Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail v. Federal Transit Administration
877 F.3d 1051
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Maryland planned the 16-mile Purple Line light rail; FTA and Maryland prepared a DEIS (2008) and FEIS (2013) and FTA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in March 2014 approving the project under NEPA/New Starts procedures.
- Plaintiffs (Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail) challenged the FEIS/ROD alleging NEPA violations, later submitting post-FEIS evidence about WMATA (Metrorail) safety incidents and ridership decline that they argued undermined Purple Line ridership forecasts.
- FTA and Maryland responded that the Metrorail problems did not create new environmental impacts or change the relative environmental comparison of alternatives, and declined to prepare a supplemental EIS (SEIS); plaintiffs sued under the APA.
- The district court ordered a SEIS and vacated the ROD, finding Metrorail problems directly undermined Purple Line ridership rationale; FTA/Maryland appealed.
- The D.C. Circuit reviewed de novo whether FTA’s refusal to prepare a SEIS was arbitrary and capricious under Marsh’s deferential but searching standard and whether other FEIS challenges (alternatives analysis, indirect effects, elimination of green track) lacked merit.
- The D.C. Circuit reversed the SEIS/ROD vacatur and affirmed dismissal of the remaining FEIS challenges, holding FTA reasonably concluded no significant new information requiring a SEIS and that the FEIS complied with NEPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FTA must prepare an SEIS based on WMATA safety/ridership problems | WMATA incidents and ridership decline undermine FEIS ridership forecasts and the project rationale, so new information requires a SEIS | WMATA issues do not create new or significant environmental impacts or change the relative environmental comparison of alternatives; FTA’s scenario analysis shows light rail still best meets Purpose & Need | Reversed — FTA reasonably concluded no SEIS required; its scenario analysis and technical judgments entitled to deference |
| Whether CEQ or FTA SEIS regulation governs and alters the SEIS threshold | CEQ reg is broader and would require SEIS where new info bears on proposed action or impacts | Even under CEQ standard, NEPA/Marsh requires a SEIS only when new info gives a "seriously different picture"; FTA’s approach satisfied that rule of reason | Held for defendants — textual difference does not change outcome; Marsh’s ‘‘seriously different picture’’ governs and FTA met it |
| Adequacy of alternatives analysis in the FEIS (comparing only light rail and no-build) | FEIS’s narrow comparison prevented meaningful analysis of reasonable alternatives | DEIS analyzed multiple alternatives; FEIS incorporated that analysis and reasonably narrowed to preferred alternative and no-build given Maryland’s locally preferred choice | Affirmed — FEIS met NEPA’s rule of reason and properly incorporated prior alternatives analysis |
| Adequacy of indirect effects analysis and change in mitigation (green track) | FEIS failed to reasonably forecast induced development impacts, water quality, socioeconomics; dropping green track is a material change requiring SEIS | FEIS reasonably assessed reasonably foreseeable indirect effects using local plans and acknowledged limits; elimination of green track does not materially change environmental footprint given regulatory controls | Affirmed — indirect effects analysis and decision to abandon green track did not require SEIS; no serious different picture of impacts |
Key Cases Cited
- Marsh v. Or. Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) (establishes deferential, searching review and when SEIS is required — "rule of reason")
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) (NEPA requires agencies to take a hard look at environmental consequences)
- Metro. Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766 (1983) (EIS required for major federal actions significantly affecting environment)
- Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (1983) (agency must consider every significant aspect of environmental impact)
- City of Olmsted Falls v. FAA, 292 F.3d 261 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (SEIS required when new information presents seriously different picture)
- Nat'l Comm. for the New River v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1323 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (SEIS standard: "seriously different picture of the environmental landscape")
- Public Emps. for Envtl. Resp. v. Hopper, 827 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (agencies must consider and not ignore new data when deciding whether to prepare SEIS)
- Sierra Club v. FERC, 867 F.3d 1357 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (limits on indirect-effects analysis and quantification when data make precise estimation feasible)