Court Opinion

ID: 9375100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:01:08.876876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.978379
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103         Doc: 49         Filed: 02/23/2023   Pg: 1 of 21

                                                 PUBLISHED

                                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                  No. 22-1103

        NO MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE-CONCERNED CITIZENS AND VISITORS
        OPPOSED TO THE MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE; NORTH CAROLINA
        WILDLIFE FEDERATION,

                                Plaintiffs − Appellants,

                        v.

        NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; FEDERAL
        HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; EDWARD T. PARKER, in his official capacity
        as Assistant Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration; ERIC
        BOYETTE, in his official capacity as Secretary, North Carolina Department of
        Transportation,

                                Defendants – Appellees,

                        and

        JAMES H. TROGDON, III,

                                Defendants.

        ------------------------------

        TOWN OF SOUTHERN SHORES; TOWN OF DUCK; COUNTY OF
        CURRITUCK; DARE COUNTY TOURISM BOARD; DUCK COMMUNITY
        AND BUSINESS ALLIANCE, INC.; CURRITUCK CHAMBER OF
        COMMERCE, INC.,

                                Amici Supporting Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Elizabeth City. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (2:19−cv−00014−FL)
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103     Doc: 49        Filed: 02/23/2023   Pg: 2 of 21

        Argued: December 9, 2022                                  Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Diaz wrote the opinion, in which Judge Agee and
        Judge Harris joined.

        ARGUED: Kimberley Hunter, SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER,
        Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellants. Sommer H. Engels, UNITED STATES
        DEPARMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Colin Justice, NORTH CAROLINA
        DEPARMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:
        Ramona H. McGee, Nicholas S. Torrey, Hannah M. Nelson, SOUTHERN
        ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellants. Todd
        Kim, Assistant Attorney General, Andrew Mergen, Robert J. Lundman, Elizabeth McGurk,
        Environment and Natural Resources Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
        JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Daniel Covas, Assistant Attorney General, Scott T. Slusser,
        Transportation Division, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh,
        North Carolina, for Appellees. John D. Leidy, HORNTHAL, RILEY, ELLIS &
        MALAND, L.L.P., Elizabeth City, North Carolina, for Amici Curiae.

                                                  2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103      Doc: 49        Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 3 of 21

        DIAZ, Circuit Judge:

              This case is about a proposed toll bridge across North Carolina’s Currituck Sound

        that would connect the northern Outer Banks with the state mainland. Plaintiffs—an

        environmental organization and a group of citizens opposed to the bridge—claim the

        defendants didn’t follow the procedures laid out in the National Environmental Policy Act,

        42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., when they approved the bridge project. The district court

        disagreed and granted summary judgment for the defendants. We affirm.

                                                    I.

              The Currituck Sound separates the northern barrier islands of North Carolina’s

        Outer Banks from the state mainland. With their sandy beaches and seaside views, the

        Outer Banks are a popular tourist destination. But the Wright Memorial Bridge is the only

        highway crossing the Sound to the Outer Banks—so congestion is common on area roads,

        especially in the summer.

              The North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway

        Administration (together, “the agencies”) had long considered constructing a second bridge

        spanning the Sound. After decades of stalled progress, the agencies in 2019 memorialized

        their decision to build a two-lane toll bridge across the mainland and Outer Banks.

              Plaintiffs—North Carolina Wildlife Federation (an environmental group) and No

        Mid-Currituck Bridge-Concerned Citizens and Visitors Opposed to The Mid-Currituck

        Bridge (a community organization)—assert that the agencies violated the National

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103       Doc: 49        Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 4 of 21

        Environmental Policy Act in approving the bridge project.            We’ll thus begin by

        summarizing the Act’s requirements before proceeding to the facts.

                                                     A.

               The National Environmental Policy Act, the country’s flagship environmental law,

        requires federal agencies to “take a ‘hard look’ at environmental impacts before

        undertaking major actions.” Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Dep’t of Navy, 422 F.3d 174, 184 (4th

        Cir. 2005); see 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. For an action “significantly affecting the quality

        of the human environment,” the Act requires an agency to prepare a detailed Environmental

        Impact Statement (“EIS”). 42 U.S.C. § 4332. The EIS must “provide full and fair

        discussion” of any significant environmental impacts of a proposed action. 40 C.F.R.

        § 1502.1 (1978). 1 And it must “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable

        alternatives,” including a “no action” alternative. Id. § 1502.14.

                   The Act’s regulations also set out the procedures an agency must follow in

        preparing an EIS. First, the agency must circulate a draft for public comment. Id.

        § 1502.9(a). The agency must address the comments it receives in its final EIS. Id.

        § 1502.9(b).     And if “significant new circumstances or information relevant to

        environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts” emerge after

        the EIS is published, the agency must prepare a supplemental EIS. Id. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii).

               1
                The parties agree that the 1978 regulations govern this lawsuit because the relevant
        analyses were completed before the regulations were updated in 2020.

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103       Doc: 49         Filed: 02/23/2023       Pg: 5 of 21

               After completing the EIS, the agency must prepare a “concise public record of

        decision.” Id. § 1505.2. In it, the agency must set out its decision, identify all alternatives

        considered, and state whether the agency has adopted all practicable means to avoid or

        minimize environmental harm. Id.

                                                      B.

               The agencies took a first step toward the Currituck Sound bridge project in 2008,

        when they published a “Statement of Purpose and Need” detailing why another bridge was

        necessary. The statement identified three project purposes: (1) improving traffic flow on

        U.S. 158 and N.C. 12; (2) reducing travel time between the mainland and the Outer Banks;

        and (3) reducing evacuation times for Outer Banks visitors and residents. The agencies

        also prepared an Alternatives Screening Report, which identified possible alternatives to

        the bridge project, and an Indirect and Cumulative Effects Technical Report, which

        assessed the environmental effects of those alternatives.

               Next, the agencies circulated a draft EIS for public comment. After receiving and

        incorporating comments, they published a final EIS in 2012. The EIS reiterated the three

        purposes of the bridge. It then analyzed the environmental impacts of various options,

        including doing nothing (the “no-build alternative”) or widening the existing highways but

        not building a bridge (the “existing roads alternative”).          The agencies ultimately

        recommended building a bridge and making slight improvements to N.C. 12 and U.S. 158

        (the “preferred alternative”).

               The district court’s opinion ably describes the agencies’ environmental-impact

        findings, so we’ll only touch on the highlights. See N.C. Wildlife Fed’n v. N.C. Dep’t of

                                                      5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103      Doc: 49          Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 6 of 21

        Transp., 575 F. Supp. 3d 584, 597–600 (E.D.N.C. 2021). In evaluating alternatives to the

        bridge project, the agencies examined each design’s ability to meet the project purposes,

        its “[i]mprovement to system efficiency,” its “[e]conomic feasibility,” and its “[p]otential

        impacts on natural resources and communities.” J.A. 1212. The agencies concluded that

        the preferred alternative would meet the project’s goals, providing “substantial congestion

        reduction and travel time benefits” and improving hurricane clearance times. J.A. 1205,

        1214–16. At the same time, the preferred alternative would minimize adverse impacts like

        road widening, noise, and wetland filling.

               But before the agencies could issue a Record of Decision memorializing their

        choice, North Carolina pulled the bridge funding and put the project on hold. By the time

        the state recommitted the funds, more than three years had passed since the publication of

        the final EIS. The regulations required the agencies to reevaluate the EIS given the passage

        of time. See 23 C.F.R. § 771.129(b).

                Without soliciting further public input, the agencies completed their reevaluation

        in 2019. The agencies catalogued several changes affecting the project since publication

        of the EIS, including reductions in forecasted traffic, development, and growth; updated

        sea-level rise projections; and increased project cost. The agencies also noted several slight

        alterations to the design of the recommended project and no-build alternative. And they

        concluded that because there were “no new issues of significance associated with this

        project,” a supplemental EIS wasn’t required. J.A. 3115.

               The Federal Highway Administration proceeded to issue the Record of Decision. It

        proposed “construction of a 4.7-mile-long, two lane toll bridge (the Mid-Currituck

                                                      6
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103      Doc: 49          Filed: 02/23/2023    Pg: 7 of 21

        Bridge) . . . between the communities of Aydlett on the mainland and Corolla on the Outer

        Banks,” as well as construction on associated approach roads and limited improvements to

        the existing highways. J.A. 3070.

                                                    C.

               After the agencies published the Record of Decision, Plaintiffs sued them and

        various administrators in their official capacities. Plaintiffs challenged the agencies’

        analysis under the Act, arguing that the no-build alternative—the baseline against which

        the agencies compared the effect of various other alternatives—impermissibly assumed a

        bridge would be built. Plaintiffs also challenged the agencies’ decision to not prepare a

        supplemental EIS. All parties moved for summary judgment.

               The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted the

        defendants’ motions. N.C. Wildlife Fed’n, 575 F. Supp. 3d at 621. In a 52-page opinion,

        the court first rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the agencies erred in developing and

        assessing the no-build alternative. The court explained that while the agencies did consult

        some land-use plans that presumed the bridge would be built, the future development in

        those plans was “not contingent on the building of the project.” Id. at 606. It concluded

        that the agencies had fulfilled their obligations under the Act by “openly reveal[ing] that

        any bridge project might have an influence on development in the area, and delineat[ing]

        that influence region by region.” Id. at 606–07.

               The court also rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the agencies should have issued a

        supplemental EIS.     First, the court noted that none of Plaintiffs’ supposed new

        information—changed traffic forecasts, updated development projections, or updated sea-

                                                     7
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103       Doc: 49         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 8 of 21

        level rise predictions—related to “‘environmental concerns’ as caused by the proposed

        action.” Id. at 615 (emphasis omitted). Rather, these changed circumstances went to the

        “need and feasibility of the project,” not how the project would impact the environment.

        Id. And, the court continued, the agencies did in fact “take a hard look at this new

        information” and reasonably decided it wasn’t significant. Id.

               This appeal followed.

                                                      II.

               We review a grant of summary judgment de novo “and, accordingly, review the

        [a]gencies’ actions directly, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.” Save Our

        Sound OBX, Inc. v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 914 F.3d 213, 221 (4th Cir. 2019). We will

        overturn an agency action if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise

        not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). That is, we look to see “whether the

        decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a

        clear error of judgment.” Marsh v. Or. Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378 (1989).

               In conducting our review, “we must make a searching and careful inquiry into the

        facts.” Save Our Sound OBX, 914 F.3d at 213 (cleaned up). But we don’t “second-guess

        agency decisions, so long as the agency has given a hard look at the environmental impacts

        of its proposed action.” Nat’l Audubon Soc’y, 422 F.3d at 199. That’s because the National

        Environmental Policy Act “merely prohibits uninformed—rather than unwise—agency

        action.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 351 (1989).

                                                      8
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103      Doc: 49        Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 9 of 21

              Plaintiffs’ arguments on appeal revisit those the district court rejected. First, they

        say, the agencies violated the National Environmental Policy Act by declining to publish a

        supplemental EIS. And, they urge, the agencies’ no-build alternative used traffic and

        development projections that improperly (and contrary to its name) assumed a bridge

        would be built. We’ll address each in turn.

                                                      A.

              We begin with Plaintiffs’ contention that the agencies violated the Act by failing to

        prepare a supplemental EIS where significantly changed circumstances demanded it. The

        agencies reply that they took a hard look at the updated information and determined that

        none of it merited a supplemental EIS. We agree with the agencies.

              While the Act doesn’t state when a supplemental EIS is required, regulations

        promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality 2 and other agencies do. The

        Council requires that agencies supplement an EIS when “significant new circumstances or

        information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its

        impacts” arise. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii) (1978). Similarly, the Federal Highway

        Administration’s regulations require a supplemental EIS where “[n]ew information or

        circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or

              2
                “The Council on Environmental Quality is the executive agency responsible for
        promulgating regulations that implement [the Act],” and courts give “substantial
        deference” to those regulations. Defs. of Wildlife v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 762 F.3d 374,
        393 n.12 (4th Cir. 2014).

                                                      9
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103       Doc: 49         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 10 of 21

        its impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the EIS.” 3

        23 C.F.R. § 771.130(a)(2). At bottom, a supplemental EIS is required if “new information”

        shows that the action will “affect the quality of the human environment in a significant

        manner or to a significant extent not already considered.” Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374 (cleaned

        up); see also Save Our Sound OBX, 914 F.3d at 221–22 (“To merit [a supplemental EIS],

        the changes must present a seriously different picture of the environmental impact of the

        proposed project.”).

               We determine whether an agency should have prepared a supplemental EIS in two

        steps. First, we must consider “whether the agency took a hard look at the proffered new

        information.” Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. Glickman, 81 F.3d 437, 443 (4th

        Cir. 1996). “If the agency concludes after a preliminary inquiry that the environmental

        effect of the change is clearly insignificant, its decision not to prepare [a supplemental EIS]

        satisfies the hard look requirement.” Save Our Sound OBX, 914 F.3d at 222.

               Second, if the agency did take a hard look, we determine whether its “decision not

        to prepare a supplemental EIS was arbitrary or capricious.” Hughes River, 81 F.3d at 443.

        We don’t defer to the district court. Id. But we do defer to the agency if its decision turned

        on a “factual dispute . . . which implicate[d] substantial agency expertise.” Marsh, 490

        U.S. at 376.

               3
                Plaintiffs urge us to disregard the Federal Highway Administration regulation as
        inconsistent with the Council regulation. But we agree with the D.C. Circuit that Plaintiffs
        “have overread the effect of the textual difference between the two regulations.” Friends
        of Cap. Crescent Trail v. Fed. Transit Admin., 877 F.3d 1051, 1060 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

                                                      10
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103      Doc: 49         Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 11 of 21

               Plaintiffs point to three areas where they claim significant new information had

        emerged since the EIS: (1) traffic forecasts, (2) growth and development patterns, and (3)

        sea-level projections. They also argue the agencies erred in not reconsidering the viability

        of alternatives given this new information. But for the reasons we’ll discuss, we disagree

        that any of these developments compelled the agency to publish a supplemental EIS.

                                                     1.

               First, Plaintiffs argue that the agencies’ previous predictions of heavy traffic were

        rendered obsolete by new forecasts, which “showed significantly lower expectations of

        future traffic.” Appellants’ Br. at 32–33. Plaintiffs note that the average daily traffic

        expected on the proposed bridge decreased 39% in the agencies’ reevaluation, dropping

        from 12,600 cars (in 2035) to 7,700 (in 2040). J.A. 2449. For a summer weekday, the

        projection decreased from 14,500 cars to 8,600. Id. At the same time, reduced highway

        traffic would “lower[] the travel time savings associated with” using the bridge. J.A. 2450.

               It’s clear from the reevaluation report that the agencies took a “hard look” at the

        traffic issue. As a threshold matter, the Act’s regulations require supplementation to an

        EIS only for new information “relevant to environmental concerns.” See 40 C.F.R.

        § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii) (1978). And the Federal Highway Administration’s regulations don’t

        require a supplemental EIS where new information solely results in a “lessening of adverse

        environmental impacts.” 23 C.F.R. § 771.130(b)(1). It’s thus unclear why reduced traffic

        over the bridge—which would seem to decrease the bridge’s environmental footprint—

        would require a supplemental EIS. See Friends of Cap. Crescent Trail v. Fed. Transit

        Admin., 877 F.3d 1051, 1060 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

                                                    11
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103       Doc: 49         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 12 of 21

               Plaintiffs argue that the changed traffic picture is relevant to environmental concerns

        because it affects the bridge’s attractiveness relative to alternatives. But we see no limiting

        principle to this standard.     Many changes may affect an agency’s choice among

        alternatives—but the Act only requires a supplemental EIS for those that paint a “seriously

        different picture of the environmental impact” of the project. Hughes River, 81 F.3d at 443

        (cleaned up).

               While a “preliminary inquiry” into the traffic issue likely would have satisfied the

        “hard look” requirement, see Save our Sound OBX, 914 F.3d at 222, the agencies did more.

        They prepared new traffic forecasts and network congestion measures, and conceded that

        travel-time benefits associated with the bridge might be lower than originally predicted.

        But even so, the updated analysis “found that the main thoroughfares are still congested . . .

        and forecast to become worse.” 4 J.A. 2461; see also J.A. 2467.

               Going further, the agencies also reevaluated the relative benefits of the bridge

        project, the no-build alternative, and the existing-roads alternative in relieving this

        congestion. While the bridge project “conclusively” triumphed in the original EIS, the

        reevaluation results were more mixed. J.A. 2476–77. So the agencies conducted several

        other analyses to study the traffic in more detail. These analyses revealed that the bridge

               4
                For example, the EIS found that on a future summer weekend, it would take more
        than 3 hours and 53 minutes to travel between Aydlett Road on the mainland and Albacore
        Street on the Outer Banks. The reevaluation found that the same trip would take about 3
        hours and 7 minutes—shorter, but still “far above the uncongested travel time of
        approximately 1 hour.” J.A. 2467–68.

                                                      12
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103      Doc: 49          Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 13 of 21

        project still offered the most benefits overall, especially on summer weekends, and that it

        would continue to fulfill its hurricane-evacuation purpose.

               The agencies reasonably concluded that the bridge would still meet its purposes as

        well as (or better than) the other alternatives even if traffic on it were moderately reduced.

        The new traffic forecasts “did not call into question the entirety” of the bridge, the choice

        of the bridge over alternatives, or the bridge’s environmental impact—“or at least [the

        agencies were] entitled to so conclude.” 5 See Friends of Cap. Crescent Trail, 877 F.3d at

        1062. So the agencies weren’t required to issue a supplemental EIS to address them.

                                                      2.

               Second, Plaintiffs argue that “[s]ignificant changes to anticipated growth and

        development patterns” demanded a supplemental EIS. Appellants’ Br. at 36. Plaintiffs

        claim that the agencies originally assumed “full build-out” of the Outer Banks areas

        accessible by N.C. 12 and used that development to justify the bridge project. Id. at 36–37

        (quoting J.A. 1325). But in the years after the EIS issued, population growth, tourism, and

        home construction slowed in the area.

               5
                 Plaintiffs argue that the traffic forecasts are significant because they portend a
        corresponding loss of toll revenue, making the bridge less financially feasible. But it’s
        hard to see how a changed funding plan is “relevant to environmental concerns.” 40 C.F.R.
        § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii) (1978) (emphasis added); cf. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Army
        Corps of Eng’rs, 941 F.3d 1288, 1304 (11th Cir. 2019) (finding that a change in ownership
        of a polluting source was “of no significance to the environmental impacts of the project”
        (emphasis added)). And in any case, the agencies did consider this issue in the
        reevaluation. See J.A. 2429–31; see also J.A. 2901–02 (responding to comments about
        project financing received during reevaluation process).
                                                     13
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103      Doc: 49         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 14 of 21

               As the agencies note, however, these trends were only relevant because they

        affected traffic. And as described above, the agencies adequately considered and found

        insignificant the changes in projected traffic. Standing alone, slowed development on the

        Outer Banks isn’t a reason to require a supplemental EIS.

                                                     3.

               Next, Plaintiffs argue that “[d]ramatic changes to projections of sea level rise” also

        required the preparation of a supplemental EIS. Appellants’ Br. at 38. Plaintiffs claim that

        the agencies ignored the most up-to-date data on sea-level rise, which (according to

        Plaintiffs) show that the bridge “may become inaccessible” under new projections. Id. at

        40. The agencies respond that they originally found that the bridge would be “a useful

        asset” if existing roads flooded, and that their reevaluation reaffirmed that conclusion.

        Appellees’ Br. at 28–29.

               In the reevaluation, the agencies considered a 2016 report prepared by the North

        Carolina Coastal Resources Commission Science Panel. The report found that by 2045,

        sea-level rise in Duck (a town within the bridge project area) could range from 4.4 to 10.6

        inches. J.A. 2553–54. The agencies explained that they had originally considered sea-

        level rise scenarios ranging from 2.4 to 23.2 inches by 2100, as well as a 39.4-inch scenario

        for the bridge project specifically. J.A. 2554; see also J.A. 1298–99. Because the new

        forecasts were within the range originally considered, the agencies concluded that the

        findings of the EIS related to sea-level rise were “unchanged.” J.A. 2554.

               Plaintiffs claim, however, that the agencies should have been aware of 2017 sea-

        level rise data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They say this

                                                     14
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103       Doc: 49         Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 15 of 21

        data shows that the bridge would see 28.3 inches of sea-level rise by 2050 and 81.1 inches

        by 2100, resulting in an inundated “bridge to nowhere” in less than 30 years. Appellants’

        Br. at 39. 6

                The sea-level rise issue is a “factual dispute the resolution of which implicates

        substantial agency expertise.” Marsh, 490 U.S. at 376. So we defer to the “informed

        discretion of the responsible federal agencies.” Id.; see also Ohio Valley Env’t Coal. v.

        Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 201 (4th Cir. 2009) (warning that consideration of extra-

        record evidence in National Environmental Policy Act cases doesn’t “give courts license

        to simply substitute the judgment of plaintiff’s experts for that of the agency’s experts”).

                We accept that scenarios the agencies had once considered worst-case are now more

        likely. But we disagree that this means the bridge “will impact the environment ‘to a

        significant extent not already considered.’” Protect Our Cmtys. Found. v. LaCounte, 939

        F.3d 1029, 1041 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374). At most, the new sea-

        level projections may make a bridge a less wise choice—but the Act “merely prohibits

        uninformed[,] rather than unwise[,] agency action.” Robertson, 490 U.S. at 351.

                On this record, we can’t conclude that the agencies were uninformed about the risks

        of sea-level rise. The agencies had always acknowledged that the bridge would “be at risk

        during a storm surge,” but concluded that rising sea levels would inundate the roads even

        sooner, making the bridge “the only way off the Currituck County Outer Banks.” J.A.

                It’s unclear how Plaintiffs derived these figures. The NOAA report they cite
                6

        doesn’t contain estimates specific to the Outer Banks. J.A. 3677. And the report’s
        accompanying datasets aren’t in the record.

                                                     15
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103       Doc: 49         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 16 of 21

        1298–99. The new sea-level data only “confirmed concerns that the [] EIS already

        articulated and considered.” Protect Our Cmtys. Found., 939 F.3d at 1041; see also J.A.

        2554. We hold that the agencies’ decision not to issue a supplemental EIS addressing the

        issue further wasn’t arbitrary or capricious.

                                                        4.

               Plaintiffs also argue that “[w]hen considered together,” the changes in traffic

        forecasts, expected growth, and sea-level rise projections obligated the agencies to

        reevaluate whether non-bridge alternatives could better meet the project’s purposes.

        Appellants’ Br. at 41–43. The agencies say that they did revisit their alternatives analysis

        and concluded that the bridge “remained an appropriate solution.” Appellees’ Br. at 34.

               On this point, Plaintiffs rely on Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism

        Association v. Morrison, 67 F.3d 723 (9th Cir. 1995). There, the U.S. Forest Service

        published several EISs to harvest Alaskan timber under its contract with a timber company,

        rejecting a no-action alternative because it didn’t meet the contract requirements. Id. at

        726. But after the Forest Service suddenly terminated the contract, the Ninth Circuit held

        that the agency had to publish a supplemental EIS. Id. at 731. The court explained that

        “elimination of the contract appears significantly to alter the range of viable alternatives

        available to the Forest Service,” since the agency didn’t initially consider alternatives

        “outside the contract boundary.” Id. at 730–31.

               Here, by contrast, Plaintiffs haven’t identified any alternatives that the agencies took

        off the table because of the original traffic, growth, and sea-level forecasts. In other words,

                                                        16
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103       Doc: 49         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 17 of 21

        Plaintiffs don’t argue that the new forecasts “alter the range of viable alternatives” to the

        bridge, but only that the bridge may be less useful or viable. Id. at 731.

               Moreover, the agencies did reexamine the bridge’s utility and feasibility as

        compared to alternatives, and found that the new information “reinforced their decision to

        proceed with the Bridge.” Appellees’ Br. at 35 (citing J.A. 2553–54, 2575). Unlike in

        Alaska Wilderness, the changes here didn’t “undercut the rationale upon which the agency

        action depended.” Friends of Cap. Crescent Trail, 877 F.3d at 1061. The agencies

        reasonably concluded that even if the benefits of the bridge were marginally diminished,

        the bridge still met its purposes “as well as or better than the other alternatives.” Id.

               In sum, the agencies took a hard look at the new information proffered, and their

        decision to not prepare a supplemental EIS wasn’t arbitrary or capricious.

                                                      B.

               Next, Plaintiffs argue that the EIS was “fatally flawed to begin with” because the

        agencies purportedly factored traffic and growth resulting from the bridge into their no-

        action baseline. Appellants’ Br. at 43. In other words, Plaintiffs claim, the agencies started

        by assuming full development of the Outer Banks—which would only happen if the bridge

        were constructed—and used that assumption to justify the bridge. The agencies reply that

        they reasonably chose to use local land-use plans as the starting point for their analyses,

        and made clear that maximum development would only occur if a bridge were built.

               As we explain, the agencies have the better argument.

                                                      17
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103      Doc: 49         Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 18 of 21

                                                    1.

              Courts “find [National Environmental Policy Act] violations when an agency

        miscalculates the ‘no build’ baseline or when the baseline assumes the existence of a

        proposed project.” N.C. Wildlife Fed’n v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 677 F.3d 596, 603 (4th

        Cir. 2012). Still, we may not “‘flyspeck’ an agency’s environmental analysis, looking for

        any deficiency, no matter how minor.” Nat’l Audubon Soc’y, 422 F.3d at 186.

              In preparing the EIS, the agencies relied on traffic forecasts based in part on local

        land-use plans that assumed a bridge would be built. 7 They called this the “unconstrained

        development” scenario and calculated that with a bridge, development would reach 86%

        of its potential by 2035—about 13,200 units (homes or hotel rooms) across the project area.

        J.A. 1325. But if the bridge were not built, the agencies explained in the EIS, development

        would be “constrained.” Under the no-build alternative, development would reach 70% of

        its projected potential, or around 10,800 units. Id. Under the existing roads alternative,

        development would reach 75%, or 11,600 units. J.A. 1326.

              It’s true that the agencies looked to the local land-use plans—reflecting the Outer

        Banks communities’ development expectations—as a starting point to calculate a baseline

        level of expected development. But the agencies then properly omitted the effects of the

        bridge in constructing the “no-build baseline.” Appellees’ Br. at 43. That is, they worked

              Indeed, their regulations directed the agencies to look at “[l]ocal land use, growth
              7

        management, or development plans.” 23 C.F.R. pt. 450, app. A.

                                                    18
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103      Doc: 49         Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 19 of 21

        backward from those plans to estimate the development that would occur without the

        bridge, making clear that there would be less development in that scenario.

               Plaintiffs fault the agencies for glossing over the environmental impact of the extra

        2,400 units that would be constructed under the bridge scenario. They claim that the EIS

        “made no attempt to evaluate the effect of the Toll Bridge’s additional development on the

        habitat, wildlife, and natural resources of the Outer Banks.” Appellants’ Br. at 52. But the

        EIS does adequately account for this added development.

               In the “Indirect Effects” section, the agencies “focused on the impact of changed

        development patterns on the area’s notable ecosystem and cultural/socioeconomic

        features.” J.A. 1332. The EIS noted, for example, that a bridge would likely lead to an

        increase in day visitors, which could lead to more beach driving. More beach driving may

        “increase[] the likelihood of collisions” with wild horses on the beaches, 8 but would have

        “no effect on threatened and endangered species.” J.A. 1334 (cleaned up). The agencies

        also found no “appreciable improvement” in water quality under the no-build and existing

        roads scenarios because new development would have to comply with water regulations.

        J.A. 1333.

               Plaintiffs object to the EIS’s framing of some of these conclusions as effects of

        “constrained development” under the no-build and existing-roads alternatives, rather than

        effects of “unconstrained development” under the bridge scenarios. But these are two sides

               8
                 Wild Colonial Spanish Mustangs, which roam freely on the northernmost
        Currituck Outer Banks, are a popular tourist attraction. See Corolla Wild Horse Fund,
        www.corollawildhorses.com (last visited Feb. 22, 2023).

                                                    19
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103      Doc: 49          Filed: 02/23/2023    Pg: 20 of 21

        of the same coin. The EIS specifically identified how development would proceed under

        each alternative and assessed the effect of that development—that’s what the Act requires.

        See, e.g., J.A. 1520–36 (detailing, by region, potential differences in development between

        bridge and non-bridge scenarios).

               Plaintiffs rely on North Carolina Wildlife Federation, but that case is

        distinguishable. There, the agencies conceded that their “no-build” baseline incorrectly

        presumed the construction of the proposed toll road, and that they provided the public with

        incorrect information about the no-build data. 677 F.3d at 602–03. But they maintained

        that their post hoc rationalizations cured any error. Id. at 604. We disagreed, finding that

        the agencies’ “after-the-fact disclosures” didn’t “assuage the harms incurred during the

        [National Environmental Policy Act] process.” Id. at 605.

               But here, by contrast, the agencies’ no-build baseline properly reflected the lower

        level of development that would result without the toll bridge. The agencies didn’t mislead

        the public about this fact—they repeatedly stated it.

                                                     2.

               Plaintiffs also argue that in evaluating traffic in the non-bridge scenarios, the

        agencies used forecasts that “assumed levels of people and cars that would only occur with

        the Toll Bridge.” Appellants’ Br. at 55–58. But the traffic forecast report suggests

        otherwise.

               The agencies examined both a no-build scenario, assuming “that no Mid-Currituck

        Bridge is constructed,” and two bridge scenarios. J.A. 194, 197. And their scenarios “did

        not consider potential effects of induced trip demand or increased day-trippers because of

                                                    20
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1103      Doc: 49         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 21 of 21

        enhanced access associated with a new bridge.” J.A. 180. So contrary to Plaintiffs’

        assertion, the agencies did consider a traffic projection that would occur without a bridge.

               Plaintiffs make much of the reevaluation’s statement that the traffic forecasts

        “assume full build-out of the NC 12-accessible Outer Banks.” Appellant’s Br. at 56 (citing

        J.A. 2725–26). But as the district court noted, this assumption was appropriate because

        that development “is not contingent on the building of the project and will proceed, under

        those plans, absent building of a Mid-Currituck Bridge.” N.C. Wildlife Fed’n, 575 F. Supp.

        3d at 606.

               Indeed, in some towns, the planned development was already 90% complete; in

        Currituck County, the land was already fully subdivided or planned. J.A. 2447. We thus

        agree that following those areas’ land-use plans did not result in a “material

        misapprehension of the baseline conditions.” Friends of Back Bay v. U.S. Army Corps of

        Eng’rs, 681 F.3d 581, 588 (4th Cir. 2012)).

               In sum, the agencies’ consideration of the no-build alternative did not violate the

        Act.

                                                      III.

               For the reasons given, the district court’s judgment is

                                                                                       AFFIRMED.

                                                      21