Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail v. Federal Transit Administration, 255 F. Supp. 3d 60

Background

FTA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in March 2014 approving the 16.2-mile Purple Line light-rail project in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, MD; plaintiffs (Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail and individuals) challenged the ROD and related approvals under the APA, NEPA, the Federal Transit Act, Section 4(f), the ESA, and the MBTA.
The court previously found NEPA deficiencies limited to FTA's failure to consider WMATA Metrorail safety and ridership declines and ordered a supplemental EIS (SEIS) on those discrete issues; other claims proceeded to summary judgment briefing.
Administrative record: lengthy NEPA process (AA/DEIS in 2008, FEIS 2013, ROD 2014) evaluating multiple alternatives, public comments, and subsequent project refinements (including Governor Hogan’s 2015 cost‑saving changes).
Plaintiffs sought SEISs based on (a) Hogan changes (e.g., elimination of "Green Track," reduced initial service), (b) various technical submissions (ridership, stormwater, noise, wetlands, cost), and (c) concerns about impacts to parks, endangered amphipods, and migratory birds.
The court: denied SEIS requests except as to the WMATA ridership/safety information (already ordered); granted summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs’ remaining NEPA theories and on claims under the Federal Transit Act (not ripe), Section 4(f), the ESA, and the MBTA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of AA/DEIS & FEIS (alternatives, detail)	Agencies failed to respond to comments and analyze certain impacts (e.g., stormwater, ridership data) in sufficient detail	Agencies took the requisite "hard look," considered alternatives reasonably, and made materials reasonably available	FEIS/AA adequate; summary judgment for defendants
Need for SEIS (non-WMATA new information)	Hogan changes and plaintiffs’ technical submissions present significant new circumstances requiring SEIS	New info was not sufficiently different or significant to change environmental picture; agencies reasonably reviewed and declined SEIS	No SEIS required for these topics (except WMATA ridership/safety)
Federal Transit Act §5309 findings	FTA must make §5309 New Starts findings concurrently in the ROD	§5309 findings follow completion of NEPA and occur in a later FFGA; no FFGA executed yet	Claim unripe; defendants entitled to judgment
Section 4(f) impacts on parks and trails	FTA failed to apply "no feasible and prudent alternative" to Elm Street Park, Georgetown Branch interim trail, and NPS land	Temporary occupancy, interim trail reservation, and de minimis use doctrines apply; mitigation and agreements in record	FTA acted reasonably; summary judgment for defendants
ESA (amphipods)	FWS/FTA should have done formal consultation/biological assessment or reinitiated consultation based on stormwater/Green Track changes; FWS failed to monitor Kenk's amphipod	Informal consultation concluded "no effect" because species not known in impact area; agencies considered new info and FWS is monitoring Kenk's amphipod	No ESA violation; summary judgment for defendants
MBTA (take prohibition)	FTA must ensure project proponent has MBTA take permits because project will kill migratory birds	FTA’s role is funding/approval, not direct agency action that itself takes birds; too attenuated for MBTA claim	MBTA claim fails as agency action is too attenuated; summary judgment for defendants

Key Cases Cited

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency action)
Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (when agencies must prepare supplemental EIS)
Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (deference to agency expertise re: whether new information triggers SEIS)
Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190 ("rule of reason" review of alternatives in EIS)
Rempfer v. Sharfstein, 583 F.3d 860 (APA review of agency action on the administrative record)