Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail v. Federal Transit Administration
200 F. Supp. 3d 248
D.D.C.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail and two individuals) challenged federal approvals for the Purple Line light-rail project under NEPA and other statutes; Maryland intervened on defendants' side.
- The FTA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on March 19, 2014 approving the Purple Line; the project depends in part on future federal funding (~$1 billion).
- Plaintiffs requested a supplemental EIS (SEIS) after WMATA experienced widely publicized safety incidents and multi‑year ridership declines, arguing those developments undermine the Purple Line ridership forecasts.
- MTA responded that WMATA problems were unrelated because WMATA does not sponsor or operate the Purple Line; FTA adopted that view and declined to prepare an SEIS.
- The district court found the agencies’ conclusion arbitrary and capricious because the administrative record showed a substantial overlap between projected Purple Line ridership and WMATA usage, and the agencies failed to evaluate the significance of WMATA’s safety and ridership problems.
- Remedy: the court vacated the ROD and remanded for an SEIS to assess the impacts of WMATA’s safety and ridership developments on the Purple Line.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agencies must prepare an SEIS due to WMATA safety incidents and ridership decline | Recent WMATA safety failures and falling ridership materially undermine Purple Line ridership forecasts and present "new and significant" information requiring an SEIS | WMATA is a separate entity; Purple Line will be owned/operated by MTA, so WMATA problems do not affect Purple Line NEPA findings | Held for plaintiffs: agency decision not to prepare an SEIS was arbitrary and capricious; SEIS required |
| Whether the agency took a "hard look" at new information when declining to supplement the EIS | Agency failed to evaluate significance of WMATA-related developments and relied on bare assertion of non‑relationship | Agency maintained that WMATA issues were irrelevant because WMATA is not project sponsor | Court found the agency failed to consider relevant factors and explanations were inadequate |
| Appropriate remedy for NEPA violation | Vacatur of ROD and remand for SEIS is necessary because nearly $1B in federal funds should not be committed without evaluating changed circumstances | Proceeding while SEIS prepared would avoid delay and disruption | Court vacated the ROD and remanded for an SEIS, prioritizing a complete environmental re‑examination |
| Standard of review for SEIS decision | Agency must supplement only when new information paints a "seriously different picture" of impacts | Agency discretion is substantial; not every new fact requires supplementation | Court applied arbitrary-and-capricious review and found the new information met the threshold for supplementation |
Key Cases Cited
- Rempfer v. Sharfstein, 583 F.3d 860 (D.C. Cir.) (review of agency action limited to administrative record)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (U.S.) (NEPA requires careful consideration of environmental impacts)
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (U.S.) (SEIS required only when new information produces a "seriously different picture")
- Nat'l Comm. for the New River v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1323 (D.C. Cir.) (new information that changes environmental picture warrants supplementation)
- Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S.) (arbitrary and capricious standard requires rational connection between facts and decision)
- Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (U.S.) (agencies must articulate satisfactory explanation for action)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (U.S.) (courts must ensure agency considered relevant factors)
- Sabine River Authority v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 951 F.2d 669 (5th Cir.) (courts may look beyond the administrative record to assess environmental considerations)
- Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96 (D.D.C.) (agency must consider relevant data and explain action)
- Humane Society of the U.S. v. Johanns, 520 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C.) (vacatur is standard remedy for NEPA violations)
- Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir.) (vacatur depends on seriousness of deficiencies and disruptive consequences)