Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-2091
YADKIN
RIVERKEEPER;
NORTH
CAROLINA
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION; JOHN F. SULLIVAN, in his official capacity
as Division Administrator of FHWA; NICHOLAS J. TENNYSON, in
his official capacity as NC Secretary of Transportation,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:14-cv-00863-D)
Argued:
Decided:
June 9, 2016
PER CURIAM:
The
Federal
North
Carolina
approved
Highway
Department
Administration
construction
of
of
Transportation
(collectively
twenty-mile
toll
the
road
and
the
Agencies)
in
western
road,
Clean
Air
Federation,
and
Conservation
Groups)
Yadkin
the
North
Riverkeeper
filed
suit
in
Carolina
Wildlife
(collectively,
2010.
The
the
Conservation
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
(APA).
See
National
district
Agencies.
court
granted
summary
judgment
to
the
Dept
explained
of
that
Transp.,
NEPA
677
F.3d
On
procedures
(4th
Cir.
emphasize
2012).
We
clarity
and
their
decision
to
build
the
road
and
Id. at 598.
We
Id. at 605.
Agencies
Statement
published
(EIS)
indicating
new
draft
that
they
In November 2013,
Environmental
had
Impact
reevaluated
the
primary needs for the proposed action and that those needs
[had] not changed from those in the original EIS.
In the time
improvements
nevertheless
in
concluded
the
that
infrastructure.
while
The
providing
some
Agencies
short-term
benefit, the minor improvements would not meet the purpose and
need for the Monroe Connector Bypass project.
The Agencies
thus concluded that the toll road was still the best option
for meeting the areas long-term traffic needs.
In reaching that conclusion, the Agencies also reevaluated
the data that they had failed to disclose to the public during
the
original
NEPA
process.
In
order
to
evaluate
the
been
transparent
with
the
public.
Now,
admitting
their
however,
that
the
travel
time
and
They
land
use
projections -- taking into account the correct information -were identical to their original projections.
Agencies
confirmed
that
their
original
Consequently, the
no-build
model
was
December
2013,
an
on
the
Agencies
held
public
hearings
on
expert
their
report
prior
that
data.
criticized
In
May
2014,
the
Agencies
the
Agencies
The
final
projections,
which
had
EIS
discussed
been
released
the
previously
surrounding
counties
estimated,
estimates by 2040.
but
would
would
updated
in
socioeconomic
January
2014,
that
still
grow
reach
as
quickly
the
as
previous
arbitrary
analysis
and
was
capricious;
arbitrary
(2)
and
the
environmental
capricious;
(3)
the
impact
Agencies
and
corrected
alternatives.
their
Id. at *10.
previous
flaws
in
evaluating
project
--
including
any
growth
induced
by
the
project
Id. at *11-
record
as
whole
the
Agencies
had
complied
with
NEPAs
Id. at *14-
15.
Finally, the court found that the Agencies did not abuse
met
all
of
Id. at *15-16.
the
requirements
NEPA
and
the
APA,
the
Id. at
carefully
considered
the
controlling
law
and
the