Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail v. Federal Transit Administration, 253 F. Supp. 3d 296

Background

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a Record of Decision (ROD) approving the Purple Line light-rail project in Maryland on March 19, 2014; plaintiffs challenged the ROD under NEPA and related statutes.
In August 2016 the court held FTA's conclusion that WMATA Metrorail’s ridership and safety issues would have no effect on the Purple Line was arbitrary and vacated the ROD, ordering an SEIS; on November 22, 2016 the court amended that relief to give FTA an opportunity on remand to reassess whether an SEIS was required.
On remand FTA relied largely on a November 3, 2016 Maryland Transit Authority (MTA) technical assessment analyzing five WMATA ridership scenarios and concluded no SEIS was required because environmental impacts and project purposes would remain unchanged under those scenarios.
Plaintiffs submitted expert declarations contesting FTA/MTA assumptions about WMATA ridership and safety; FTA’s final memorandum stated it considered plaintiffs’ submissions but did not analyze or rebut those expert materials in the administrative record.
The court found FTA failed to take the required “hard look” under NEPA because it did not meaningfully evaluate plaintiffs’ submissions or assess which ridership scenario was most plausible, and therefore FTA’s decision not to prepare an SEIS was arbitrary and capricious.
Remedy: The court granted in part plaintiffs’ summary judgment and ordered defendants to prepare an SEIS addressing WMATA ridership and safety issues expeditiously.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FTA was required to prepare a supplemental EIS (SEIS) to address WMATA Metrorail ridership and safety issues	Plaintiffs argued the recent WMATA ridership decline and safety problems are "new information" that could materially change environmental impacts and project purpose, so an SEIS is required	FTA (and Maryland/MTA) argued remand review and MTA's technical assessment show no scenario would change the project footprint, impacts, or ability to meet purposes, so no SEIS is needed	Court held FTA's no-SEIS decision was arbitrary and capricious; ordered preparation of an SEIS because the agency failed to take a hard look at the new information
Whether FTA adequately considered plaintiffs’ expert submissions and the administrative record on remand	Plaintiffs contended their expert declarations raised serious questions about FTA/MTA assumptions and required reasoned consideration	Defendants contended they considered the submissions and were entitled to rely on their experts and MTA's analysis	Court held FTA did not meaningfully address or analyze plaintiffs' expert declarations; mere recitation of consideration was insufficient and rendered the decision arbitrary and capricious
Whether reliance on multiple MTA ridership scenarios without selecting or evaluating their relative likelihood satisfied NEPA’s “hard look”	Plaintiffs said MTA/FTA's presentation of five divergent scenarios without assessing plausibility failed to inform decisionmakers about likely environmental consequences	Defendants said analyzing a range of scenarios demonstrated that impacts and purposes were robust to ridership variation, so further NEPA supplementation was unnecessary	Court held failing to assess which scenario was likely — and concluding no SEIS was needed under all outcomes — was unreasonable and failed to take the requisite hard look

Key Cases Cited

Rempfer v. Sharfstein, 583 F.3d 860 (D.C. Cir.) (review of agency action under APA is based on agency record and limited to arbitrary-and-capricious standard)
Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard: agency must consider important aspects of the problem)
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) (NEPA requires agencies to carefully consider significant environmental impacts)
Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) (agencies must prepare SEIS when new information presents a seriously different picture of environmental impacts)
Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976) (court should not substitute its judgment for agency’s on substantive policy matters; role is to ensure agency took a hard look)
Nat'l Comm. for the New River v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1323 (D.C. Cir.) (new information must provide a seriously different picture to trigger an SEIS)
City of Olmsted Falls v. FAA, 292 F.3d 261 (D.C. Cir.) (courts review agency decision to forgo an SEIS under arbitrary-and-capricious standard)
Gerber v. Norton, 294 F.3d 173 (D.C. Cir.) (stating that an agency considered a factor is not a substitute for reasoned analysis)
Getty v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp., 805 F.2d 1050 (D.C. Cir.) (conclusory recitation that a factor was considered is insufficient)
Public Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v. Hopper, 827 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir.) (agency’s failure to consider plaintiffs’ submissions on remand can be arbitrary and capricious)