218 F. Supp. 3d 53
D.D.C.2016Background
- In March 2014 the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a Record of Decision (ROD) approving the Purple Line light-rail project in Maryland; plaintiffs (Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail et al.) challenged the ROD under the APA, NEPA, ESA and related statutes.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment arguing the FTA failed to consider new information about WMATA’s declining ridership and safety problems and thus improperly declined to prepare a supplemental EIS (SEIS).
- On August 3, 2016 the court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs, finding the FTA ‘‘wholly failed’’ to evaluate WMATA-related safety/ridership information and vacated the Purple Line ROD, ordering an SEIS be prepared.
- Defendants (federal agencies and State of Maryland) moved under Rule 59(e) seeking (1) remand to the FTA to assess significance of WMATA issues and (2) reinstatement of the ROD during remand.
- The court reaffirms that the FTA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to evaluate the significance of WMATA’s issues given the FEIS’s express reliance on WMATA connections and combined ridership projections.
- The court amended its remedy: it remands the ROD to the FTA for an initial, agency-level significance determination (and possible EA/SEIS), but declines to reinstate the ROD and keeps vacatur in place pending the agency’s evaluation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FTA violated the APA/NEPA by failing to consider new WMATA safety and ridership information | FTA ignored relevant new information that could alter environmental effects and require an SEIS | WMATA issues are unrelated to Purple Line environmental impacts because Purple Line and WMATA are separately owned/operated | Held for plaintiff: FTA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to evaluate the significance of WMATA information given the FEIS’s reliance on WMATA connectivity |
| Whether the court should order an SEIS or remand to agency to decide first | Plaintiffs seek immediate SEIS preparation as the remedy | Defendants request remand for agency to assess significance and, if no SEIS needed, to reinstate ROD during remand | Court remands to FTA to make the initial threshold significance determination; agency to decide whether EA/SEIS required |
| Whether the ROD should be reinstated during remand | Plaintiffs opposed reinstatement given NEPA violation | Defendants urged reinstatement to avoid project disruption | Held for plaintiffs: court declines to reinstate ROD and leaves vacatur in place to prevent proceeding without required NEPA analysis |
| Proper remedy balance (vacatur vs. remand without vacatur) | Vacatur appropriate to ensure full NEPA review | Remand without vacatur urged due to project complexity and disruption from vacatur | Court applies Allied-Signal factors and keeps vacatur because the deficiency is serious and allowing project to proceed risks irretrievable consequences |
Key Cases Cited
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (agency must evaluate significance of new information when deciding whether to prepare a supplemental EIS)
- Transactive Corp. v. United States, 91 F.3d 232 (agency action arbitrary when it treats similar situations differently without adequate reasons)
- Friends of the River v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 720 F.2d 93 (initial decision whether to prepare a supplemental EIS generally belongs to the agency)
- People Against Nuclear Energy v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 678 F.2d 222 (court should remand to agency to make threshold determination whether new information requires a supplemental EIS)
- Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 988 F.2d 146 (vacatur vs. remand without vacatur: consider seriousness of deficiencies and disruptive consequences)
- Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (courts should defer to agencies’ technical expertise on environmental significance determinations)
- Nat’l Comm. for the New River v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 373 F.3d 1323 (supplemental EIS required if new information presents a "seriously different picture")
- Am. Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson, 269 F.3d 1077 (prevailing on APA claim ordinarily entitles party to vacatur)
- Metro. Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766 (Supreme Court addressing substantive scope of NEPA; discussed as subsequent reversal on a point)