Social v. Adm'r of the Fed. Highway Admin.
| Decision Date | 03 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 12–1556,12–1558.,s. 12–1556 |
| Citation | 756 F.3d 447 |
| Parties | LATIN AMERICANS FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Citizens with Challenges, Detroit Association of Black Organizations, Detroiters for Progress, Mana De Metro Detroit, and Mexican Patriotic Committee of Metro Detroit, Plaintiffs–Appellants, Detroit International Bridge Company, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ARGUED:Lawrence T. García, Garcia Law Group, PLLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellants in 12–1558. Hamish P.M. Hume, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant in 12–1556. Vivian H.W. Wang, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF:Lawrence T. García, Garcia Law Group, PLLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellants in 12–1558. Hamish P.M. Hume, Amy L. Neuhardt, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant in 12–1556. Vivian H.W. Wang, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Before: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; BOGGS, Circuit Judge; DOWD, District Judge.*
Latin Americans for Social and Economic Development and other plaintiffs sued the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and certain FHWA officials challenging the FHWA's Record of Decision (ROD) selecting the Delray neighborhood of Detroit, Michigan as the preferred location alternative for a new international bridge crossing between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario. Plaintiffs claim that the ROD and preceding process violated the National Environmental Protection Act, Administrative Procedures Act, principles of environmental justice, and other federal laws.
The district court granted the defendants' motion to affirm the ROD. For the reasons that follow, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiffs Latin Americans for Social and Economic Development, Citizens with Challenges, Detroit Association of Black Organizations, Detroiters for Progress, MANA de Metro Detroit, and the Mexican Patriotic Committee of Metro Detroit (collectively Community Groups), and the Detroit International Bridge Company (Bridge Company), sued defendants FHWA, the unnamed Administrator of the FHWA, and James J. Steele (Steele) in his official capacity as the Michigan Division Administrator of the FHWA (collectively Federal Defendants), challenging the FHWA's ROD issued on January 14, 2009, selecting the Delray neighborhood of Detroit, Michigan as the preferred location alternative for a new international bridge crossing between the United States and Canada. Steele signed the ROD on behalf of the FHWA.
The Community Groups have ties to Detroit and the Delray neighborhood. The Bridge Company owns and operates the Ambassador Bridge, an existing crossing between the United States and Canada, located approximately two miles from the proposed new crossing. The Bridge Company also owns property in the Delray neighborhood and southwest Detroit.
Plaintiffs challenge the ROD pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). See5 U.S.C. § 702. The complaint alleges that in selecting the Delray neighborhood as the preferred alternative, the Federal Defendants failed to comply with the requirements of: 1) the National Environmental Policy Act 1 (NEPA); 2) Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act; 3) Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); and 4) “applicable legal authorities” on environmental justice. As District Judge Avern Cohn put it, “[s]imply stated, it is plaintiffs' contention that the NEPA process was pretextual and resulted in a decision that was arbitrary and capricious.”
The Federal Defendants moved Judge Cohn to affirm the ROD selecting the Delray neighborhood as the preferred site for the new Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC), and challenged the Bridge Company's standing to oppose that choice. When an agency action is challenged under the APA, the reviewing court's factual examination is generally limited to the administrative record (AR or record). In this case, the AR underlying and documenting the ROD took some time to compile and file in an accessible manner. During this process, plaintiffs filed multiple motions to supplement the AR, some of which were granted by the district court and some of which were denied. Ultimately, the complete AR was filed by the Federal Defendants to the district court's satisfaction.
After the parties briefed their positions on the Federal Defendants' motion to affirm the ROD, the district court conducted a hearing. Judge Cohn subsequently issued a thorough and well-reasoned decision finding that the Bridge Company had prudential standing to challenge the ROD and granting the Federal Defendants' motion to affirm.2 The Bridge Company and the Community Groups appeal.
Appellant Bridge Company raises multiple issues on appeal. Initially, the Bridge Company contends that the FHWA violated NEPA and acted arbitrarily and capriciously and contrary to law by selecting the Delray neighborhood as the preferred crossing site because the FHWA allegedly:
1. Pre-committed to building a government-owned bridge;
2. Eliminated crossing site alternative X–12 based on “comity” to Canada;
3. Failed to consider a “no build” alternative consisting of the Ambassador Bridge and its proposed second span;
4. Relied on outdated traffic forecasts; and
5. Relied on the need for crossing “redundancy” without a basis for doing so.
As a secondary issue, the Bridge Company contends that the district court erred in denying the Bridge Company's motion to supplement the administrative record with:
1. A traffic study commissioned by Transport Canada; and
2. Canadian documents allegedly relevant to Canada's reasons regarding elimination of crossing site alternative X–12.
On appeal, the Community Groups contend that the FHWA violated NEPA and principles of environmental justice by failing to take a “hard look” at alternative bridge proposals that would not be government-owned and/or not located in the minority, low-income community of Delray.
The Federal Defendants argued before the district court that the Bridge Company lacked prudential standing because the Bridge Company's interest in this case is economic and not environmental. However, the Bridge Company alleged an environmental injury in the complaint due to concerns regarding air quality and noise in the Delray area where the Bridge Company owns property and does business, and Judge Cohn found that these alleged environmental injuries were sufficient to satisfy prudential standing under NEPA.
The Federal Defendants continue to challenge the Bridge Company's prudential standing. On appeal, the Federal Defendants contend that the Bridge Company's alleged environmental interests do not support a conclusion that the Bridge Company has prudential standing under NEPA.
The DRIC process spanned about 8 years before the ROD at issue in this case was published on January 19, 2009. The DRIC project began in 2001 with meetings between Canadian and United States government transportation agencies to discuss border transportation needs in the Detroit–Windsor area. These agencies commissioned a planning and needs study that was completed in January 2004. The study concluded that for a number of reasons, including increasing traffic volume, economic security and national security concerns, additional border-crossing capacity, connectivity and redundancy was needed in the Detroit–Windsor area.
During the years that followed before the ROD was issued, over 100 reports and studies were generated. In addition to the United States and Canadian government transportation agencies that commissioned the original planning and needs study, many federal, state, and local agencies, elected officials, community representatives, interest groups, and the public were involved in numerous meetings, workshops, and hearings both to provide information and to receive feedback throughout the process.3
The following is only a brief summary of a lengthy and exhaustive process that led up to the ROD issued in January 2009. More detailed facts, as those facts are relevant to the court's analysis, are discussed later in the opinion.
In 2001, the FHWA, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), Transport Canada, and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, collectively known as the Border Transportation Partnership (the Partnership), entered into an Ontario–Michigan Border Transportation Partnership Framework agreement. This document reflects the “consensus” of the Partnership regarding border transportation objectives. FEIS Appendix B, DRIC014792–95.
The Partnership Framework defined objectives and created a working group and steering committee, which was responsible for making key Partnership decisions. The Partnership recognized that the United States and Canadian governments each have unique laws and regulations that would guide their respective analysis and consideration of DRIC alternatives, and that a successful project would require reconciliation of their respective positions. To accomplish this, one of the Partnership objectives was to use a coordinated planning and study process that would produce a result acceptable to all partners. See FEIS Appendix B, DRIC014793; DRIC014796–97.
Another Partnership objective was to include both public and private stakeholders throughout the DRIC project process. To achieve that objective, an extensive public involvement plan was developed that included public meetings, workshops, newsletters, a website, public and private-sector advisory groups, and local agency...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Crossgate v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs
...agencies to prevent damage to the environment and advance human health and welfare." Latin Americans for Soc. & Econ. Dev. v. Adm'r of Fed. Highway Admin. , 756 F.3d 447, 462 (6th Cir. 2014) ; 42 U.S.C. § 4321. It requires federal agencies planning "major Federal actions significantly affec......
-
State v. United States
...final decision under the APA, we review the district court's decision de novo. Latin Am. for Soc. and Econ. Dev. v. Admin. of the Fed. Highway Admin. , 756 F.3d 447, 462 (6th Cir. 2014). We "decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determi......
-
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv.
...serves procedural rather than substantive goals, and is not a ‘results-driven’ statute." Latin Ams. for Soc. and Econ. Dev. v. Adm'r of Fed. Highway Admin. , 756 F.3d 447, 462 (6th Cir. 2014). As a result, "[e]ven agency action with adverse environmental effects can be NEPA-compliant so lon......
-
Cunningham v. Rapid Response Monitoring Servs., Inc.
...zone of interests has sometimes been referred to as a "prudential standing" doctrine. E.g., Latin Americans for Soc. & Econ. Dev. v. Adm'r of Fed. Highway Admin., 756 F.3d 447, 462 (6th Cir. 2014) ("Prudential standing exists if the interest the plaintiff seeks to protect is within the ‘zon......
-
Epa's opportunity to reverse the fertilizer industry's environmental injustices
...Eng’rs, 255 F. Supp. 3d 101, 140, 47 ELR 20035 (D.D.C. 2017); Latin Ams. for Soc. & Econ. Dev. v. Administrator of the Fed. Highway Ass’n, 756 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2014); but see City of Dallas, Tex. v. Hall, No. 3-07-cv-0060-P, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78847, 2007 WL 3125311, at *6 (N.D. Tex. O......
-
THE DEVIL IN NEPA'S DETAILS: AMENDING NEPA TO PREVENT STATE INTERFERENCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS.
..."final agency action" to mean issuing a final EIS or an ROD); Latin Ams. for Soc. & Econ. Dev. v. Adm'r of Fed. Highway Admin., 756 F.3d 447, 464 (6th Cir. 2014) (finding that an ROD constitutes a "final agency action" under the APA (citing Sierra Club v. Slater, 120 F.3d 623, 631 (6th ......