desi gni ng, and sel ect i ng t hei r

proj ect .

On appeal , we do not deci de whet her we agr ee wi t h

Def endant s pol i cy choi ces or pr oj ect pr ef er ences. Rat her , we

must determi ne whether Def endant s have compl i ed wi t h t he l aw i n

r eachi ng t hei r deci si ons. Thi s has been no easy t ask, gi ven t he

t or t ur ed deci si onmaki ng hi st or y of t hi s pr oj ect , t he di f f i cul t y

of det er mi ni ng exact l y what Def endant s i nt end t o const r uct , and

t he ext ensi ve admi ni st r at i ve r ecor d under l yi ng t he di st r i ct

cour t s deci si on. Never t hel ess, f or t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, we

af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t s det er mi nat i on t hat Def endant s

compl i ed wi t h NEPA, r ever se the di st r i ct cour t s det er mi nat i on

t hat a speci al except i on f r ees Def endant s f r om compl yi ng wi t h

Sect i on 4( f ) , and r emand f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs.


5/58

5

I .

A.

Si nce t he ear l y 1990s, Def endant s have been devel opi ng

pl ans t o r epl ace por t i ons of NC 12, a t wo- l ane hi ghway that

t r aver ses t he Out er Banks. We r ef er t o Def endant s chosen pl an

t he one cur r ent l y under r evi ew by t hi s Cour t si mpl y as t he

Pr oj ect . The Pr oj ect i nvol ves t he f i f t een- mi l e por t i on of NC

12 r unni ng f r om t he sout her n t i p of Bodi e I sl and, across t he

Or egon I nl et , t o t he Vi l l age of Rodant he, t he nor t her nmost

popul at i on cent er on Hat t er as I sl and. The Or egon I nl et i s a

r el at i vel y nar r ow and shal l ow channel of wat er f or med i n t he

mi d- 1800s by sever e st orms.

Bef ore 1963, when t he Bonner Br i dge was const r uct ed over

t he Or egon I nl et , mot or i st s r el i ed on f er r i es t o t r avel bet ween

Hat t er as I sl and and t he mai nl and. The t wo- l ane Bonner Br i dge i s

appr oxi mat el y 2. 4 mi l es l ong and car r i es over t en t housand

vehi cl es per day dur i ng t he ar ea s busy summer t our i st season.

Af t er cr ossi ng t he Or egon I nl et but bef or e r eachi ng

Rodant he, NC 12 passes t hr ough thi r t een mi l es of t he Pea I sl and

Nat i onal Wi l dl i f e Ref uge ( Ref uge) and t he Cape Hat t er as

Nat i onal Seashor e ( Seashor e) . These t wo natur al ar eas ar e

owned and managed by t he f eder al gover nment , and t hey ar e maj or

dest i nat i ons f or many of t he t our i st s who vi si t Hat t er as I sl and.


6/58

6

Al t hough t he boundar i es of t he Seashor e and t he Ref uge general l y

over l ap i n t he Pr oj ect ar ea, t hey ar e t wo di st i nct ent i t i es.

I n 1938, Pr esi dent Roosevel t est abl i shed t he Ref uge

pur suant t o Execut i ve Or der 7864, i ssued under t he Mi gr at or y

Bi r d Conservat i on Act . The Or der st at ed t hat t he l and was t o be

r eserved as a r ef uge and br eedi ng gr ound f or mi gr at or y bi r ds

and ot her wi l dl i f e and t hat any pr i vat e l ands wi t hi n t he ar ea

descr i bed shal l become a par t of t he r ef uge her eby est abl i shed

upon t he acqui si t i on of t i t l e t her et o or l ease t her eof by the

Uni t ed St ates[ . ] Exec. Or der No. 7864, 3 Fed. Reg. 73435

( Apr . 12, 1938) . Dur i ng 1937 and 1938, t he Uni t ed St ates

government used condemnat i on pr oceedi ngs t o acqui r e t he pr oper t y

f or t he Ref uge di r ect l y f r om t he pr evi ous l and owner s. The

Ref uge i s managed by t he Uni t ed St at es Fi sh and Wi l dl i f e

Ser vi ce, a bur eau of t he Depar t ment of t he I nt er i or ( DOI ) .

I n 1937, Congr ess cr eat ed t he Seashor e as a pr otected

envi r onment separ at e and di st i nct f r om t he Ref uge. Act of Aug.

17, 1937, Pub. L. No. 311, 50 St at . 669. The Seashor e cont ai ns

appr oxi mat el y 100 squar e mi l es of pr i mi t i ve wi l der ness on t he

coast , set apar t . . . f or t he benef i t and enj oyment of t he

peopl e[ . ] I d. at 669. The Uni t ed St at es gover nment acqui r ed

t he l and f or t he Seashor e t hr ough sever al deeds f r om t he St at e

of Nor t h Car ol i na. Today, t he Seashor e i s a publ i cl y owned


7/58

7

park and r ecreat i on area t hat i s owned by t he f ederal government

and admi ni st er ed by t he [ Nat i onal Par k Ser vi ce] . J . A. 1413.

When t he Seashor e was cr eat ed, Congress emphasi zed t he need

t o pr ot ect i t f r om devel opment , st at i ng t hat no devel opment of

t he pr oj ect [ Seashor e] or pl an f or t he conveni ence of vi si t or s

shal l be under t aken whi ch woul d be i ncompat i bl e wi t h t he

pr eser vat i on of t he uni que f l or a and f auna i n t he ar ea. Act of

Aug. 17, 1937, Pub. L. No. 311, 4, 50 St at . 669, 670. The

Seashor e r emai ns 72 mi l es . . . of open, vi r t ual l y unspoi l ed

beach and sceni c dr i ve. J . A. 1413.

Dur i ng t he 1940s, paved r oads were bui l t between t he

vi l l ages on Hat t er as I sl and, and i n 1952, a paved r oad was

const r uct ed t hr ough Hat t er as I sl and t o t he vi l l age of Hat t er as.

J . A. 1910. Exact l y when and how t he publ i c r i ght - of - way sout h

of t he br i dge was est abl i shed i s a mat t er of di sput e di scussed

i n det ai l bel ow. But t he r ecor d r ef l ect s that i t was not unt i l

1951 t hat Congress aut hor i zed DOI t o gr ant a permanent easement

f or t he const r uct i on of a publ i c road t hr ough . . . t he Pea

I sl and Nat i onal Wi l dl i f e Ref uge t o t he St at e of Nor t h Car ol i na.

Act of Oct . 29, 1951, Pub. L. No. 229, 65 St at . 662. And i t was

not unt i l 1954 that DOI f ormal l y deeded t he easement t o Nort h

Car ol i na.

Unf ort unatel y, both t he Bonner Br i dge and t he road have

suf f er ed f r om t he ef f ect s of t i me, ocean over wash, and er osi on.


8/58

8

NCDOT has deemed t he condi t i on of t he Bonner Br i dge poor and

gi ven i t a suf f i ci ency r at i ng of t wo out of 100. J . A. 1256.

The condi t i on of t he sur f ace r oad i s no bet t er . I n i t s

nar r owest pl aces i n t he Ref uge, Hat t er as I sl and i s j ust one-

quart er mi l e wi de, and even under normal weat her condi t i ons,

por t i ons of NC 12 ar e t hr eat ened by shor el i ne er osi on and

over wash. J . A. 1256.

Despi t e movi ng NC 12 as f ar west as possi bl e, 1 and

not wi t hst andi ng val i ant ef f or t s by i t s ci vi l engi neer s and r oad

cr ews, NCDOT has not been abl e t o ensur e the uni nt er r upt ed

oper at i on of t he hi ghway i n r ecent year s. I n November 2009, f or

exampl e, Tr opi cal St or m I da r ender ed NC 12 i mpassabl e j ust nor t h

of Rodant he. Less t han t wo year s l at er , Hur r i cane I r ene cr eat ed

t wo br eaches t hat cl osed NC 12 f r om August 2011 unt i l Oct ober

2011. And i n 2012, Hur r i cane Sandy t ore up t he r oadbed,

l evel ed t he dunes, and damaged t he sandbags nor t h of Rodant he.

DOT st r uggl i ng wi t h Hi ghway 12 r epai r s at t he S- cur ves; more

f er r i es added f or hol i day, I sl and Free Pr ess, Nov. 16, 2012,

ht t p: / / i sl andf r eepr ess. or g/ 2012Ar chi ves/ 11. 16. 2012- DOTSt r uggl i ng

Wi t hHi ghway12Repai r sAt TheScur vesMoreFerr i esAddedFor Hol i day. ht ml .

( saved as ECF opi ni on at t achment ) .

1 NCDOT has had t o seek DOI approval t o r econst r uct NC 12west of i t s or i gi nal r i ght - of - way and out si de t he bounds of i t seasement .


9/58

9

I n l i ght of t he i mpact of st or m event s such as t hese,

mer el y r epl aci ng t he Bonner Br i dge woul d not achi eve t he cent r al

pur pose of t he Proj ect , whi ch i s t o [ p] r ovi de a new means of

access f r om Bodi e I sl and t o Hat t er as I sl and f or i t s resi dent s,

busi nesses, ser vi ces, and t our i st s pr i or t o t he end of t he

Bonner Br i dge s ser vi ce l i f e. J . A. 2486. I ndeed, as

Def endant s own NEPA document s have put i t : Bui l di ng Phase I

[ t he br i dge r epl acement ] al one woul d not meet t he purpose and

need of t he pr oj ect [ . ] J . A. 2493. Ther ef or e, t he Pr oj ect now

al so i ncl udes NC 12 bet ween t he communi t y of Rodant he and

Or egon I nl et , a sect i on of r oadway that i s at r i sk because of

shor el i ne er osi on. J . A. 2486.

B.

I n 1991, NCDOT desi gnated several hot spot s al ong NC 12:

ar eas wi t h a hi gh r at e of er osi on and a hi gh l i kel i hood of

over wash cr eat i ng a new i nl et . That same year , t r anspor t at i on

of f i ci al s began t o pl an f or t he r epl acement of t he Bonner

Br i dge. They compl et ed a f easi bi l i t y st udy and sel ect ed as

t hei r NEPA pr ef er r ed al t er nat i ve2 t he 1993 Par al l el Br i dge

Cor r i dor . J . A. 785. Thi s al t er nat i ve consi st ed onl y of a

2 Pr ef er r ed al t er nat i ve i s a NEPA t er m of ar t . An agencymust i dent i f y i t s pr ef er r ed al t er nat i ve i f one or mor e exi st s,i n t he dr af t st at ement and . . . i n t he f i nal st at ement unl essanot her l aw pr ohi bi t s t he expr essi on of such a pr ef er ence. 40C. F. R. 1502. 14( e) .


10/58

10

r epl acement br i dge. I n 1993, Def endant s compl eted a Dr af t

Envi r onment al I mpact St udy and a Sect i on 4( f ) anal ysi s f or t hi s

br i dge- onl y pr ef er r ed al t er nat i ve.

However , ni ne year s l at er , i n 2002, of f i ci al s deci ded t hat

t he 1993 Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor was no l onger a vi abl e Bonner

Br i dge repl acement al t er nat i ve, J . A. 787, due i n l ar ge par t t o

t he ongoi ng beach er osi on and i ncr eased probl ems wi t h ocean

overwash al ong NC 12 south of Bonner Br i dge t hat of t en r endered

t he hi ghway i mpassabl e. J . A. 786. Def endant s per cei ved t he

need t o l engt hen t he pr oj ect l i mi t s . . . . [ T] he pr evai l i ng

l ogi c bei ng t hat i f t hose hot spot s ar e i mpassi bl e, [ si c] what

good i s t he br i dge? J . A. 1787.

Accor di ngl y, Def endant s began assessi ng di f f er ent

al t er nat i ves t hat addr essed bot h t he br i dge and cer t ai n segment s

of NC 12, pr epar i ng a Suppl ement al Dr af t Envi r onment al I mpact

St at ement , and per f or mi ng a new Sect i on 4( f ) Eval uat i on. These

assessment s were consol i dated i nt o one document t hat was si gned

and r el eased t o t he publ i c on Sept ember 12, 2005 ( t he 2005

Suppl ement al Dr af t Envi r onment al I mpact St at ement / 4( f )

Eval uat i on) .

The 2005 Suppl ement al Dr af t Envi r onment al I mpact

St at ement / 4( f ) Eval uat i on anal yzed f i ve al t er nat i ves t hat wer e

l ocat ed wi t hi n t wo di f f er ent geogr aphi c cor r i dor s. The f i r st

cor r i dor was descr i bed as t he Paml i co Sound Br i dge Cor r i dor ,


11/58

11

and t he t wo al t er nat i ves wi t hi n t hi s cor r i dor i nvol ved an 18-

mi l e- l ong br i dge t hat ext ended f r om Bodi e I sl and i n t he nor t h t o

Rodant he i n t he sout h. Bot h of t hese al t er nat i ves, t i t l ed

Paml i co Sound Br i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h Curved Rodant he Termi nus

and Paml i co Sound Br i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h I nt er sect i on Rodant he

Termi nus, J . A. 781, avoi ded al most al l of t he Ref uge and t he

Seashore by maki ng a l arge sweepi ng curve approxi matel y f i ve

mi l es west of Hat t er as I sl and i nt o Paml i co Sound bef or e

r ej oi ni ng exi st i ng NC 12 i n Rodant he.

The r emai ni ng t hree al t er nat i ves wer e l ocat ed wi t hi n t he

Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor . J . A. 78182. These al t er nat i ves

al l consi st ed of a repl acement br i dge that woul d span t he Or egon

I nl et par al l el t o t he exi st i ng Bonner Br i dge, coupl ed wi t h a

st r ategy f or keepi ng NC 12 open f r om t he communi t y of Rodant he

t o t he Or egon I nl et br i dge s sout her n t er mi nus[ . ] J . A. 783.

These al t er nat i ves di f f er ed i n t hei r r espect i ve st r at egi es f or

keepi ng NC 12 open on Hat t eras I sl and.

The f i r st al t er nat i vet i t l ed The Nour i shment Al t er nat i ve

i nvol ved beach nour i shment pl us dune enhancement . . . t o

mai nt ai n a mi ni mal l y adequate beach and dune syst em. J . A. 783.

The prot ect i on af f or ded by t he beach and duneswhi ch woul d need

t o be r epl eni shed wi t h dr edged sand every f ew yearswoul d

ost ensi bl y al l ow NC 12 t o remai n i n pl ace.


12/58

12

The second al t er nat i vet i t l ed Road Nor t h/ Br i dge Sout h

i nvol ved pl aci ng NC 12 on a br i dge west of Hat t er as I sl and

begi nni ng at a new i nt er sect i on i n Rodant he and cont i nui ng t o a

poi nt appr oxi mat el y 2 mi l es . . . nor t h of t he Ref uge s sout her n

boundar y wher e t he pr oj ect woul d meet exi st i ng NC 12. J . A.

783. Af t er t hat poi nt , NC 12 woul d

t hen r emai n unchanged f or 2. 6 mi l es [ and] . . . woul dbe r el ocat ed t o a poi nt 230 f eet . . . west of t hef or ecast wor st - case 2060 shor el i ne. Thi s r el ocat i onwoul d cont i nue 7. 1 mi l es . . . nor t h unt i l t her el ocat ed NC 12 woul d meet t he Or egon I nl et br i dge.Three 10- f oot - hi gh dunes, t ot al i ng 2, 100 f eet . . .woul d be bui l t when needed as t he shorel i ne er odest owar ds t he rel ocat ed r oad.

J . A. 783.

The f i nal al t er nat i ve wi t hi n t he Paral l el Br i dge Cor r i dor

was cal l ed t he Al l Br i dge Al t er nat i ve, i n whi ch NC 12 woul d

be const r uct ed on a br i dge to the west of t he exi st i ng r oad.

J . A. 783. Not wi t hst andi ng i t s name, t he Al l Br i dge Al t er nat i ve

woul d al so i ncl ude two sur f ace road segment sone near t he Or egon

I nl et and anot her j ust nor t h of t he Ref uge s ponds wher e access

f r om NC 12 t o t he Ref uge woul d be pr ovi ded. J . A. 783. The

2005 Suppl ement al Dr af t Envi r onment al I mpact St atement / 4( f )

Eval uat i on expl ai ned t hat al t hough al l of t he Par al l el Br i dge

Cor r i dor al t er nat i ves were descr i bed and addr essed as t hr ee

separ at e al t er nat i ves, t hei r component s coul d be mi xed and


13/58

13

matched geogr aphi cal l y al ong t he l engt h of NC 12 t o cr eat e other

var i at i ons. J . A. 783.

The 2005 Suppl ement al Dr af t Envi r onment al I mpact

St at ement / 4( f ) Eval uat i on di d not sel ect a pr ef er r ed

al t er nat i ve, and Def endant s never i ssued a Fi nal Envi r onment al

I mpact St atement . I nst ead, Def endant s i ssued another suppl ement

i n 2007. They t i t l ed t hi s document t he Suppl ement t o t he 2005

Suppl ement al Dr af t Envi r onment al I mpact St atement and Dr af t

Sect i on 4( f ) Eval uat i on ( t he 2007 Suppl ement ) . The 2007

Suppl ement expl ai ns t hat i t was i ssued t o addr ess t he

char act er i st i cs and pot ent i al di r ect , i ndi r ect , and cumul at i ve

i mpact s of t wo addi t i onal det ai l ed st udy al t er nat i ves. J . A.

1091. These t wo new al t er nat i ves wer e t i t l ed: ( 1) Par al l el

Br i dge Corr i dor Wi t h Phased Appr oach/ Rodant he Br i dge; and ( 2)

Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h Phased Appr oach/ Rodant he

Nour i shment . J . A. 1096. The 2007 Suppl ement al so expl i ci t l y

st at ed t hat [ u] nl ess ot her wi se not ed, i nf or mat i on pr esent ed i n

t he 2005 [ Suppl ement al Dr af t Envi r onment al I mpact St atement ] has

not changed and i s not r epr oduced i n t hi s Suppl ement . J . A.

1093.

The 2007 Suppl ement s t wo new al t er nat i ves wer e var i at i ons

on a Phased Appr oach t o t he Pr oj ect . Bot h al t er nat i ves

i ncl uded an Or egon I nl et br i dge and el evat i ng por t i ons of NC 12

t hr ough the Ref uge and nor t hern Rodant he on new br i dges wi t hi n


14/58

14

t he exi st i ng NC 12 easement . J . A. 1097. Bot h al t er nat i ves

wer e pr oposed t o be bui l t i n f our phases, wi t h t he const r uct i on

of t he new Or egon I nl et br i dge as t he f i r st phase. The

r emai ni ng phases woul d be const r uct ed as necessi t ated by

shor el i ne er osi on. J . A. 1097.

The onl y di f f er ence bet ween t he t wo new Phased Appr oach

al t ernat i ves was the manner i n whi ch NC 12 woul d be protect ed

f r om er osi on. Under t he Phased Appr oach/ Rodant he Br i dge

Al t er nat i ve, t he [ new] br i dge i n t he exi st i ng NC 12 easement

woul d begi n i n Rodant he . . . and extend nor t h t o Or egon I nl et

except f or t he 2. 1 mi l e . . . l engt h of NC 12 i n t he sout her n

hal f of t he Ref uge that woul d not be thr eat ened by er osi on pr i or

t o 2060. J . A. 1097. The Phased Appr oach/ Rodant he Nour i shment

Al t er nat i ve woul d be si mi l ar except t he sout her n end of t he NC

12 br i dge woul d begi n 0. 3 mi l e . . . sout h of t he

Ref uge/ Rodant he bor der . Beach nour i shment woul d be used t o

pr ot ect NC 12 i n Rodant he. J . A. 1097. And l i ke t he 2005

Suppl ement al Dr af t Envi r onment al I mpact St atement , t he 2007

Suppl ement expl ai ned t hat al l of t he Par al l el Br i dge

Al t ernat i ves coul d be mi xed and matched geogr aphi cal l y al ong

t he l engt h of NC 12 t o cr eat e ot her var i at i ons. J . A. 1097.

To r evi ew, t hen, t he 2005 Suppl emental Dr af t Envi r onment al

I mpact St atement and i t s 2007 Suppl ement anal yzed i n detai l

seven al t er nat i ves: ( 1) Paml i co Sound Br i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h


15/58

15

Cur ved Rodant he Termi nus; ( 2) Paml i co Sound Br i dge Corr i dor Wi t h

I nt er sect i on Rodant he Ter mi nus; ( 3) Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor

Wi t h Nour i shment ; ( 4) Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h Road

Nor t h/ Br i dge Sout h; ( 5) Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h Al l

Br i dge; ( 6) Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h Phased

Appr oach/ Rodant he Br i dge; and ( 7) Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h

Phased Appr oach/ Rodant he Nour i shment .

I n 2008, Def endant s i ssued a Fi nal Envi r onment al I mpact

St atement ( 2008 Fi nal Envi r onment al I mpact St atement ) t hat

anal yzed t he seven al t ernat i ves covered by t he 2005 and 2007

document s. The Fi nal Envi r onment al I mpact Statement st ated t hat

t he pr ef er r ed al t er nat i ve was t he Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h

Phased Appr oach/ Rodant he Br i dge. J . A. 1229. The Fi nal

Envi r onment al I mpact St at ement cl ear l y expl ai ned t hat t he

pr ef er r ed al t er nat i ve and t he ot her Phased Appr oach al t er nat i ve

t hat was added i n t he 2007 Suppl ement t he Paral l el Br i dge

Cor r i dor Wi t h Phased Appr oach/ Rodant he Nour i shment woul d r emai n

wi t hi n t he exi st i ng NC 12 easement . J . A. 1230. The Fi nal

Envi r onment al I mpact St at ement noted t hat Def endant s chose t he

pr ef er r ed al t er nat i ve based on sever al f act or s, i ncl udi ng: t he

abi l i t y of t he al t er nat i ves consi der ed t o meet t he pr oj ect s

pur pose and need; envi r onment al consequences; opport uni t i es

avai l abl e to mi t i gat e i mpact s; cost ; publ i c and agency comment

[ on t he 2005 Suppl ement al Dr af t Envi r onment al I mpact


16/58

16

St atement / 4( f ) Eval uat i on and t he 2007 Suppl ement ] ; and other

f i ndi ngs pr esent ed i n t hi s [ Fi nal Envi r onment al I mpact

St at ement ] . J . A. 1231.

But at t he end of t he comment per i od, Def endant s di d not

i ssue a Recor d of Deci si on. 3 I nst ead, somet i me between l ate 2008

and ear l y 2009, Def endant s deci ded t o revi si t t hei r pr ef er r ed

al t er nat i ve because of consi der at i on and eval uat i on gi ven t o

comment s r ecei ved on t he [ Fi nal Envi r onment al I mpact St atement ]

and t he Sect i on 4( f ) Eval uat i on i ncl uded i n t he [ Fi nal

Envi r onment al I mpact St at ement ] . J . A. 1812. Def endant s al so

cl ai med t o have obt ai ned addi t i onal i nf or mat i on, whi ch al so

cont r i but ed t o t he r e- eval uat i on of t he pr ef er r ed al t er nat i ve.

J . A. 1812. Thi s addi t i onal i nf or mat i on consi st ed of what

Def endant s char act er i zed as subst ant i al evi dence t hat a publ i c

vehi cul ar t hor oughf ar e exi st ed acr oss t he l engt h of t he pr oj ect

ar ea bef or e t he Ref uge and Seashor e wer e est abl i shed. J . A.

3 An agency must prepare a conci se publ i c r ecor d ofdeci si on. 40 C. F. R. 1505. 2. The Recor d of Deci si on must[ s] t at e what t he deci si on was[ , ] i d. 1505. 2( a) , [ i ] dent i f yal l al t er nat i ves consi der ed . . . speci f yi ng t he al t er nat i ve oral t er nat i ves whi ch wer e consi der ed t o be envi r onment al l ypr ef er abl e[ , ] i d. 1505. 2( b) , and [ s] t at e whet her al l

pr act i cabl e means t o avoi d or mi ni mi ze envi r onment al har m f r omt he al t er nat i ve sel ect ed have been adopt ed, and i f not , why theywer e not [ , ] i d. 1505. 2( c) . Unt i l an agency i ssues i t s Recor dof Deci si on, no act i on concer ni ng t he pr oposal shal l be t akenwhi ch woul d: ( 1) [ h] ave an adver se envi r onment al i mpact ; or ( 2)[ l ] i mi t t he choi ce of r easonabl e al t er nat i ves f or t he pr oj ect .I d. 1506. 1( a) .


17/58

17

1814. Def endant s expl ai ned t hat [ t ] hi s new i nf or mat i on changes

[ t he] FHWA anal ysi s r equi r ed by Sect i on 4( f ) . J . A. 1814.

To suppor t t hei r asser t i ons r egardi ng t he hi st or y of t he NC

12 r i ght - of - way, Def endant s cr eat ed a document t i t l ed NC 12

Ri ght - of - Way Ti mel i ne. J . A. 183448. I n t he spr i ng of 2009,

Def endant s di st r i but ed thi s document at a meet i ng wi t h

r epr esent at i ves of st at e and f eder al agenci es i nvol ved i n t he

Pr oj ect . The meet i ng agenda f or t hat day i ndi cat es t hat

Def endant s pl anned t o desi gnate t he Road Nort h/ Br i dge Sout h

Al t er nat i ve as t he new Pr ef er r ed Al t er nat i ve. 4 J . A. 1811.

Dur i ng t hat meet i ng, a r epr esent at i ve f r om t he

Envi r onment al Pr ot ect i on Agency ( EPA) put f or t h t he i dea of

f i r st bui l di ng t he r epl acement f or t he Bonner Br i dge and t hen

exami ni ng t he r est of t he Pr oj ect i n mor e det ai l when f ut ur e

4 The Road Nor t h/ Br i dge Sout h Al t er nat i ve was f i r sti nt r oduced i n t he 2005 Suppl ement al Dr af t Envi r onment al I mpactSt at ement / 4( f ) Eval uat i on. As di scussed ant e at 12, i t i nvol veda compl i cated mi x of a new br i dge west of Hat t eras I sl and nearRodant he, a road bot h i n t he exi st i ng easement and wel l i nt o t heRef uge, sever al dunes, and a new br i dge par al l el t o the Bonner

Br i dge. Def endant s st at ed r easons f or f avor i ng t hi sal t er nat i ve i n 2009 wer e ( 1) i mpr oved publ i c access t o t heRef uge; ( 2) consi st ency wi t h t he hi st or i c l andscape; ( 3) abi l i t yt o mi t i gat e si gni f i cant i mpact s on t he wi l dl i f e f eat ur es of t heRef uge; ( 4) subst ant i al cost di f f er ence; ( 5) l ess i mpact onwat er f owl ; and ( 6) shor t er const r uct i on t i mef r ame and f ewerconst r uct i on i mpact s. J . A. 182123.


18/58

18

condi t i ons ar e mor e known. J . A. 1886. The EPA r epr esent at i ve

char act er i zed t hi s i dea as adapt i ve management [ . ] 5 J . A. 1886.

Not ever yone at t he meet i ng was compl etel y on board wi t h

t hi s i dea, however . Speci f i cal l y, Pet e Benj ami n, a

r epr esent at i ve wi t h t he U. S. Fi sh and Wi l dl i f e Ser vi ce st at ed

t hat he was t r yi ng t o deci de i f adapt i ve management was

appr opr i at e f or t hi s pr oj ect but had r eser vat i ons r egar di ng

whet her or not [ t he agenci es] coul d i dent i f y i n t he f ut ur e a

sol ut i on t hr ough t he Ref uge t hat i s l egal f r om t he per spect i ve

of al l of t he agenci es i nvol ved. J . A. 1887. He went on t o say

t hat t he agenci es need[ ed] mor e than j ust t he hope [ of

f i ndi ng] an appr opr i at e f ut ur e sol ut i on. J . A. 1887. Af t er t he

meet i ng, Mr . Benj ami n sent NCDOT a l et t er expl ai ni ng that t he

i nf or mat i on that Def endant s pr esent ed t o t he meet i ng

par t i ci pant s cont ai ned many i ncor r ect st at ement s and f i ndi ngs

5 Adapt i ve management i s a set of pol i cy t ool s di r ect ed atensur i ng t he sust ai nabi l i t y of nat ur al r esour ces wi t hi ndi st i nct ecosyst ems. J . B. Ruhl et al . , The Pr act i ce and Pol i cyof Envi r onment al Law 140 ( 2d ed. 2010) . I t al l ows agenci es t o cont i nual l y r esear ch[ ] , moni t or [ ] , and eval uat [ e] t heecol ogi cal condi t i ons of ecosyst ems and t o modi f y t hei ref f or t s t o r est or e t hose ecosystems based on t hat r esear ch. I d.( quot i ng U. S. Gen. Account i ng Of f i ce, Ecosyst em Management ,Addi t i onal Act i ons Needed t o Adequatel y Test a Pr omi si ngAppr oach 49 ( 1994) . Agenci es may use adapt i ve management t omi t i gat e adver se envi r onment al i mpact s. See, e. g. , Theodor eRoosevel t Conservat i on P shi p v. Sal azar , 616 F. 3d 497, 517( D. C. Ci r . 2010) . But adapt i ve management i s not a methodt hr ough whi ch agenci es can def er deci si onmaki ng about how ar esour ce wi l l be used. See i d. at 505- 06, 516.


19/58

19

t hat have t he pot ent i al t o i mpr oper l y i nf l uence deci si onmaki ng

as t he pr ocess moves f or war d. J . A. 1892. He t ook i ssue wi t h

Def endant s assessment s r egardi ng t he envi r onment al i mpact on

t he Ref uge, and he expr essed t he bel i ef t hat NCDOT cannot

demonst r at e that i t has a r i ght t o move i t s easement f or NC- 12

t o any ot her l ocat i on wi t hi n t he Ref uge. J . A. 1896.

Notwi t hst andi ng such reservat i ons, Def endant s began to

pur sue yet anot her new mul t i - phase al t ernat i veone t hat di f f er ed

f r om t he pr evi ousl y st udi ed al t er nat i ves. I n Oct ober 2009, FHWA

r el eased a Revi sed Fi nal Sect i on 4( f ) Eval uat i on ( 2009

Sect i on 4( f ) Eval uat i on) . Thi s document pr ovi ded t he publ i c

wi t h i t s f i r st not i ce of t he new Pr ef er r ed Al t er nat i vet he

Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor wi t h NC 12 Tr anspor t at i on Management

Pl an. J . A. 1904. Def endant s expl ai ned i t as f ol l ows:

Thi s al t er nat i ve woul d r epl ace t he cur r ent [ BonnerBr i dge] wi t h a new br i dge l ocat ed t o t he west of t heexi st i ng br i dge ( Phase I ) . The r epl acement br i dgel ocat i on i n t he Ref uge i s l i mi t ed t o t he ar eanecessary t o saf el y const r uct and t i e- i n t he newbr i dge t o NC 12. Under t he Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dorwi t h NC 12 Transpor t at i on Management Pl an Al t ernat i ve,l at er phases of act i ons t o manage NC 12 t hr ough 2060woul d be deci ded based on act ual condi t i ons exi st i ngon Hat t er as I sl and at t he poi nt i n t i me t hataddi t i onal act i on becomes necessar y. These l at er

phases coul d consi st of , but woul d not be l i mi t ed t o,one or more component s of any of t he al t ernat i vesal r eady st udi ed as par t of t he envi r onment al r evi ewpr ocess[. ]

J . A. 1904- 05 ( emphasi s added) .


20/58

20

FHWA al so expl ai ned t hat [ b] ased on . . . newl y obt ai ned

i nf or mat i on, i t s det er mi nat i ons r egar di ng t he appl i cabi l i t y of

Sect i on 4( f ) had changed. J . A. 1907. Speci f i cal l y, FHWA st at ed

t hat Sect i on 4( f ) appl i ed onl y t o t he Pea I sl and Nat i onal

Wi l dl i f e Ref uge as a hi st or i c pr oper t y[ , ] r at her t han as a

r ef uge. 6 J . A. 1913- 14. FHWA based t hi s asser t i on on evi dence

t hat i t cl ai med demonst r at e[ d] t hat t he Feder al and St at e

government s preser ved t he Hat t eras I sl and area wi t h an

under st andi ng t hat vehi cul ar passage woul d be accommodat ed, and

t hat t he vehi cul ar passage has not been f i xed t o one l ocat i on.

J . A. 1913.

FHWA went on t o st at e t hat t he hi st or y i ndi cat es t hat t he

Ref uge, t r anspor t at i on f aci l i t y and exi st i ng Bonner Br i dge wer e

concur r ent l y and j oi nt l y pl anned and devel oped by t he Feder al

and St ate government s worki ng t ogether t o pr eserve t he l and f or

6 The di st i nct i on bet ween a r ef uge and a hi st or i c pr oper t ycan be si gni f i cant . For exampl e, bef or e maki ng a f i ndi ng of demi ni mi s i mpact r egar di ng ref uge pr oper t y, t he Secr et ar y mustpr ovi de an oppor t uni t y f or publ i c revi ew and comment . 49 U. S. C. 303( d) ( 3) . Ther e i s no si mi l ar requi r ement f or hi st or i csi t es. 49 U. S. C. 303( d) ( 2) . See al so 23 C. F. R. 774. 5( b) ( 1) ( i i i ) ( i mposi ng no publ i c par t i ci pat i on r equi r ementbeyond t he mi ni mal encour agement of publ i c i nvol vement i ncl uded

i n t he Nat i onal Hi st or i c Pr eser vat i on Act and 36 C. F. R. 801. 8) . Al so, r ef uges ar e pr esumed t o be si gni f i cant r esour cesunl ess t he of f i ci al wi t h j ur i sdi ct i on over t he pr oper t y makes anexpr ess det er mi nat i on t o t he cont r ar y. 23 C. F. R. 774. 11( c) .Hi st or i c si t es, on t he ot her hand, ar e consi der ed si gni f i cantonl y i f t hey ar e i ncl uded i n, or ar e el i gi bl e f or , t he Nat i onalRegi st er of Hi st or i c Pl aces. 23 C. F. R. 774. 11( e) .


21/58

21

wi l dl i f e whi l e mai nt ai ni ng a means f or saf e and ef f i ci ent

vehi cul ar t r anspor t at i on. J . A. 1913. The 2009 Sect i on 4( f )

Eval uat i on expl ai ned t hat i t i s FHWA s r evi sed det er mi nat i on

t hat Sect i on 4( f ) i s not appl i cabl e t o t he Ref uge ( as a r ef uge) ,

as t he i mpact s resul t i ng f r om r el ocat i ng NC 12 f r om i t s cur r ent

al i gnment t hr ough the Ref uge woul d not be consi dered a use as

def i ned i n 23 C. F. R. 774. 17. J . A. 1913. FHWA concl uded t hat

i t i s not r equi r ed t o make a speci f i c Sect i on 4( f ) appr oval f or

use pr i or t o appr ovi ng t he pr oj ect . J . A. 1913.

On May 7, 2010, Def endants i ssued an Envi r onment al

Assessment 7 t hat i dent i f i e[ d] and assesse[ d] changes t hat have

occur r ed si nce t he appr oval of t he Fi nal Envi r onment al I mpact

St at ement / Fi nal Sect i on 4( f ) Eval uat i on on Sept ember 17, 2008.

J . A. 2151. The Envi r onment al Assessment broadl y descr i bed t he

Pr oj ect as t he const r uct i on of a br i dge t o r epl ace t he Her ber t

7 An Envi r onment al Assessment i s a conci se publ i c document i nt ended t o pr ovi de suf f i ci ent evi dence and anal ysi s f ordetermi ni ng whet her t o pr epare an envi r onment al i mpact st at ementor a f i ndi ng of no si gni f i cant i mpact . 40 C. F. R. 1508. 9( a) ( 1) ; see al so Fr i ends of Back Bay v. U. S. Ar my Cor ps ofEng r s, 681 F. 3d 581, 584 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) ( not i ng t hat an EA i sused [ t ] o det ermi ne whet her a par t i cul ar act i on meet s t he

t hr eshol d of si gni f i cant l y af f ect i ng envi r onment al qual i t y sucht hat an agency i s r equi r ed t o compl ete an Envi r onment al I mpactSt at ement pur suant t o 40 C. F. R. 1502. 3) ( i nt er nal quot at i onmarks omi t t ed) . An Envi r onment al Assessment i s more l i mi t edt han an Envi r onment al I mpact St at ement i n i t s anal ysi s of t hepot ent i al envi r onment al i mpact s. Dep t of Tr ansp. v. Pub.Ci t i zen, 541 U. S. 752, 757 ( 2004) .


22/58

22

C. Bonner Br i dge i n Dare Count y, t he demol i t i on and r emoval of

Bonner Br i dge, and i mprovement s t o NC 12 bet ween t he communi t y

of Rodant he and Or egon I nl et . J . A. 2151. The Envi r onment al

Assessment was i nt ended t o pr ovi de t he publ i c wi t h not i ce under

NEPA of t he new Pr ef er r ed Al t er nat i ve, event ual l y t i t l ed t he

Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor wi t h NC 12 Tr anspor t at i on Management

Pl an[ . ] J . A. 2178.

I n appr oxi matel y seven shor t pages of t ext and t hr ee maps,

Def endant s expl ai ned t hat t he new pr ef er r ed al t er nat i ve woul d

consi st of mul t i pl e phases. The f i r st phase woul d be t he

const r uct i on of a new Or egon I nl et br i dge as soon as possi bl e,

J . A. 2177, and i n a sl i ght l y di f f er ent l ocat i on f r om t hat whi ch

had pr evi ousl y been eval uat ed. Def endant s cl ar i f y i n t hei r

appel l at e br i ef t hat t he repl acement br i dge woul d use t he

exi st i ng Hi ghway 12 easement . Appel l ees Br . at 37 ( ci t i ng

J . A. 2493) . The amor phousl y t i t l ed Lat er Phasesal so

somet i mes r ef er r ed t o as t he NC 12 Tr ansport at i on Management

Pl anwoul d be f i nal i zed through commi t ment s made i n t he Record

of Deci si on. J . A. 218283.

The Envi r onment al Assessment went on t o expl ai n t hat , wi t h

r espect t o t he Lat er Phases, t he Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor

wi t h NC 12 Tr anspor t at i on Management Pl an Al t ernat i ve

( Pr ef er r ed) does not speci f y a par t i cul ar act i on at t hi s t i me on

Hat t er as I sl and beyond t he l i mi t s of Phase I because of t he


23/58

23

i nher ent uncer t ai nt y i n pr edi ct i ng f ut ur e condi t i ons wi t hi n t he

dynami c coast al bar r i er i sl and envi r onment . J . A. 2182.

Rat her , t he al t er nat i ve addr esses t he study and sel ect i on of

f ut ur e act i ons on Hat t er as I sl and . . . t hr ough a compr ehensi ve

NC 12 Transpor t at i on Management Pl an. J . A. 2182.

The Envi r onment al Assessment does not cont ai n a

t r anspor t at i on management pl an as t hat t er m i s t ypi cal l y

underst ood. 8 Rat her , i t cont ai ns appr oxi mat el y f our pages t hat

descr i be how t he pl an consi st s of a compr ehensi ve coast al

moni t or i ng pr ogr am, J . A. 2183, [ e] nvi r onment al [ r ] evi ew f or

[ f ] ut ur e [ p] hases, J . A. 2185, and t he [ s] el ect i on of [ f ] ut ur e

[ p] hases f or [ i ] mpl ement at i on, J . A. 2185. Def endant s pl an

8

The t er m t r anspor t at i on management pl an r ef er s t o acompr ehensi ve document t hat l ays out a set of st r at egi es f ormanagi ng t he wor k zone i mpact s of a pr oj ect . Tr anspor t at i onManagement Pl an Exampl esFHWA Wor k Zone, ht t p: / / www. ops. f hwa.dot . gov/ wz/ r esour ces/ f i nal _r ul e/ t mp_exampl es. ht m. ( saved as ECFopi ni on at t achment ) . A r easonabl e r eader mi ght expect t o f i ndsuch a document somewher e i n t he r ecor d, gi ven st at ement s madei n t he Recor d of Deci si on, such as: The Tr anspor t at i onManagement Pl an wi l l gui de the i mpl ement at i on of f ut ur e phasesof t he pr oj ect t hr ough 2060. J . A. 2497. The NC 12Tr ansport at i on Management Pl an . . . provi des a det ai l ed pl an t o

cl osel y moni t or t he coast al condi t i ons f or envi r onment al changesover t he next 50 years al ong wi t h changes i n associ ated r oadmai nt enance act i vi t i es. J . A. 249798. The NC 12Tr ansport at i on Management Pl an t hen descr i bes t he process f ordeci si onmaki ng r egar di ng t he f ut ur e phase act i ons. J . A. 2498.Some of t hese st atement s al so appear i n t he EA. See J . A. 218283.


24/58

24

i s s i mpl y t o deci de what t o do wi t h t he remai nder of NC 12 on

Hat t er as I sl and at some poi nt i n t he f ut ur e. 9

Def endant s cl ai med t hat [ b] y act i vel y moni t or i ng t he

condi t i ons and del ayi ng deci si onmaki ng, t he envi r onment al

i mpact s can be bet t er quant i f i ed, mi ni mi zed, and mi t i gat ed.

J . A. 2182. Def endant s al so st at ed t hat [ t ] hi s process i s

somewhat anal ogous t o a t i er ed NEPA st udy, i n that t he ent i r e

end- t o- end i mpact s have been st udi ed but t he det ai l ed sel ect i on

of a por t i on of t he act i on i s bei ng del ayed. J . A. 2182.

On December 20, 2010, FHWA i ssued a Record of Deci si on t hat

aut hor i zed NCDOT t o const r uct , and FHWA t o subst ant i al l y f und,

t he Pr oj ect descr i bed i n t he r evi sed Sect i on 4( f ) Eval uat i on and

t he Envi r onment al Assessment . The Recor d of Deci si on expl ai ns

t hat t he Pr oj ect i s a mi x and mat ch of t he Par al l el Br i dge

Cor r i dor al t er nat i ves assessed i n t he 2008 [ Fi nal Envi r onment al

I mpact St at ement ] . J . A. 2488. I t cal l s f or Phase I ( Or egon

I nl et br i dge) t o be bui l t as soon as possi bl e, f ol l owed by

const r uct i on of l at er phases whose det ai l s woul d be det er mi ned,

9 I t seems t hat Def endant s may al r eady be pr oceedi ng wi t hf ut ur e phases. See J . A. 2682, N. C. Dep t of Transp. , Bonner

Br i dge Publ i c Workshops Handout ( 2011) ( NCDOT has s t ar t ed workon l ong- t er m sol ut i ons f or [ br eached l ocat i ons al ong N. C. 12 i nnor t her n Rodant he and t he Pea I sl and Nat i onal Wi l dl i f e Ref uge] ,whi ch combi ned are consi dered Phase I I of t he Bonner Br i dgeRepl acement Pr oj ect . ) ; see al so J . A. 2693 ( di scussi ng NCDOT spl an t o i ssue cont r act s f or t he t wo br each si t es i n August andDecember 2012) .


25/58

25

r eeval uated, and document ed t hr ough i nt eragency col l aborat i on as

pr oj ect ar ea condi t i ons war r ant . J . A. 2488.

The Recor d of Deci si on al so cont ai ns a sect i on t hat

r esponds t o comment s made by gover nment agenci es r egar di ng t he

new pr ef er r ed al t er nat i ve. The Ar my Cor ps of Engi neer s

submi t t ed a comment not i ng that t he Fi nal Envi r onment al I mpact

Stat ement ( on whi ch t he Envi r onment al Assessment was based)

woul d conf i ne f ut ur e NC 12 mai nt enance i n t he Ref uge, i ncl udi ng

st or m- r el at ed mai nt enance, t o t he exi st i ng NC 12 easement , af t er

t he i ssuance of t he Recor d of Deci si on f or t he pr oj ect . J . A.

258687. Def endant s r esponded as f ol l ows:

The proposal i n Sect i on 4. 6. 8. 6 of t he Fi nalEnvi r onment al I mpact St atement t o conf i ne f ut ur e NC 12mai nt enance act i vi t i es wi t hi n t he exi st i ng easementappl i ed onl y t o t he Phased Appr oach Al t er nat i ves,whi ch wer e devel oped wi t h the requi r ement t hat al lwork wi t hi n t he Ref uge must be conf i ned wi t hi n t he

exi st i ng easement . That r equi r ement does not exi stwi t h t he NC 12 Tr anspor t at i on Management Pl an.

J . A. 2587 ( emphasi s added) .

Gi ven t he f or egoi ng, t hi s Cour t under st ands t he Pr oj ect as

f ol l ows: Const r uct i on of a new t wo- l ane br i dge t hat r uns

par al l el t o t he exi st i ng Bonner Br i dge and uses t he exi st i ng NC

12 easement , f ol l owed by t he st udy and sel ect i on of f ut ur e

act i ons on Hat t er as I sl and beyond t he l i mi t s of Phase I t hr ough

a compr ehensi ve NC 12 Tr anspor t at i on Management Pl an[ , ] J . A.

2497, wi t h t he pur pose of sai d Pl an bei ng t o gui de t he


26/58

26

i mpl ement at i on of f ut ur e phases of t he pr oj ect t hr ough 2060,

J . A. 2497, and wi t h f uture phases not necessar i l y conf i ned t o

t he exi st i ng NC 12 easement , J . A. 2587.

C.

Pl ai nt i f f s sued on J ul y 1, 2011, and t he par t i es f i l ed

cr oss- mot i ons f or summary j udgment i n J ul y and Sept ember of

2012. On Sept ember 16, 2013, t he di st r i ct cour t grant ed

Def endant s mot i on and deni ed Pl ai nt i f f s mot i on. Def ender s of

Wi l dl i f e v. N. C. Dep t of Tr ansp. , 971 F. Supp. 2d 510, 513

( E. D. N. C. 2013) .

1.

Regar di ng Pl ai nt i f f s NEPA cl ai m, t he di st r i ct cour t

expl ai ned t hat Def endant s di d not vi ol at e NEPA by i ssui ng an

EI S [ t hat ] onl y cover s t he Bonner Br i dge repl acement , wi t h

f ut ur e st udi es pl anned f or l at er const r uct i on phases al ong t he

NC 12 cor r i dor . I d. at 526. I t al so not ed t hat t he br i dge

pr oj ect can st and al one due t o concerns as t o changi ng

condi t i ons and weat her event s i mpact i ng t he shor el i ne on

Hat t er as I sl and. I d. at 524.

To r each t hi s deter mi nat i on, t he di st r i ct cour t anal yzed

whet her t he Proj ect vi ol at ed FHWA s NEPA r egul at i ons pert ai ni ng

t o segment at i on, whi ch r equi r e t hat a pr oj ect have l ogi cal

t er mi ni and i ndependent ut i l i t y and not r est r i ct t he sel ect i on

of f ut ur e phases. The di st r i ct cour t expl ai ned t hat t he


27/58

27

f act ual ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng t hi s case ar e uni que[ , ] i d.

at 525, and t hat t he nor t her n end of Hat t er as I sl and

const i t ut es a l ogi cal t er mi nus f or t he Pr oj ect due t o t he

const ant l y changi ng condi t i ons on Hat t er as I sl and, i d. at 524.

The di st r i ct cour t al so st at ed t hat t he Pr oj ect i s a r easonabl e

expendi t ur e i ndependent of addi t i onal t r anspor t at i on

i mpr ovement s, and t hat t he f act t hat NC 12 r equi r es

mai nt enance . . . does not r ui n t he subst ant i al ut i l i t y of

r epl aci ng a br i dge t hat i s r eachi ng t he end of i t s ser vi ce

l i f e. I d. at 52526. Fi nal l y, t he di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned

t hat no par t i cul ar act i on i s aut omat i cal l y t r i gger ed i n l at er

phases by t he const r uct i on of t he br i dge al one. I d. at 526

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

2.

The di st r i ct cour t al so hel d t hat Def endant s di d not

vi ol at e Secti on 4( f ) . Fi r st , t he di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned t hat

FHWA pr oper l y r el i ed on t he j oi nt pl anni ng except i on wi t h

r espect t o t he Ref uge. I d. at 534. The di st r i ct cour t

concl uded t hat t he [ f ] eder al and st at e gover nment s preser ved

t he Hat t er as I sl and ar ea wi t h an under st andi ng t hat vehi cul ar

passage woul d be accommodat ed, and that t he vehi cul ar passage

has not been f i xed t o one l ocat i on[ . ] I d. I n r eachi ng t hi s

det er mi nat i on, t he di st r i ct cour t r el i ed on t he f ol l owi ng

evi dence: ( 1) t he depi ct i on of an uni mpr oved road thr ough the


28/58

28

Ref uge on a 1942 Coast Guard map; ( 2) a 1939 appl i cat i on f or a

f er r y per mi t t hat descr i bes f er r y ser vi ce begi nni ng i n 1926; ( 3)

phot os of f er r i es car r yi ng car s; ( 4) Nor t h Car ol i na hi ghway maps

f r om 1944 and 1949; ( 5) 1938 r epor t s f r om t he manager of t he

Ref uge t hat r ef er t o a publ i c r oad; ( 6) a 1951 U. S. Senat e

debat e i n whi ch Nor t h Car ol i na Senat or Wi l l i s Smi t h asser t ed

t he St at e s owner shi p of t he r oad; ( 7) Publ i c Law 229, whi ch,

i n 1951, aut hor i zed DOI t o gr ant an easement t o Nort h Carol i na

f or a r oad; ( 8) a 1954 qui t cl ai m deed gr ant ed by Nor t h Car ol i na

t o t he f eder al gover nment cover i ng any i nt er est i n t he l and,

wi t h t he except i on of a pr evi ousl y gr ant ed 100- f oot easement ;

and ( 9) a 100- f oot easement gr ant ed by DOI t o Nor t h Carol i na i n

1954 f or const r uct i on and mai nt enance of NC 12. I d. 53334.

The di st r i ct cour t al so br i ef l y addressed t he subst ant i ve

r equi r ement s of Sect i on 4( f ) and concl uded t hat FHWA had

compl i ed wi t h t hem. Speci f i cal l y, t he di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned

t hat no pr udent al t er nat i ve exi st ed, t hat t he [ sel ect ed]

al t er nat i ve wi l l cause the l east over al l har m, and t hat FHWA .

. . conduct ed al l possi bl e pl anni ng t o mi ni mi ze har m. I d. at

535.

Thi s appeal f ol l owed. Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t er r ed i n i t s det er mi nat i ons r egar di ng: ( 1) whet her

Def endant s engaged i n i mpr oper segment at i on i n vi ol at i on of

NEPA; ( 2) t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he j oi nt pl anni ng except i on t o


29/58

29

Sect i on 4( f ) ; and ( 3) whet her Def endant s compl i ed wi t h t he

subst ant i ve r equi r ement s of Sect i on 4( f ) . We t ur n now t o a

descr i pt i on of t he l aw gover ni ng t hese i ssues.

I I .

A.

At t he out set , we must cor r ect a maj or er r or on whi ch t he

di st r i ct cour t s anal ysi s was based: The di st r i ct er r oneousl y

def i ned t he scope of t he Pr oj ect when i t not ed t hat t he cur r ent

[ Envi r onment al I mpact St atement ] onl y cover s t he Bonner Br i dge

r epl acement , . . . . I d. at 526. Thi s st at ement cont r adi ct s

t he ent i r e r ecor d, and i n maki ng i t , t he di st r i ct cour t i nvent ed

a pr oj ect t hat Def endant s NEPA document s under r evi ew expr essl y

di sown. 10

10 Al t hough i t acknowl edged t he exi st ence of f ut ur e phases,t he di st r i ct cour t anal yzed t he Pr oj ect as i f i t consi st ed ofonl y t he repl acement br i dge over t he Or egon I nl et , and i tconcl uded t hat such a Pr oj ect di d not vi ol at e NEPA' s ant i -segment at i on pr i nci pl es. As di scussed bel ow, we r ej ect t hedi st r i ct cour t s appr oach because i t was based on a pr oj ectot her t han t he one descr i bed i n t he r ecor d. We not e t hat t hedi st r i ct cour t s anal ysi s may have been appr opr i at e i fPl ai nt i f f s had, f or exampl e, demonst r at ed t hat none ofDef endant s st udi ed al t er nat i ves f or NC 12 sout h of t he br i dgecoul d be const r uct ed as a mat t er of f act . I f t hat wer e t hecase, t hen t he repl acement br i dge woul d be r equi r ed t o connectl ogi cal t er mi ni , 23 C. F. R. 771. 111( f ) ( 1) , have i ndependentut i l i t y, 23 C. F. R. 771. 111( f ) ( 2) , and [n] ot r estr i ctconsi der at i on of al t er nat i ves f or ot her r easonabl y f or eseeabl et r anspor t at i on i mpr ovement s, 23 C. F. R. 771. 111( f ) ( 3) . We donot pass upon t he cor r ectness of t he di st r i ct cour t s i l l egal( Cont i nued)


30/58

30

Si nce at l east 2002, Def endant s have made pl ai n t hat t he

pur pose of t he Proj ect i s t o [ p] r ovi de a new means of access

f r om Bodi e I s l and t o Hat t er as I s l and f or i t s resi dent s,

busi nesses, ser vi ces, and t our i st s pr i or t o t he end of t he

Bonner Br i dge s ser vi ce l i f e. J . A. 2486. Thi s pur pose cannot

be f ul f i l l ed by t he br i dge al one because the ent i r e nor t her n

par t of Hat t eras I sl and i s occupi ed by the Seashor e and t he

Ref uge. The br i dge i s essent i al l y wor t hl ess wi t hout a means of

conveyi ng mot or i st s f r om i t s sout her n t er mi nus t o t he Vi l l age of

Rodant he, whi ch i s t he nor t her nmost poi nt wher e the r esi dent s,

busi nesses, and ser vi ces on Hat t er as I sl and ar e l ocat ed. See,

e. g. , J . A. 2493 ( st at i ng i n t he Recor d of Deci si on t hat

[ b] ui l di ng Phase I al one woul d not meet t he pur pose and need of

t he pr oj ect) .

As Def endant s st at ed i n t hei r Recor d of Deci si on, t he

Pr oj ect i s a mi x and mat ch of t he Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor

Al t er nat i ves assessed i n t he 2008 [ Fi nal Envi r onment al I mpact

St at ement ] . 11 J . A. 2488. Accor di ng t o t he Recor d of Deci si on,

segment at i on anal ysi s because nothi ng i n t he r ecor d on appeali ndi cat es t hat Def endant s cannot const r uct at l east one of t hei rpr evi ousl y st udi ed al t er nat i ves.

11 To r ecap, t hese f i ve al t er nat i ves wer e t i t l ed: ( 1)Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h Nour i shment ; ( 2) Par al l el Br i dgeCor r i dor Wi t h Road Nor t h/ Br i dge Sout h; ( 3) Par al l el Br i dgeCor r i dor Wi t h Al l Br i dge; ( 4) Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h( Cont i nued)


31/58

31

t he Pr oj ect cal l s f or Phase I ( Or egon I nl et br i dge) t o be bui l t

as soon as possi bl e, f ol l owed by const r uct i on of l at er phases

whose det ai l s woul d be determi ned, r eeval uated, and document ed

t hr ough i nt er agency col l abor at i on as pr oj ect ar ea condi t i ons

war r ant . J . A. 2488.

I t i s t r ue t hat t he Pr oj ect s onl y def i ni t e component at

t hi s t i me i s t he const r uct i on of a Par al l el Br i dge across

Or egon I nl et wi t hi n t he exi st i ng easement . Beyond t hat , t he

pl an i s t o del ay[ ] deci si onmaki ng, ost ensi bl y because of

t he i nher ent uncer t ai nt y i n pr edi ct i ng f ut ur e condi t i ons wi t hi n

t he dynami c coast al bar r i er i sl and envi r onment . J . A. 2497.

Nonethel ess, Def endant s have cl ear l y commi t t ed t hemsel ves t o

doi ng somethi ng between t he sout hern t ermi nus of t he br i dge and

Rodant het hey si mpl y have not ( at l east publ i cl y) chosen what .

One way t o resol ve t hi s case woul d be t o remand al l of i t

t o t he di st r i ct cour t wi t h i nst r ucti ons t o f ul l y eval uat e t he

act ual Proj ect t hat Def endant s pr oposed. However , [ a] n

appel l ee may def end, and t hi s Cour t may af f i r m, t he di st r i ct

Phased Appr oach/ Rodant he Br i dge ( Pr ef er r ed) ; and ( 5) Par al l elBr i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h Phased Appr oach/ Rodant he Nour i shment . The2008 Fi nal Envi r onment al I mpact St atement al so i ncl uded t he twoal t er nat i ves t hat consi st ed of a l ong br i dge i n Paml i co Sound:( 1) Paml i co Sound Br i dge Corr i dor Wi t h Cur ved Rodant he Termi nus;and ( 2) Paml i co Sound Br i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h I nt er sect i on Rodant heTermi nus.


32/58

32

cour t s j udgment on any basi s suppor t ed by t he r ecor d. Sl oas

v. CSX Tr ansp. , I nc. , 616 F. 3d 380, 388 n. 5 ( 4t h Ci r . 2010) .

Because both par t i es have adequatel y br i ef ed and ar gued t he

i ssues usi ng t he pr oper l y def i ned Pr oj ect , we pr oceed t o our

anal yses of t he NEPA and Sect i on 4( f ) ar gument s i n t hi s case.

B.

Summary j udgment i s appr opr i ate i f t he movant shows t hat

t her e i s no genui ne di sput e as t o any mat er i al f act and t he

movant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. Fed. R.

Ci v. P. 56( a) . We r evi ew a gr ant of summary j udgment de novo,

Nat l Audubon Soc y v. Dep t of t he Navy, 422 F. 3d 174, 185 ( 4t h

Ci r . 2005) , t aki ng t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

non- movi ng par t y. Ander son v. Li ber t y Lobby, I nc. 477 U. S. 242,

255 ( 1986) .

Because t he di st r i ct cour t s gr ant of summar y j udgment

di sposed of cr oss- mot i ons f or summary j udgment , we consi der

each mot i on separ atel y on i t s own mer i t s t o det ermi ne whether

ei t her of t he par t i es deserves j udgment as a mat t er of l aw.

Bacon v. Ci t y of Ri chmond, Va. , 475 F. 3d 633, 638 ( 4t h Ci r .

2007) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I n consi der i ng each

mot i on, we r esol ve al l f act ual di sput es and any compet i ng,

r at i onal i nf er ences i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he par t y

opposi ng t hat mot i on. Rossi gnol v. Voor haar , 316 F. 3d 516, 523

( 4t h Ci r . 2003) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .


33/58

33

The Admi ni st r at i ve Pr ocedur e Act ( APA) gover ns our r evi ew

of agency act i ons under NEPA and Sect i on 4( f ) . See N. C.

Wi l dl i f e Fed n v. N. C. Dep t of Tr ansp. , 677 F. 3d 596, 601 ( 4t h

Ci r . 2012) ; Hi ckor y Nei ghbor hood Def . League v. Ski nner , 893

F. 2d 58, 61 ( 4t h Ci r . 1990) . A r evi ewi ng cour t may set asi de an

agency act i on t hat was arbi t r ar y, capr i ci ous, an abuse of

di scr et i on, or ot her wi se not i n accor dance wi t h l aw[ . ] 5

U. S. C. 706( 2) ( A) ; see Dep t of Tr ansp. v. Pub. Ci t i zen, 541

U. S. 752, 763 ( 2004) ; Mar sh v. Or . Nat ur al Res. Counci l , 490

U. S. 360, 37576 ( 1989) . Thi s i nqui r y must be sear chi ng and

car ef ul , but t he ul t i mat e st andar d of r evi ew i s a nar r ow

one. Mar sh, 490 U. S. at 378 ( quot i ng Ci t i zens t o Pr es.

Over t on Par k, I nc. v. Vol pe, 401 U. S. 402, 416 ( 1971) ) . Our

r evi ew i s de novo, wi t hout def er ence t o t he di st r i ct cour t s

r esol ut i on of t he i ssue. Fr i ends of Back Bay v. Ar my Cor ps of

Eng r s, 681 F. 3d 581, 587 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) .

I I I .

A.

The Nat i onal Envi r onment al Pol i cy Act of 1969, 42 U. S. C.

43214370f , est abl i shes a nat i onal pol i cy [ t o] encour age

product i ve and enj oyabl e har mony bet ween man and hi s

envi r onment , and was i nt ended t o r educe or el i mi nate

envi r onment al damage and t o pr omote t he underst andi ng of t he


34/58

34

ecol ogi cal syst ems and nat ur al r esour ces i mpor t ant t o t he

Uni t ed St at es. Pub. Ci t i zen, 541 U. S. at 756 ( 2004) ( quot i ng

42 U. S. C. 4321) . Al l act i ons under t aken by a f eder al agency

wi t h ef f ects t hat may be maj or and whi ch are pot ent i al l y

subj ect t o Feder al cont r ol and r esponsi bi l i t y[ , ] and al l

pr oj ect s and pr ogr ams ent i r el y or par t l y f i nanced, assi st ed,

conduct ed, r egul at ed, or appr oved by f eder al agenci es must

compl y wi t h bot h NEPA and the r egul at i ons pr omul gated by t he

Counci l on Envi r onment al Qual i t y. 12 40 C. F. R. 1508. 18.

NEPA mandat es a set of act i on- f or ci ng pr ocedur es t hat

r equi r e t hat agenci es t ake a har d l ook at envi r onment al

consequences, . . . and t hat pr ovi de f or br oad di ssemi nat i on of

r el evant envi r onment al i nf or mat i on. Rober t son v. Met how Val l ey

Ci t i zens Counci l , 490 U. S. 332, 350 ( 1989) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Because NEPA does not mandate

par t i cul ar r esul t s, but si mpl y pr escr i bes t he necessar y

pr ocess[ , ] i t prohi bi t s uni nf or medr at her t han unwi seagency

12 The Counci l on Envi r onment al Qual i t y i s t he execut i veagency responsi bl e f or pr omul gat i ng r egul at i ons t hat i mpl ementNEPA. See 42 U. S. C. 4342; Exec. Or der No. 11, 991, 42 Fed.

Reg. 26, 967 ( May 25, 1997) . Cour t s gi ve subst ant i al def erencet o t he Counci l on Envi r onment al Qual i t y s r egul at i ons. Nat lAudubon Soc y v. Dep t of t he Navy, 422 F. 3d 174, 184 (4t h Ci r .2005) ( quot i ng Andr us v. Si er r a Cl ub, 442 U. S. 347, 358 ( 1979) ) .Addi t i onal l y, each f eder al agency must ensur e t hat i t compl i eswi t h NEPA, and FHWA has est abl i shed i t s own r egul at i ons f or t hi spur pose. See 23 C. F. R. 771. 101.


35/58

35

act i on. I d. at 35051. [ T] he br oad di ssemi nat i on of

i nf ormat i on mandated by NEPA permi t s t he publ i c and other

gover nment agenci es t o r eact t o t he ef f ect s of a pr oposed act i on

at a meani ngf ul t i me. Mar sh, 490 U. S. at 371.

Under NEPA, f or ever y maj or Feder al act i on[ ] si gni f i cant l y

af f ect i ng t he qual i t y of t he human envi r onment , t he agency

i nvol ved must pr epar e a det ai l ed st at ement t hat di scl oses and

eval uat es, among ot her t hi ngs, t he envi r onment al i mpact of t he

pr oposed act i on, unavoi dabl e adver se ef f ect s of t he pr oposed

act i on, and al t er nat i ves t o t he pr oposed act i on. 42 U. S. C.

4332( 2) ( C) . Ever y Envi r onment al I mpact Statement must provi de

f ul l and f ai r di scussi on of si gni f i cant envi r onment al i mpact s

ar i si ng f r om t he r easonabl e al t er nat i ves. 40 C. F. R. 1502. 1.

An agency s compar at i ve eval uat i on of al t er nat i ves t o the

pr oposed act i on i s t he hear t of t he envi r onment al i mpact

st at ement because i t shar pl y def i n[ es] t he i ssues and

pr ovi d[ es] a cl ear basi s f or choi ce among opt i ons by t he

deci si onmaker and t he publ i c. 40 C. F. R. 1502. 14. Ther ef or e,

agenci es must [ r ] i gor ousl y expl or e and obj ect i vel y eval uat e al l

r easonabl e al t er nat i ves[ . ] I d. 1502. 14( a) . The assessment

of t he envi r onment al i mpact s i s t he sci ent i f i c and anal yt i c

basi s f or t he compar i son[ ] of al t er nat i ves. 40 C. F. R.

1502. 16. [ A] genci es must measur e t he i ndi r ect and cumul at i ve

envi r onment al ef f ect s of pr oposed act i ons. . . . Concl usor y


36/58


37/58

37

Thi s case i mpl i cat es t he r egul at i ons per t ai ni ng t o i l l egal

segment at i on of t he anal ysi s of envi r onment al i mpact s as wel l as

t hose per t ai ni ng t o t he per mi ssi bl e t i er i ng of t he anal ysi s of

i mpact s. We di scuss each i n t ur n bel ow.

B.

Agenci es may not engage i n segment at i on, whi ch i nvol ves

an at t empt t o ci r cumvent NEPA by br eaki ng up one pr oj ect i nt o

smal l er pr oj ect s and not st udyi ng t he over al l i mpact s of t he

si ngl e over al l pr oj ect . Webst er v. U. S. Dep t of Agr i c. , 685

F. 3d 411, 426 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng Coal . on W. Val l ey

Nucl ear Wast es v. Chu, 592 F. 3d 306, 311 ( 2d Ci r . 2009) ) .

Speci f i cal l y, [ p] r oposal s or par t s of pr oposal s whi ch ar e

r el at ed t o each ot her cl osel y enough t o be, i n ef f ect , a si ngl e

cour se of act i on shal l be eval uat ed i n a si ngl e i mpact

st at ement . 40 C. F. R. 1502. 4( a) . Pr oposed pr oj ect s ar e

consi der ed connect ed i f t hey: ( i ) Aut omat i cal l y t r i gger ot her

act i ons whi ch may r equi r e envi r onment al i mpact st at ement s[ ; ]

( i i ) Cannot or wi l l not pr oceed unl ess ot her act i ons ar e t aken

pr evi ousl y or si mul t aneousl y[ ; or ] ( i i i ) Ar e i nt er dependent

par t s of a l ar ger act i on and depend on t he l ar ger act i on f or

t hei r j ust i f i cat i on. I d. 1508. 25( a) ( 1) . Agenci es must al so

assess [ c] umul at i ve act i ons, and [ s] i mi l ar act i ons wi t h

common t i mi ng or geogr aphy i n t he same i mpact st atement . I d.

1508. 25( a) ( 2) ( 3) .


38/58

38

FHWA s ant i - segment at i on r egul at i ons ar e desi gned t o

ensur e meani ngf ul eval uat i on of al t er nat i ves and t o avoi d

commi t ment s t o t r anspor t at i on i mpr ovement s bef or e t hey ar e f ul l y

eval uat ed[ . ] 23 C. F. R. 771. 111( f ) . Each act i on eval uat ed

must :

( 1) Connect l ogi cal t er mi ni and be of suf f i ci entl engt h t o addr ess envi r onment al mat t ers on a br oadscope;( 2) Have i ndependent ut i l i t y or i ndependentsi gni f i cance, i . e. , be usabl e and be a r easonabl eexpendi t ur e even i f no addi t i onal t r anspor t at i oni mprovement s i n t he ar ea ar e made; and( 3) Not r est r i ct consi der at i on of al t er nat i ves f orot her r easonabl y f or eseeabl e t r anspor t at i oni mprovement s.

I d. 771. 111( f ) ( 1) - ( 3) .

To eval uat e whet her a proj ect connect s l ogi cal t er mi ni ,

cour t s l ook t o t he pur pose and need of t he pr oj ect as st at ed i n

t he Envi r onment al I mpact St at ement . See I ndi an Lookout Al l i ance

v. Vol pe, 484 F. 2d 11, 18 ( 8t h Ci r . 1973) ( I f t he maj or

obj ect i ve of a pr oposal i s t o connect t wo ci t i es by expr essway,

t hen t hese t wo t ermi ni shoul d determi ne t he pr oper scope of t he

[ Envi r onment al I mpact St at ement ] . ) . Addi t i onal l y, l ogi cal

t er mi ni ar e of t en obvi ous because of t hei r connect i on t o

crossr oads, popul at i on cent er s, maj or t r af f i c gener at or s, or

si mi l ar hi ghway cont r ol el ement s. Conser vat i on Law Found. v.

Fed. Hi ghway Admi n. , 24 F. 3d 1465, 1472 (1st Ci r . 1994) .


39/58

39

The i ndependent ut i l i t y t est al so det er mi nes whet her

r el at ed act i ons or pr oj ect s must be eval uat ed i n a si ngl e

Envi r onment al I mpact St atement . Webst er , 685 F. 3d at 426.

Cour t s i nqui r e i nt o whet her each pr oj ect woul d have t aken pl ace

i n t he ot her s absence. . . . I f so, [ t he pr oj ect s] have

i ndependent ut i l i t y and ar e not consi der ed connect ed act i ons.

I d. When det er mi ni ng whet her an act i on has i ndependent ut i l i t y,

cour t s consi der t he benef i t s and uses t hat wi l l occur as a

r esul t of t hat act i on, even i f no ot her const r uct i on i s done i n

t he ar ea. For exampl e, i n J ames Ri ver v. Ri chmond Met r opol i t an

Aut hor i t y, t hi s Cour t uphel d a det er mi nat i on t hat Ri chmond s

Downt own Expr essway and I - 195 had i ndependent ut i l i t y because

each segment i ndependent l y al l owed t r af f i c t o access par t s of

t he downt own area and other maj or hi ghways more easi l y. 359 F.

Supp. 611, 636 ( E. D. Va. 1973) , af f d per cur i am, 481 F. 2d 1280

( 4t h Ci r . 1973) . See al so Save Bar t on Cr eek Ass n v. Fed.

Hi ghway Admi n. , 950 F. 2d 1129, 114142 ( 5t h Ci r . 1992) ( hol di ng

t hat one por t i on of a hi ghway l oop had i ndependent ut i l i t y

because, st andi ng al one, t he pr oj ect al l evi at ed t r af f i c,

i mpr oved access t o r esi dent i al , commer ci al , and r ecr eat i onal

areas, and connected t o maj or r oadways) .

C.

By cont r ast , a t i er ed or mul t i phase NEPA anal ysi s may be

appr opr i at e f or agenci es t hat ar e cont empl at i ng l ar ge or


40/58

40

compl ex pr oj ect s. Shenandoah Val l ey Net work v. Capka, 669 F. 3d

194, 196 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) . I n f act , [ a] genci es ar e encour aged

t o t i er t hei r envi r onment al i mpact st at ement s t o el i mi nat e

r epet i t i ve di scussi ons of t he same i ssues and t o f ocus on t he

act ual i ssues r i pe f or deci si on at each l evel of envi r onment al

r evi ew . . . . 40 C. F. R. 1502. 20.

A pr oper l y t i er ed anal ysi s consi st s of a br oad

envi r onment al i mpact st atement f ol l owed by a subsequent

st at ement or envi r onment al assessment . . . on an act i on

i ncl uded wi t hi n t he pr ogr am or pol i cy cont empl at ed i n t he br oad

st atement . 40 C. F. R. 1502. 20 ( emphasi s added) . The

subsequent st at ement shal l concent r at e on t he i ssues speci f i c

t o t he subsequent act i on[ , ] and i t need onl y summar i ze t he

i ssues di scussed i n t he br oader st at ement [ . ] I d.

Ti er i ng may never be used t o avoi d consi der at i on of

r easonabl e al t er nat i ves by maki ng a bi ndi ng si t e- speci f i c

deci si on at t he pr ogr ammat i c st age wi t hout anal ysi s, def er r i ng

consi der at i on of si t e- speci f i c i ssues t o a [ subsequent

Suppl ement al Envi r onment al I mpact St at ement ] . I l i o ul aokal ani

Coal . v. Rumsf el d, 464 F. 3d 1083, 1101 ( 9t h Ci r . 2006) . And t he

di vi di ng l i ne bet ween i l l egal segment at i on and per mi ssi bl e

t i er i ng i s an agency s pr oposal t o make an i r r ever si bl e and

i r r et r i evabl e commi t ment of t he avai l abi l i t y of r esour ces t o a

pr oj ect at a par t i cul ar si t e. Cal i f or ni a v. Bl ock, 690 F. 2d


41/58

41

753, 761 ( 9t h Ci r . 1982) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see

al so 42 U. S. C. 4332( 2) ( C) ( v) .

D.

When revi ewi ng a NEPA deci si on, a cour t must not r educe

i t sel f t o a r ubber - st amp of agency act i on. N. C. Wi l dl i f e

Fed n, 677 F. 3d at 601 ( quot i ng Fed. Mar . Comm n v. Seat r ai n

Li nes, I nc. , 411 U. S. 726, 746 ( 1973) ) . Rat her , we must ensur e

t hat t he agency has exami ne[d] t he r el evant data and

ar t i cul at e[ d] a sat i sf actor y expl anat i on f or i t s acti on. FCC

v. Fox Tel evi si on St at i ons, I nc. , 556 U. S. 502, 513 ( 2009)

( quot i ng Mot or Vehi cl e Mf r s. Ass n of U. S. , I nc. v. St at e Far m

Mut . Aut o. I ns. Co. , 463 U. S. 29, 43 ( 1983) ) . An agency s

deci si on i s ar bi t r ar y and capr i ci ous i f t he agency

r el i ed on f act or s whi ch Congr ess has not i nt ended i tt o consi der , ent i r el y f ai l ed t o consi der an i mpor t ant

aspect of t he pr obl em, of f er ed an expl anat i on f or i t sdeci si on t hat r uns count er t o t he evi dence bef or e t heagency, or i s so i mpl ausi bl e t hat i t coul d not beascr i bed t o a di f f er ence i n vi ew or t he pr oduct ofagency exper t i se.

St at e Far m, 463 U. S. at 43.

We may not subst i t ut e our j udgment f or t hat of t he

agency. Fox Tel evi si on St at i ons, 556 U. S. at 513 ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . [ O] ur t ask i s to ensur e t hat [ t he

agency] t ook a hard l ook at t he envi r onment al consequences of

t he pr oposed act i on. Webst er , 685 F. 3d at 421 ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Consequent l y, we may not f l yspeck


42/58

42

[ t he] agency s envi r onment al anal ysi s, l ooki ng f or any

def i ci ency, no mat t er how mi nor . I d. ( quot i ng Nat l Audubon

Soc y, 422 F. 3d at 186 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . Nor may we sei ze on any t r i vi al

i nadequacy i n an [Envi r onment al I mpact St atement ] as a r eason to

r ej ect an agency deci si on[ . ] Nat l Audubon Soc y, 422 F. 3d at

186. Our t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances appr oach means that

[ we] must vi ew def i ci enci es i n one por t i on of an [ Envi r onment al

I mpact St at ement ] i n l i ght of how t hey af f ect t he ent i r e

anal ys i s . I d.

E.

Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat Def endant s vi ol at ed t he basi c

pr i nci pl es of NEPA and engaged i n i l l egal segment at i on by

i ssui ng a [ Recor d of Deci si on] t hat di scl osed onl y one i ni t i al

segment of t he Sel ect ed Al t ernat i vea segment t hat wi l l commi t

t hem t o si gni f i cant f ut ur e const r uct i on of a r oad and br i dges

t hr ough a Nat i onal Wi l dl i f e Ref ugewhi l e f ai l i ng t o di scl ose any

speci f i c pl ans f or t hat const r uct i on. Appel l ant s Br . at 20.

Def endant s count er t hat [ n] ot hi ng i n NEPA r equi r es an

agency to aut hor i ze al l phases of a pr oposed act i on eval uat ed i n

an [ Envi r onment al I mpact St at ement ] at t he t i me i t i ssues a

[ Recor d of Deci si on] . Appel l ees Br . at 29. They mai nt ai n

t hat t he agenci es have f ul l y anal yzed t he ent i r e pr oj ect i n an

[ Envi r onment al I mpact St atement ] and [Envi r onment al


43/58

43

Assessment , ] by conduct i ng a f ul l end- t o- end st udy of

al t er nat i ves and associ at ed i mpact s f or t he ent i r e l engt h of t he

pr oj ect , f r om t he nor t her n l i mi t on Bodi e I sl and t o t he sout her n

l i mi t i n t he [V] i l l age of Rodant he and have t hus not engaged i n

segment at i on. Appel l ees Br . at 2930.

I l l egal segment at i on i s di st i nct f r om appr ovi ng onl y a

por t i on of a pr oj ect t hat has been f ul l y and adequat el y st udi ed.

We agr ee wi t h t he El event h Ci r cui t t hat NEPA does not r equi r e an

agency to aut hor i ze al l st ages of a pr oj ect i n one [ Recor d of

Deci si on] . Def ender s of Wi l dl i f e v. U. S. Dep t of t he Navy,

733 F. 3d 1106, 1116 ( 11t h Ci r . 2013) . Not hi ng i n NEPA pr ohi bi t s

Def endant s f r om aut hor i zi ng onl y one par t of t he Pr oj ect so l ong

as doi ng so does not commi t t hem t o a cour se of act i on t hat has

not been f ul l y anal yzed. To be sure, Def endant s Recor d of

Deci si on does commi t r esour ces t o t he Pr oj ect , and we percei ve

no r eason why Def endant s cannot anal yze t he ent i r e Proj ect i n a

si ngl e i mpact st at ement . 40 C. F. R. 1502. 4( a) . But t hey ar e

not r equi r ed t o appr ove t he ent i r e Pr oj ect i n a si ngl e Recor d of

Deci si on so l ong as t hei r NEPA document s adequatel y anal yze and

di scl ose the i mpact s of t he ent i r e Pr oj ect i ncl udi ng t hose

por t i ons t hat have yet t o be appr oved.

The par t i es agr ee t hat t he st udi ed al t er nat i ves ar e

f easi bl e, i . e. , t hat , as a mat t er of sound engi neer i ng j udgment ,

t hey can be bui l t . And t he r ecord shows t hat Def endant s have


44/58

44

adequat el y anal yzed t he i mpact s associ at ed wi t h t he f i ve

Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor al t er nat i ves t hat coul d be i mpl ement ed

t o compl et e t he Pr oj ect : ( 1) Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h

Nour i shment ; ( 2) Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h Road Nor t h/ Br i dge

Sout h; ( 3) Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h Al l Br i dge; ( 4)

Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h Phased Appr oach/ Rodant he Br i dge

( Pr ef er r ed) ; and ( 5) Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor Wi t h Phased

Appr oach/ Rodant he Nour i shment . I ndeed, at or al argument s, even

Pl ai nt i f f s acknowl edged t hat i f Def endant s had i ssued a Recor d

of Deci si on t hat commi t t ed t o any oneor any combi nat i onof

t hose al t er nat i ves, t hat act i on l i kel y woul d have compl i ed wi t h

NEPA s pr ocedur al r equi r ement s.

Accor di ngl y, at l east wi t h r espect t o t he pr evi ousl y

st udi ed al t er nat i ves, Def endant s have nei t her at t empt ed t o

ci r cumvent [ ] NEPA nor r ef used t o st udy t he over al l i mpact s of

t he si ngl e over al l pr oj ect . Webst er , 685 F. 3d at 426 ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Rat her , t hey have conduct ed a f ul l ,

si t e- speci f i c anal ysi s. Thus, t hei r deci si on t o i mpl ement t he

Proj ect one phase at a t i me does not vi ol ate NEPA.

Pl ai nt i f f s pr ess t hat t he Recor d of Deci si on seems t o

aut hor i ze t he const r uct i on of f ut ur e phases t hat have not yet

been anal yzed and di scl osed t o t he publ i c. And cert ai n aspect s

of t he r ecor d l end suppor t t o t hat posi t i on.


45/58

45

For exampl e, t he Recor d of Deci si on seems t o ant i ci pat e the

possi bi l i t y of a separ at e NEPA pr ocess t hat wi l l t ake pl ace

when Def endant s f i nal l y deci de what t o do wi t h t he rest of NC

12. J . A. 2500. And t he Revi sed Sect i on 4( f ) eval uat i on seems

t o i ndi cat e t hat Def endant s are cont empl at i ng t he const r uct i on

of somet hi ng t hat has not pr evi ousl y been st udi ed or di scl osed:

Under t he Par al l el Br i dge Cor r i dor wi t h NC 12Tr anspor t at i on Management Pl an Al t er nat i ve, l at erphases of act i ons t o manage NC 12 t hrough 2060 woul dbe deci ded based on act ual condi t i ons exi st i ng onHat t er as I sl and at t he poi nt i n t i me t hat addi t i onalact i on becomes necessary. These l ater phases coul dconsi st of , but woul d not be l i mi t ed t o, one or mor ecomponent s of any of t he al t er nat i ves al r eady st udi edas par t of t he envi r onment al r evi ew pr ocess . . . .

J . A. 1905 ( emphasi s added) .

Al t hough i t i s possi bl e t o r ead such st at ement s as

Def endant s at t empt s t o commi t t o or aut hor i ze somethi ng out si de

t he scope of what t hei r NEPA document s have anal yzed and

di scl osed, t hat i s not how we vi ew t hese i sol at ed st at ement s

made i n t he cont ext of hundr eds of pages of anal ysi s. And

notwi t hst andi ng that t he NC 12 Tr anspor t at i on Management Pl an i s

r eal l y nothi ng more than a pl an t o make a pl an f or t he remai nder

of NC 12, t he publ i c i s cl ear l y on not i ce t hat Def endant s i nt end

t o pur sue t he f i ve st udi ed al t er nat i ves t hat pass t hr ough

Hat t er as I sl and and t he Ref ugenot t he t wo al t er nat i ves t hat

avoi d Hat t er as I sl and al t oget her vi a const r uct i on of a br i dge i n

Paml i co Sound. And because Def endant s have f ul l y anal yzed and


46/58

46

di scl osed t he envi r onment al i mpact s associ at ed wi t h t hese f i ve

l egi t i mat e al t er nat i ves, Def endant s have compl i ed wi t h NEPA wi t h

r egar d t o al l f i ve.

Moreover , NEPA obl i gat es agenci es t o cont i nue t o revi ew t he

envi r onment al consequences of t hei r act i ons, and we t hi nk i t i s

best t o r ead Def endant s st at ement s t hat al l ude t o a separ at e

NEPA pr ocess si mpl y as an acknowl edgement of t hi s r equi r ement .

I f , f or exampl e, Def endant s wai t t oo l ong t o i mpl ement t he

f ut ur e phases of t he Pr oj ect , condi t i ons on Hat t er as I sl and

coul d change so much that t he cur r ent Envi r onment al I mpact

St at ement no l onger cover s t he al t er nat i ves t hat t hey st udi ed.

I f condi t i ons change to such an extent , Def endant s must i ssue a

suppl ement al Envi r onment al I mpact St atement pr i or t o t aki ng any

ot her acti on. 40 C. F. R. 1502. 9( c)( 1) ( i ) , ( i i ) . Def endant s

st atement s i n t hei r Envi r onment al Assessment and Recor d of

Deci si on t hat seem t o ant i ci pat e changi ng condi t i ons cannot and

do not shi el d t hem f r om NEPA s pr ocedur al r equi r ement s.

I n sum, Def endant s have not vi ol ated NEPA by engagi ng i n

unl awf ul segment at i on wi t h r espect t o t he f i ve st udi ed par al l el

br i dge al t er nat i ves. We t hus af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t s gr ant

of summary j udgment on t he NEPA i ssue. Our opi ni on may not ,

however , be const r ued as an aut hor i zat i on t o pr oceed out si de t he

scope of t he pr evi ousl y st udi ed al t er nat i ves, and Def endant s

doi ng so woul d al most surel y vi ol at e NEPA.


47/58

47

I V.

A.

Unl i ke NEPA, whi ch prohi bi t s uni nf ormedr ather t han

unwi seagency act i on[ , ] Rober t son, 490 U. S. at 351, Sect i on

4( f ) of t he Depar t ment of Tr anspor t at i on Act of 1966, 49 U. S. C.

303, i mposes subst ant i ve r est r ai nt s on an agency s act i on. 13

Under Sect i on 4( f ) , t he Secr et ar y of Tr anspor t at i on

( Secr et ar y) i s per mi t t ed t o appr ove a t r anspor t at i on pr oj ect

t hat r equi r es t he

use of publ i cl y owned l and of a publ i c par k,r ecreat i on ar ea, or wi l dl i f e and wat er f owl r ef uge . .. or l and of an hi stor i c si te . . . onl y i f . . .t her e i s no pr udent and f easi bl e al t er nat i ve t o usi ngt hat l and; and . . . t he pr ogr am or pr oj ect i ncl udesal l possi bl e pl anni ng t o mi ni mi ze har m t o t he[ publ i cl y owned l and] r esul t i ng f r om t he use[ . ]

49 U. S. C. 303( c) .

I n ot her wor ds, Sect i on 4( f ) pr oper t y may not be put t o

non- par k uses unl ess t her e i s no f easi bl e and pr udent

al t er nat i ve t o t he non- par k use of t he l and. Coal . f or

Responsi bl e Reg l Dev. v. Br i negar , 518 F. 2d 522, 525 ( 4t h Ci r .

13 The t er m Secti on 4( f ) ref er s to t hi s pr ovi s i on s

or i gi nal l ocat i on i n t he Depar t ment of Tr anspor t at i on Act of1966. Pub. L. No. 89- 670, 80 St at . 931 ( 1966) . The t ext ofSect i on 4( f ) has now been codi f i ed at bot h 23 U. S. C. 138 and49 U. S. C. 303. The name Sect i on 4( f ) i s no l ongeri ndi cat i ve of t he pr ovi s i on s l ocat i on, but t he t er m i s sowi del y recogni zed t hat i t cont i nues t o be used t o avoi dneedl ess conf usi on. 23 C. F. R. 771. 107( e) n. 2 ( 2013) .


48/58

48

1975) . 14 Fur t her , t he Secr et ar y may appr ove a t r anspor t at i on

pr oj ect t hat uses Sect i on 4( f ) pr oper t y onl y i f t he pr ogr am or

pr oj ect i ncl udes al l possi bl e pl anni ng t o mi ni mi ze har m t o

t he . . . wi l dl i f e and wat er f owl r ef uge[ . ] 49 U. S. C.

303( c)( 2) .

The Secr et ar y must per f or m a Sect i on 4( f ) eval uat i on and

compl y wi t h t hat pr ovi si on s other subst ant i ve r equi r ement s

bef or e appr ovi ng any use of Sect i on 4( f ) pr oper t y. The same i s

not r equi r ed, however , i f t he j oi nt pl anni ng except i on

appl i es. Under t he j oi nt pl anni ng except i on,

[ w] hen a pr oper t y i s f or mal l y reser ved f or a f ut ur et r anspor t at i on f aci l i t y bef or e or at t he same t i me a[ Sect i on 4( f ) pr oper t y] i s est abl i shed and concur r entor j oi nt pl anni ng or devel opment of t he t r anspor t at i onf aci l i t y and t he Sect i on 4( f ) r esour ce occur s,t hen any r esul t i ng i mpact s of t he t r anspor t at i onf aci l i t y wi l

fourth circuit ruling on bonner bridge replacement

Documents