Citizens for Smart Growth v. Secretary of the Department of Transportation
669 F.3d 1203
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- This appeal concerns FHWA and FDOT decisions in the Indian Street Bridge Project in Martin County, Florida, and Citizens’ APA suit alleging NEPA and Section 4(f) violations seeking an injunction.
- FDOT’s 1998 Feasibility Study analyzed corridor options and three alternatives within the existing four-lane bridge, noting environmental and 4(f) implications and recommending consideration of additional options.
- The 2001 New Bridge Crossing Corridor Report evaluated seven corridors and a tunnel, with Corridor Three (Indian Street Crossing) ranking highest; local planning endorsement supported Indian Street Corridor.
- FHWA issued a Draft EIS, Citizens proposed an alternative, and the FEIS, Final EIS, and ROD followed, with ROD approving the project in 2006.
- Citizens filed suit in 2007; the district court granted summary judgment for FHWA/FDOT and denied an injunction; construction proceeded after recovery Act funding in 2010.
- The Eleventh Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to entertain injunctive relief against the Secretary, and affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of FHWA/FDOT.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NEPA: incorporation of local planning documents satisfied | Citizens: FHWA improperly relied on FDOT documents. | Smith/FDOT/ FHWA: incorporation by reference permissible; FEIS referenced supporting docs. | Incorporation by reference satisfied NEPA procedures. |
| Purpose and Need not unduly narrow | Citizens: FHWA narrowed scope to a Southern crossing to foreclose alternatives. | FHWA reasonably limited scope to address central/northern county needs. | Purpose and Need not unduly narrow; allowed a reasoned choice. |
| Review of alternatives and direct/cumulative impacts adequate | Citizens: FEIS too few alternatives; insufficient hard look at direct impacts and cumulative effects. | FEIS used a rule-of-reason and analyzed direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts adequately. | FEIS sufficiently analyzed alternatives and impacts under NEPA. |
| SEIS due to phasing not raised in complaint | Citizens: SEIS required for phasing impacts. | Issue not pleaded in amended complaint; not considered on appeal. | Claim not reviewed; SEIS issue waived. |
| Section 4(f) analysis proper and thorough | Citizens: 4(f) analysis cursory; no feasible or prudent alternatives. | FHWA: 4(f) analysis thorough; alternatives imprudent or not feasible. | Secretary’s 4(f) determinations upheld; analysis adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Druid Hills Civic Ass’n v. Fed. Hwy. Admin., 772 F.2d 700 (11th Cir. 1985) (NEPA review and hard-look standard; feasibility and alternatives)
- Northern Buckhead Civic Ass’n v. Skinner, 903 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1990) (rule-of-reason in evaluating alternatives)
- City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 1997) (ongoing studies acceptable; compliance with environmental review)
- Stop H-3 Ass’n v. Coleman, 533 F.2d 434 (9th Cir. 1976) (government must show Section 4(f) mindful of directives; not applicable here)
- City of Oxford v. FAA, 428 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2005) (cannot analyze environmental impact of speculative projects)