Alaska Survival v. Surface Transportation Board
705 F.3d 1073
9th Cir.2013Background
- ARRC sought a §10502 exemption to construct ~35 miles of rail to Port MacKenzie, Alaska; STB granted exemption from full §10901 procedures and approved environmental mitigation; petitioners challenge STB’s exemption authority and NEPA compliance; record includes FEIS with 100 mitigation measures and identified environmentally preferable alternative; STB relied on EIS to find exemption consistent with rail policy and not abusive of market power; petitioners sought review, court granted stay and now denies petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether STB properly granted the §10502 exemption. | Petitioners argue STB failed §10502 and §10901 analysis. | STB acted within authority, applying §10502(a)(2) and examining relevant policy factors. | Exemption granted within statutory authority; substantial evidence supports finding. |
| Whether NEPA was satisfied for the exemption decision. | NEPA requirements unmet; inadequate purpose/need, limited alternatives, insufficient wetlands mitigation. | STB conducted thorough NEPA review, comprehensive FEIS, and adequate mitigation discussion. | NEPA satisfied; no violation found. |
| Whether Petitioners properly exhausted issues before the STB. | Exhaustion not required; Sims v. Apfel directs limited issue exhaustion in informal agency proceedings. | Exemption proceedings informal; exhaustion not required by statute/regulation. | Issue exhaustion not required; petition timely raised challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (2000) (plaintiff could raise issues not presented to agency under certain conditions)
- NPCA v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 606 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010) (broad exhaustion policy in NEPA context)
- OPUC (Oregon Public Utilities Comm’n v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n), 979 F.2d 771 (9th Cir. 1992) (exemption standards and notice in exemption proceedings)
- Carmel-By-The-Sea v. City of Monterey, 123 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 1997) (NEPA mitigation discussions must be reasonably thorough)
- Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 376 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (reasonableness of purpose/need and alternatives in NEPA)
- S. Ill. Commerce Comm’n v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 787 F.2d 616 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (ICC/BC exemption context and scope of analysis)