Honolulutraffic.Com v. Federal Transit Administration
742 F.3d 1222
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Honolulu pursued a 20-mile elevated high-capacity rail (Fixed Guideway, steel-on-steel) from Kapolei to University of Hawai‘i–Manoa to address severe east–west congestion; federal New Starts funding required an Alternatives Analysis (AA) and EIS.
- City prepared an AA (with public comment and FTA involvement), selected Fixed Guideway as the locally preferred alternative, and the FTA issued a Final EIS and Record of Decision approving the Project in 2011.
- Plaintiffs (local groups and individuals) challenged the Project under NEPA, Section 4(f) of the DOT Act, and NHPA § 106, arguing the purpose/need was unduly narrow, alternatives (notably a three-lane Managed Lanes Alternative and light rail) were improperly excluded, and historic/Native Hawaiian burial sites were inadequately identified.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on NEPA and NHPA claims and most Section 4(f) claims, but granted Plaintiffs summary judgment on three Section 4(f) claims affecting Phase 4 and enjoined Phase 4 construction pending remand; Plaintiffs appealed the dismissals (not the injunction).
- The Ninth Circuit considered appellate jurisdiction (finality and § 1292(a)(1)) and then reviewed the merits of the NEPA and Section 4(f) claims now on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether purpose and need were unreasonably narrow under NEPA | Purpose/need was tailored to favor Fixed Guideway, foreclosing reasonable alternatives | Purpose/need reflected prior metropolitan planning and federal objectives; reasonably framed | Held: Purpose/need reasonable in statutory context; not impermissibly narrow |
| Whether the EIS improperly excluded alternatives (MLA, light rail) | AA-screened alternatives (incl. MLA and light rail) should have been reconsidered in the FEIS | The AA process (with FTA input and public review) properly screened alternatives; cost/capacity studies support exclusion | Held: Agency satisfied NEPA’s rule-of-reason for alternatives; exclusion not arbitrary |
| Whether the FTA’s Section 4(f) rejection of MLA/bus rapid transit as avoidance alternatives was arbitrary | MLA and BRT would avoid historic-site use and were feasible/prudent alternatives | MLA/BRT would not meet Project purpose, capacity, reliability; cost/funding concerns; agency may rely on its experts | Held: FTA reasonably found MLA/BRT imprudent; decision not arbitrary or capricious |
| Whether the agency violated Section 4(f)/§106 by not completing identification of Native Hawaiian burials before ROD | Agency improperly phased identification; needed AIS across corridor prior to approval | Full AIS premature given undetermined final column locations; programmatic agreement, technical reports, and commitment to AIS in design phase were reasonable good-faith efforts | Held: Agency made reasonable, good-faith identification efforts under §106 and adequate Section 4(f) procedures; no violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Alsea Valley Alliance v. Dep’t of Commerce, 358 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2004) (remand ordinarily confers appellate jurisdiction for government appeals)
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1989) (agencies may rely on their experts in NEPA review)
- Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. v. Dep’t of Transp., 42 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994) (agencies may rely on prior state studies in NEPA process)
- Sierra Forest Legacy v. Sherman, 646 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2011) (final judgment rule judged by practical effect)
- League of Wilderness Defenders v. U.S. Forest Serv., 689 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2012) (statutory context considered when evaluating purpose and need)
- Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 606 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency may not define objectives so narrowly that only one alternative fits)
- Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne, 520 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2008) (range of alternatives dictated by nature and scope of action)
- Adler v. Lewis, 675 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1982) (Section 4(f) “use” includes significant adverse effects)
- N. Idaho Cmty. Action Network v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 545 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008) (phased analysis can violate Section 4(f) if key phases unanalyzed at approval)
- City of Alexandria v. Slater, 198 F.3d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (Section 4(f) evaluation depends on completion of §106 identification process)