Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Ray LaHood is automatically substituted for
1
former Secretary Peters.The Court granted leave to intervene as defendants to the transportation departments
2
from Minnesota (“MnDOT”) and Wisconsin (“WisDOT”). 1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MINNESOTACivil No. 07-2593 (MJD/SRN)Sierra Club North Star Chapter,))Plaintiff,))
FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’
v.)
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
)
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
)
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Ray LaHood, Secretary of )
1
Transportation, et al., ))Defendants.)
INTRODUCTION
Sierra Club Northstar Chapter (“Sierra Club”) challenges actions by the FederalHighway Administration (“FHWA”) and the National Park Service (“NPS”)(collectively“Defendants”) related to a proposed bridge that would cross the St. Croix River, a federallydesignated Wild and Scenic River, near Oak Park Heights, Minnesota (“the Project”). Sierra
2
Club seeks judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701-706, and asserts violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C.§ 4332; Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (“Section 4(f)”), 49U.S.C. § 303(c); the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (“WSRA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1284; the
Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91 Filed 05/29/09 Page 1 of 55
2 National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (the “Organic Act”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1-18f-3; andGeneral Authorities Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1a-1 et seq.The comprehensive administrative record demonstrates Defendants did not undertakethe Project lightly. Defendants developed and approved the Project in an open andtransparent manner after years of planning, consideration of numerous alternatives and expertanalyses of likely environmental consequences, and extensive input from and carefulconsultation and coordination with numerous federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies,the public, and other stakeholders, including the Sierra Club. The FHWA took the requisite“hard look” at the Project under NEPA and determined under Section 4(f) there were nofeasible and prudent alternatives to using properties protected by that statute. The NPSreasonably determined the Project, given the extensive mitigation package developed toavoid and minimize the impacts of the Project, would not have a direct and adverse effect onthe St. Croix River. Because the Defendants did not act in an arbitrary, capricious, or illegalmanner, the Court should uphold the Project decisions.
BACKGROUNDA.STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.
1.National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA focuses the attention of federal agencies and the public on a proposed actionso any environmental consequences of the action can be studied before a decision is made.42 U.S.C. § 4321; 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1. NEPA imposes procedural requirements, not
Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91 Filed 05/29/09 Page 2 of 55
3substantive ones: “NEPA does not work by mandating that agencies achieve particular substantive environmental results.”
Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council
, 490 U.S.360, 371 (1989). NEPA prescribes a set of “action-forcing” measures requiring federalagencies to take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of major federal actions before they are taken.
Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
, 446 F.3d 808, 815 (8
th
Cir. 2006). Both NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) regulationsimplementing NEPA, 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500-1517, require an agency to consider environmentalimpacts of proposed federal actions that may significantly affect the quality of the humanenvironment. 42 U.S.C. § 4332; 40 C.F.R. § 1501. An agency’s environmental impactstatement (“EIS”) should “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate” all reasonablealternatives, but need only “briefly discuss” the reasons why other alternatives wereeliminated from more detailed study. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. An EIS also should identify thedirect, indirect, and cumulative impacts of each alternative studied and consider mitigationmeasures to reduce any impacts to the environment. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14, 1502.16, 1508.7.FHWA regulations related to NEPA, which supplement the CEQ regulations, are at 23C.F.R. Part 771.2.Section 4(f) .Section 4(f) prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from approving a transportation project or program “requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreationarea, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of an
Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91 Filed 05/29/09 Page 3 of 55
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Federal Defendants Response to Sierra Mot SJ
673
Reads
0
Readcasts
23
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
