Cutonilli v. Fed. Transit Admin.
| Decision Date | 30 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. ELH-13-2373 |
| Parties | JOHN CUTONILLI, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
This case arises from a dispute concerning the Baltimore Red Line Project, a proposed east-west mass transit line to serve Baltimore City and Baltimore County ("Red Line Project" or "Project"). See generally ECF 1 ("Complaint").1 The plan for the Project ("Preferred Alternative"), announced in the Record of Decision issued by the Federal Transit Administration on February 28, 2013 ("ROD"),2 is "a 14.1-mile light rail transit line [with 19 stations, running east-west] from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in Baltimore County to the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center campus in Baltimore City." AR1_000001, ROD.
Plaintiff John Cutonilli, who is self-represented, has sued the Federal Transit Administration ("FTA") and the Maryland Transit Administration ("MTA") (collectively "Agencies"), defendants, alleging that they failed to comply with "federal environmental laws"in regard to the Project. ECF 1, Complaint. He complains that defendants improperly rejected his proposed alternative for the Project.
According to plaintiff, "no single mode" of transit is appropriate. Id. ¶ 13, Complaint. Among other things, plaintiff claims his proposal made "extensive reuse of existing transit corridors," id. ¶ 22, and "uses an existing transit corridor rather than forcing the route through a dense section of the city. . . ." Id. ¶ 21. Moreover, plaintiff alleges that defendants have, inter alia, failed to "rigorously explor[e] and objectively evaluat[e] all reasonable alternatives" prior to making their selection as to the Preferred Alternative for the Project, id. ¶ 29, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., and its implementing regulations, at 40 C.F.R. § 1500 et seq.
Plaintiff also contends that defendants "failed to insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity" of the Project's environmental impact statement,3 in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24. ECF 1 ¶ 29, Complaint. In addition, plaintiff maintains that defendants "provided unsubstantiated responses," in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 1503.4, and did not consider or respond appropriately to public input, including his input, or adequately involve the public in the Project planning process, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6. Id. ¶ 29; see id. ¶¶ 23-24.
Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, (1) a declaratory judgment that defendants' environmental impact statement in connection with the Project is "legally inadequate"; and (2) an injunction directing defendants to withdraw the ROD, which approved the Preferred Alternative, and to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement "that includes all reasonable alternatives." See id. at 9 (Prayer for Relief).
The central issues in this dispute focus on whether the Agencies' process for selecting the Preferred Alternative and preparing an environmental impact statement for the Project complied with NEPA. These issues implicate plaintiff's claim that his proposal was not adequately considered or addressed. Notably, this is not an action to "derail" the entire Project. Indeed, the practicality, economic feasibility, or wisdom of the Red Line Project are not issues before this Court.
Both defendants have moved for summary judgment. The MTA's motion (ECF 44) is supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 44-2, "MTA Memo."). I shall refer to ECF 44 and ECF 44-1 collectively as the "MTA Motion." The FTA's motion is at ECF 45, and is also supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 45-1, "FTA Memo."). I shall refer to ECF 45 and ECF 45-1 collectively as the "FTA Motion." And, I will refer to the MTA Motion and the FTA Motion collectively as the "Motions." Plaintiff filed a "Motion in Opposition to the Motions for Summary Judgment" (ECF 47), supported by a "Memorandum" (ECF 47-1) (collectively, "Opposition"). Both defendants filed replies. See ECF 50 ("MTA Reply"); ECF 51 ("FTA Reply").
The parties' submissions focus primarily on the Administrative Record. It was compiled and submitted by the FTA, and consists of nineteen DVD's that contain over 145,000 pages of documents.4 For the convenience of the reader, I have appended to the Opinion a glossary ofterms that appear in the Administrative Record and this Opinion.
The Motions have been fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve them. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I will grant the Motions.
The factual background is drawn primarily from the Administrative Record. The documents in the Administrative Record span more than ten years. Due to the size of the Administrative Record—more than 145,000 pages—it does not appear electronically on the Court's CM/ECF system. ECF 38 ("Notice of Lodging Administrative Record"); ECF 42 ("Notice of Lodging Supplemental Administrative Record").5
Cutonilli is a professional engineer who resides in Baltimore. ECF 1 ¶ 5, Complaint. He lives within the corridor to be served by the Red Line Project. Id.
The Maryland Transit Administration is an agency of the Maryland Department of Transportation. Id. ¶ 7. It served as the Project sponsor. AR_000001, ROD. In that capacity, the MTA assisted in the alternatives screening process, and it prepared various technical analyses for inclusion in the environmental impact statement ("EIS"), discussed infra. Id. at ARI_000002.
The Federal Transit Administration is an agency within the United States Department ofTransportation. ECF 1 ¶ 6, Complaint. It served as the "lead federal agency" in the environmental review of the Project. AR_000001, ROD. In its capacity as lead agency, the FTA was responsible for supervising the preparation and issuance of the Project's EIS, in compliance with NEPA. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(a).
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is titled "Protection of Environment." Chapter V concerns the "Council on Environmental Quality" ("CEQ"). The CEQ is "the executive agency responsible for promulgating regulations that implement NEPA." Defender of Wildlife v. N.C. Dep't of Transportation, 762 F.3d 374, 393 n.12 (4th Cir. 2014); see 42 U.S.C. § 4342; 42 Fed. Reg. 26967 (May 25, 1977).6 Part 1500 of Title 40 is applicable here. When interpreting NEPA, "courts give these regulations 'substantial deference . . . .'" Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v. Dep't of Navy, 422 F.3d 174, 184 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979)).
Prior to taking any "action[ ] with effects that may be major and which are potentially subject to Federal control and responsibility," 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18, an agency is required to prepare an EIS, both in draft and in final form. Id. § 1502.4; see §§ 1502.09; 1502.10. Actions considered major are "new and continuing activities, including projects and programs entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal agencies . . . ." Id. § 1508.18(a).
An EIS is a decision-making tool that, inter alia, must provide a "full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts" of the proposed federal action, and "shall informdecisionmakers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment." Id. § 1502.1. Among other things, the EIS must include a statement that "briefly specif[ies] the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding . . ." through the proposed federal action. Id. § 1502.13.
The preparation and publication of the EIS are completed in four stages: a notice of intent that an EIS will be prepared and considered; a draft EIS; a final EIS; and a record of decision. Id. §§ 1501.7; 1502.9; 1505.2. The notice of intent is published in the Federal Register. Id. § 1501.7. Its publication signals the initiation of the scoping phase. During the scoping phase, public outreach is performed to identify the major issues implicated by a project and to be analyzed in depth by the EIS. Id. The draft EIS provides a detailed description of the project proposal, a statement of the purpose and needs of the project, reasonable alternatives, and the affected environment. Id. §§ 1502.9; 1502.10. It also presents analysis of the anticipated beneficial and adverse environmental effects of the alternatives. Id. § 1502.10.
Following a formal comment period with respect to the draft EIS, the final EIS is developed and issued. Id. § 1502.9(b). The final EIS "shall respond to comments", id., received with respect to the draft EIS. § 1502.9(a); see also § 1503 (pertaining to comments). The final EIS shall also identify, based on information and analysis, the agency's "preferred alternative or alternatives" for the project. Id. § 1502.14(e). Section 1502.14 states that this analysis of alternatives is "the heart" of the EIS.
The final step of the EIS process is the publication of the record of decision. The ROD sets forth an agency's final selection of a plan for a project. Id. § 1505.2(a). It also identifies, inter alia, the "environmentally preferable" alternative for the proposed federal action. Id. § 1505.2(b). In addition, the record of decision shall identify all alternatives that were consideredby the agency in reaching its decision, an explanation of practicable mitigation measures to ameliorate detrimental environmental effects identified in the scoping process, and a program to implement any mitigation measures. Id. § 1505.2(b)-(c).
"An agency may discuss preferences among alternatives based on relevant factors including economic and technical considerations. . . ." 40 C.F.R. § 1505.2(b). In selecting a project plan, "[i]f the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action are adequately identified and evaluated [in the EIS], the agency is not constrained by NEPA from deciding that other...
To continue reading
Request your trial