Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail v. Federal Transit AdministrationFriends of the Capital Crescent Trail v. Federal Transit Administration
[Dkts. ##47, 54, 56]
RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge
Plaintiffs Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail (“FCCT”), John MacKnight Fitzgerald, and Christine Real de Azua (“plaintiffs”) challenge the March 19, 2014 Record of Decision (“ROD”) by the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”) and related approvals by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS,” and together with FTA and the Department of Transportation and the Department of Interior, “federal defendants”) for the Purple Line Project, a 16.2-mile light rail transit project in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, Maryland. Plaintiffs raise multiple claims under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”),
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under
ANALYSIS
I. Statutory Background
NEPA requires that federal agencies consider the environmental effects of proposed actions by requiring them to “carefully consider[] detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989). Under NEPA, a federal agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) whenever a proposed government action qualifies as a “major Federal action[ ] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”
Even after preparation of an EIS, an agency is obligated to undertake a supplemental EIS (“SEIS”) when presented with “substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns” or “new and significant circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.”
The scope of review under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard “is narrow,” and “a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). Nevertheless, the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962). An agency’s action is arbitrary and capricious if it “has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 43.
II. WMATA’s Ridership and Safety Concerns Merits an SEIS
Plaintiffs bring various claims against defendants challenging agency actions involving the Purple Line, but today I will only address plaintiffs’ NEPA claim challenging defendants’ failure to prepare an SEIS based on recent events that raise substantial concerns about WMATA’s safety and in turn its possible decline in future ridership. I find that defendants’ failure to adequately consider WMATA’s ridership and safety issues was arbitrary and capricious, and that these conditions create the “seriously different picture” that warrant an SEIS.
Plaintiffs submitted a letter on October 9, 2015, requesting that the agencies prepare an SEIS based on WMATA’s recent safety concerns and declines in ridership in the Metrorail system, which, as a consequence, called the ridership forecasts for the Purple Line into question. AR5_006470-71. Plaintiffs pointed to a “series of incidents that have raised questions about passenger safety,” explained that the National Transportation Safety Board had found that the “FTA and WMATA’s Tri-State Oversight Commission are incapable of restoring and ensuring the safety of WMATA’s subway system,” and emphasized how these developments directly undermined the rationale for the Purple Line, providing that:
[R]idership on the WMATA subway has declined every year since 2009. That is the year after the [draft Environmental Impact Statement] last reviewed ridership projections for the Purple Line and alternatives to it.... The news of [declining Metrorail ridership] ... casts a[n] additional shadow over the rosy projections of ever-increasing ridership for the Purple Line, which is inextricably linked to and dependent upon the use of several subway stops from beginning to end.
Id. (footnotes omitted). Amazingly, the response from the Maryland Transit Authority (“MTA”) consisted solely of the following:
As described in the [final Environmental Impact Statement], the Purple Line is not part of the WMATA’s Metrorail system. The Purple Line would be owned by MTA and operated by MTA’s contractor. Therefore, the financial or other issues currently being experienced by WMATA do not involve the Purple Line, and they have no relationship to the
environmental impacts of the Purple Line. Therefore, the WMATA-related issues cited in FCCT’s letter provide no basis for preparing an SEIS.
AR5_000009. Curiously, this barebones explanation was subsequently adopted by the FTA, notwithstanding the fact that the Purple Line project is dependent on a future federal grant of nearly a billion dollars. June 15, 2016 Oral Arg. Tr. at 21:25-22:4, 50:7-9 [Dkt. #95]. In a memorandum dated January 7, 2016, the FTA stated, in relevant part, that it concurred with MTA’s recommendation that no supplemental documentation was required under NEPA. AR5_000003. FTA simply reiterated MTA’s response that “actions and any potential issues related to WMATA, which is not the project sponsor for the Purple Line, do not affect FTA’s NEPA findings.” AR5_000004.
“In making the factual inquiry concerning whether an agency decision was ‘arbitrary or capricious,’ the reviewing court ‘must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.’ ” Marsh, 490 U.S. at 378 (quoting Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971)). “[I]n the context of reviewing a decision not to supplement an EIS,” as here, courts must “carefully review[ ] the record and satisfy[ ] themselves that the agency has made a reasoned decision based on its evaluation of the significance—or lack of significance—of the new information.” Marsh, 490 U.S. at 378. Here, defendants wholly failed to evaluate the significance of the documented safety issues and decline in WMATA ridership, skirting the issue entirely on the basis that the Purple Line is not part of WMATA. While it is true that WMATA is a distinct entity from MTA, which would own and operate the Purple Line, AR5_000009, this does not provide a rational basis for defendants’ summary conclusion that a decline in ridership thereon has no effect on the Purple Line, given that the previous projections estimated over one quarter of Purple Line riders would use the WMATA Metrorail as part of their trip. See AR1_001973-74.1 Nor can I turn a blind eye to the recent extraordinary events involving seemingly endless Metrorail breakdowns and safety issues. See AR5_006470-71 & nn. 2-4 (citing public reports and media accounts discussing WMATA’s safety issues and ridership decline).2 These serious issues, which may have long-term effects on Metro ridership, only underscore how important it was for
III. Remedy
The Administrative Procedure Act governs remedies for NEPA violations and provides that a reviewing court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be ... arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part, and federal defendants’ and defendant-intervenors’ cross-motions for summary judgment are DENIED in part. An order consistent with this decision accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
RICHARD J. LEON
United States District Judge
Signed August 3, 2016