Lakes & Parks Alliance of Minneapolis v. Metro. Council
| Decision Date | 04 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 14–3391 (JRT/SER). |
| Citation | 120 F.Supp.3d 959 |
| Parties | LAKES AND PARKS ALLIANCE OF MINNEAPOLIS, Plaintiff, v. The METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Lewis A. Remele, Jr., and J. Scott Andresen, Bassford Remele, PA, Thomas L. Johnson and Joy Reopelle Anderson, Gray Plant Mooty Mooty & Bennett, PA, Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiff.
Charles N. Nauen, David J. Zoll, and Kristen G. Marttila, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, and Ann K. Bloodhart, Metropolitan Council: Office of General Counsel, St. Paul, MN, for defendant Metropolitan Council.
Defendant Metropolitan Council ("Met Council") is leading the effort to build a new light rail line that connects downtown Minneapolis with the southwestern Twin Cities suburbs ("Southwest Light Rail" or "SWLRT"). The Met Council hopes to receive federal funding for the project and the federal environmental review process mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") is underway. A draft environmental impact statement ("DEIS") and supplemental DEIS ("SDEIS") have already been prepared, and a final EIS ("FEIS") and record of decision ("ROD") are expected in the next year. The Federal Transit Administration ("FTA") has provided little funding at this point, and will eventually decide whether to participate in the project based on the environmental review. While the environmental review process is ongoing, however, the Met Council has obtained approval from the relevant municipalities along the proposed line, even negotiating a compromise with the cities of Minneapolis and St. Louis Park for the route the line will take through the Kenilworth Corridor area of Minneapolis. This compromise, and the plan approved through the municipal consent process, were not discussed in the initial DEIS.
Plaintiff Lakes and Parks Alliance of Minneapolis ("LPA") brings this action against the FTA and the Met Council, arguing that the FTA and the Met Council have both violated NEPA by using the municipal consent process to close off available options before the environmental review process is complete. The LPA has also sued the Met Council under state environmental review laws (the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act or "MEPA") and the state municipal consent statutes for light rail projects. In a prior Order, the Court dismissed the LPA's claim against the FTA, and dismissed the LPA's MEPA claim against the Met Council. However, the Court denied the Met Council's motion to dismiss the LPA's NEPA and municipal consent statute claims. Before the Court is the LPA's motion for summary judgment on its NEPA and municipal consent statute claims against the Met Council. Because the LPA has not shown that the Met Council has irreversibly and irretrievably committed to a specific SWLRT route, the Court will deny the LPA's summary judgment motion.
The LPA is a Minnesota non-profit corporation, whose members live near and utilize the Kenilworth Corridor area in Minneapolis. ( The Met Council is the regional policy-making body, planning agency, and transit services provider for the Twin Cities metropolitan region. (Id. ¶¶ 5–6.) The Met Council is the responsible governmental unit for the environmental review of the SWLRT, and the entity in charge of planning and constructing the project. (Id. ).
The SWLRT is a proposed light rail line that would run from downtown Minneapolis through the communities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie. (Aff. of Joy R. Anderson ("Anderson Aff."), Ex. 5 at 31, Nov. 3, 2014, Docket No. 16.) The project's estimated budget is $1.65 billion2 ; funding for the SWLRT will be provided by the FTA, the state of Minnesota, the Counties Transit Improvement Board, and the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority ("HCRRA"). (Id., Ex. 1 at 1.).
The current plans call for the SWLRT to pass through the Kenilworth Corridor. (Id., Ex. 22 at 3.) The corridor contains a popular bicycle and pedestrian trail, along with existing freight rail tracks; it is one and one-half miles in length and lies between Cedar Lake and Lake of the Isles in Minneapolis. (Id., Ex. 5 at 31; id., Ex. 10 at 17.) Under the current plans, SWLRT trains traveling northbound would pass through the southern half of the Kenilworth Corridor in two tunnels, and then emerge from the ground to pass over the water channel that connects Cedar Lake and Lake of the Isles ("Kenilworth Channel") on a new bridge before continuing through the northern portion of the corridor above ground.3 (Id., Ex. 15 at 11.) The existing freight rail tracks would remain in the corridor, but would pass over the Kenilworth Channel on a new, separate bridge. (Id. ).
NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of and prepare an EIS for all "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." Sierra Club v. U.S. Forest Serv., 46 F.3d 835, 837 (8th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). The SWLRT is a major governmental action that requires preparation of an EIS pursuant to NEPA.4 (Anderson Aff., Ex. 6 at 7.).
The first step in the environmental review process is the Scoping Process. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7 ; (Anderson Aff., Ex. 4 at 10.) This process is also referred to as the Alternatives Analysis. (Aff. of Nani Jacobson ("Jacobson Aff."), Ex. 2, Feb. 3, 2015, Docket No. 60.) The purpose of the Scoping Process is: (1) "to obtain public input on the project purpose and need"; (2) "to identify appropriate alternatives for addressing the purpose and need"; and (3) "to identify those environmental issues associated with the proposed project that require detailed analysis in the DEIS." (Anderson Aff., Ex. 4 at 11.).
A Scoping Process for the SWLRT project was performed in fall 2008 by the HCRRA, which was responsible for conducting the first portion of the environmental review. (Id. at 9.) The results of the Scoping Process were included in a January 2009 Scoping Summary Report. (Id. at 7–9.) The Scoping Summary Report established the alternatives to be analyzed in the DEIS. (Id. at 22–23.) None of the proposed alternatives included the construction of tunnels in the Kenilworth Corridor. (Id. at 14, 22–23.) The HCRRA unanimously voted to accept the SWLRT Scoping Summary Report on January 27, 2009 as its Scoping Decision. (Id. at 22–28.).
Because federal regulations required the Met Council to adopt a locally preferred alternative, the HCRRA recommended to the Council that it adopt a specific route—route LRT 3A—as the locally preferred alternative. (Aff. of Mark W. Fuhrmann ("Fuhrmann Aff.") ¶ 14, Feb. 3, 2015, Docket No. 61.) The Council adopted that route as its preferred alternative on May 26, 2010, including it in its 2030 Transportation Policy Plan ("TPP"). (Id., Ex. 7 at 36; id., Ex. 8 at 53.) Route LRT 3A would reroute the existing freight rail traffic to the MN & S line in St. Louis Park to provide adequate room for the SWLRT tracks to run through the Kenilworth Corridor.5 (Jacobson Aff., Ex. 2 at 9; Anderson Aff., Ex. 5 at 39, 51–52, 54.).
The SWLRT was accepted by the FTA into the New Starts Program on September 2, 2011, with the Met Council designated as lead agency. (Jacobson Aff., Ex. 8; id., Ex. 10.) The next step in the environmental review process is the DEIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(a). Federal regulations dictate that "[t]he [DEIS] shall evaluate all reasonable alternatives to the action and discuss the reason why other alternatives which may have been considered were eliminated from detailed study." (Anderson Aff., Ex. 4 at 16); see also 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. The HCRRA continued to act as lead agency for purposes of finalizing and publishing the DEIS. (Jacobson Aff., Ex. 10 at 2.).
In October 2012, a DEIS was drafted and released to the public. (Anderson Aff., Ex. 5.) Written comments on the DEIS were accepted for a 60–day time period from October 12 through December 11, 2012. (Id. at 30–31.) Nearly 1,000 public comments were received during the public review and comment period following the release of the DEIS. (Id., Ex. 2 at 3.).
The DEIS considered seven alternatives for the SWLRT6 , which included three basic strategies for dealing with the Kenilworth Corridor. (Id., Ex. 5 at 34–37.) The three strategies included:
(Am. Compl. ¶ 26.) None of the alternatives provided for the construction of any tunnels in the Kenilworth Corridor. (Anderson Aff., Ex. 5 at 34–37.).
The co-location alternative was added to the 2012 DEIS analysis in part because the City of St. Louis Park requested that such an alternative be studied. (Id., Ex. 7 at 2223.) Under the other alternatives, freight rail traffic would have been rerouted through St. Louis Park to make room for the SWLRT. (Id., Ex. 5 at 34–37.) The LPA claims that many St. Louis Park residents expressed concerns with a plan to re-route freight rail through their community. (Id., Ex. 11.) Consequently, the FTA requested that a co-location alternative be included in the 2012 DEIS. (Id., Ex. 7 at 23; Jacboson Aff., Ex. 6.).
However, the 2012 DEIS concluded that the co-location alternative would not adequately preserve the environment and protect the quality of life in the area. (Anderson Aff., Ex. 5 at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lakes & Parks Alliance of Minneapolis v. Metro. Council
...& Parks All. of Minneapolis v. FTA (LPA I ), 91 F.Supp.3d 1105, 1111–16 (D. Minn. 2015) ; Lakes & Parks All. of Minneapolis v. Metro. Council (LPA II ), 120 F.Supp.3d 959, 962–67 (D. Minn. 2015). The Court will recount relevant facts here, drawing on the description found in those decisions......
-
Lakes & Parks Alliance of Minneapolis v. Metro. Council
...Court has discussed the facts of this case at length in prior orders. See, e.g., Lakes and Parks All. of Minneapolis v. Metro. Council ("LPA II"), 120 F. Supp. 3d 959 (D. Minn. 2015); Lakes and Parks All. of Minneapolis v. Fed. Transit Admin. ("LPA I"), 91 F. Supp. 3d 1105 (D. Minn. 2015). ......