764 F. Supp. 2d 1092
D. Minn.2011Background
- Plaintiffs NAACP, community groups, and residents allege NEPA and APA violations against US DOT, FTA, and Metropolitan Council for a deficient FEIS on the Central Corridor LRT project.
- The project spans roughly 11 miles with 18 stations, primarily along University Avenue in Minneapolis–St. Paul, including Midway East in St. Paul, an area with high minority and low-income populations.
- FEIS analyzed No-Build, Baseline, and the LRT Preferred Alternative, and described mitigation measures and accommodations to address environmental justice concerns.
- FEIS concluded there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority/low-income groups and highlighted substantial benefits to environmental justice populations.
- ROD issued August 2009 affirmed the purpose, need, and mitigation commitments; later, an Infill Stations EA (2010) addressed three potential above-ground infill stations.
- Court, while granting in part and denying in part, held FEIS deficient only insofar as it failed to analyze lost business revenues and required supplementation; injunction against construction was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NEPA cumulative impacts adequacy | Plaintiffs contend FEIS inadequately analyzed cumulative effects of past actions (I-94/urban renewal) on the community. | Defendants argue FEIS sufficiently analyzed current aggregate effects and past impacts; CEQ guidance supports focusing on current aggregate effects. | FEIS adequate on cumulative impacts. |
| Business interruption mitigation | FEIS failed to analyze/mitigate potential loss of business revenues during construction. | FEIS identified business impacts and mitigation; revenue loss analysis is not required or is speculative. | FEIS deficient for not addressing lost business revenues; must supplement. |
| Displacement/gentrification analysis | FEIS did not sufficiently analyze displacement risks or mitigation for residents/businesses due to gentrification. | FEIS discussed CCDS, inclusive housing, and mitigation; gentrification risks were acknowledged and mitigated plans identified. | FEIS adequate regarding displacement/gentrification analysis and mitigation. |
| Scope of analysis | FEIS purportedly lacks scope by not analyzing all future infill stations comprehensively within the FEIS. | Infill stations were analyzed via EA; not necessary to supplement FEIS where impacts do not differ significantly. | No supplemental EIS required; EA suffices for infill stations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard; genuine issues of material fact)
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (Supreme Court 1989) (NEPA requires a 'hard look' at environmental consequences)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court 1983) (arbitrary and capricious review for agency actions)
- Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (Supreme Court 1976) (NEPA procedural requirements; hard look review)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (Supreme Court 1989) (NEPA limits; agency must consider environmental consequences)
- Nebraska Land Action Association v. United States Forest Service, 8 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 1993) (standing and NEPA analysis considerations; environmental interests)
- Town of Stratford v. Federal Aviation Admin., 285 F.3d 84 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (standing and NEPA considerations in agency decisions)
- Taubman Realty Group Ltd. P'shp. v. Four Seasons Greetings, LLC, 320 F.3d 475 (4th Cir. 2003) (standing and NEPA-related considerations)