- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- North Carolina
- /
- Cape Fear River Watch v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Cape Fear River Watch v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Geography
Year
2021
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2021
Status
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment granted.
Geography
Docket number
7:21-cv-138
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → E.D.N.C.
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims → NEPA
Principal law
United States → Administrative Procedure Act (APA)United States → National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
At issue
Lawsuit challenging the elimination of seasonal restrictions on "hopper dredging."
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
09/26/2022
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment granted.
A federal district court in North Carolina found that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it eliminated seasonal restrictions on “hopper dredging” in harbors at Wilmington and Morehead City. The court found that the Corps’ evaluation of certain National Environmental Policy Act factors was inadequate, including consideration of the extent to which the action would adversely affect endangered or threatened sea turtles and sturgeon and consideration of the degree to which impacts on the environment were highly uncertain. The court did not directly address the complaint’s allegations that the Corps failed to address climate change impacts such as “the compounding impacts climate change will have on species, water quality, water temperatures, or the affected project area.” The court vacated the Corps’ decision and remanded for further consideration.
Decision
08/04/2021
Complaint filed.
A lawsuit filed in the federal district court for the Eastern District of North Carolina alleged that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers acted in violation of NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act when it ended seasonal restrictions on hopper dredging at Wilmington and Morehead City Harbors in North Carolina. The complaint alleged that hopper dredges were “massive vessels that operate like a vacuum cleaner” by sucking up bottom sediment and discharging it into a “hopper” within the vessel until disposal, and that such dredging “poses a unique and often fatal risk to aquatic wildlife.” The complaint alleges that the Corps failed to adequately address or disclose impacts of eliminating the restrictions, including climate change impacts such as “the compounding impacts climate change will have on species, water quality, water temperatures, or the affected project area.”
Complaint
Summary
Lawsuit challenging the elimination of seasonal restrictions on "hopper dredging."
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Fossil fuel
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience