United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued November 1, 2017 Decided December 19, 2017 

No. 17-5132 

FRIENDS OF THE CAPITAL CRESCENT TRAIL, ET AL., 

APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS

v. 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, ET AL., 

APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES

STATE OF MARYLAND, 

INTERVENOR-APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE

Consolidated with 17-5161, 17-5174, 17-5175 

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 1:14-cv-01471) 

Kevin W. McArdle, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, 

argued the cause for appellants/cross-appellees Federal Transit

Administration, et al. With him on the briefs were Jeffrey H. 

Wood, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Eric Grant, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Littleton and Erika 

Kranz, Attorneys, Paul M. Geier, Assistant General Counsel, 
2 

U.S. Department of Transportation, and Charles E. Enloe and 

Joy K. Park, Attorneys. 

Nick Goldstein, James M. Auslander, and Gus B. Bauman

were on the brief for amicus curiae American Road & 

Transportation Builders Association in support of 

appellants/cross-appellees. 

Albert M. Ferlo argued the cause for intervenorappellant/cross-appellee State of Maryland. With him on the 

briefs were Eric D. Miller, William G. Malley, Brian E. Frosh, 

Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State 

of Maryland, and Julie T. Sweeney, Assistant Attorney General. 

Linda DeVuono, Assistant Attorney General, entered an 

appearance. 

Jared M. McCarthy and Milton E. McIver were on the brief 

for amicus curiae Prince George’s County, Maryland. 

John P. Markovs was on the brief for amicus curiae

Montgomery County, Maryland. 

Eric R. Glitzenstein argued the cause for appellees/crossappellants Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail, et al. With 

him on the briefs was David W. Brown. William S. Eubanks, 

II, entered an appearance. 

Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, and ROGERS and 

SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judges. 

 Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS. 

ROGERS, Circuit Judge: This case concerns multiple 

challenges under the National Environmental Policy Act to 

Maryland’s proposed “Purple Line” light rail project. Two 
3 

orders of the district court are principally at issue. In the first 

order, the district court directed the Federal Transit 

Administration (“FTA”) to prepare a supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (“SEIS”) to analyze the 

effects of Metrorail’s recent safety and ridership problems on 

the Purple Line’s environmental impact and purpose; it also 

vacated FTA’s Record of Decision pending completion of the 

SEIS. In the second order, the district court rejected other 

challenges to FTA’s final Environmental Impact Statement 

(“FEIS”). For the following reasons, we reverse the order 

directing the preparation of a SEIS and vacating the Record of 

Decision, and we affirm the order rejecting the three challenges 

to the FEIS presented on appeal. 

For over two decades, beginning as early as 1990, the 

Maryland Transit Administration (“Maryland”) has developed 

plans to construct the “Purple Line” — a 16-mile public transit

project that would connect communities in Maryland’s 

Montgomery and Prince George’s counties with each other and 

with other regional transit systems, including the Washington 

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s Metrorail system. In 

2003, Maryland applied for funding under the “New Starts” 

program administered by FTA, see 49 U.S.C. § 5309(b)(1); 49 

C.F.R. pt. 611, to defray part of the Purple Line’s construction 

costs. Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS, 68 Fed. Reg. 52,452, 

52,454 (Sept. 3, 2003). Designed to “foster the development 

and revitalization of public transportation systems,” 49 U.S.C.

§ 5301(a), the “New Starts” program proceeds in three phases. 

First, FTA and the applicant together conduct an environmental 

review, including an analysis under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and develop and 

compare project alternatives. Id. § 5309(d)(1); 23 C.F.R. 

§ 771.109(c)(2). This review culminates in a Record of 
4 

Decision (“ROD”) in which FTA identifies the alternative 

chosen and demonstrates the project’s compliance with NEPA. 

See id. § 5309(d)(2)(A). In the next two phases, FTA evaluates 

the project’s compliance with other statutory and regulatory 

criteria not relevant here, finalizes the project’s engineering

and design, and addresses the project’s financial aspects, 

ultimately deciding whether or not to enter into a grant 

agreement with the applicant that commits federal funding to 

the project. Id. § 5309(k). 

NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., imposes a set of 

procedural requirements on federal agencies to “ensure[] that 

the[y] will not act on incomplete information, only to regret 

[their] decision after it is too late to correct.” Marsh v. Or. 

Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 371 (1989). It also requires 

“broad dissemination of information . . . [to] permit[] the 

public and other government agencies to react to the effects of

a proposed action at a meaningful time.” Id. Thus, planned 

actions that would have an impact on the physical environment 

will be “fully informed and well-considered.” Del. 

Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304, 1309–10 (D.C. 

Cir. 2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Among 

other things, NEPA requires federal agencies proposing to 

undertake “major Federal actions significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment” to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (“EIS”) that compares in 

detail the foreseeable environmental effects of project 

alternatives. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C); see also Metro. Edison Co. 

v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766, 772 (1983). 

This requires an agency to “take a hard look at environmental 

consequences” of its proposed action, Robertson v. Methow 

Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted), thus ensuring that it will “consider 

every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a 
5 

proposed action” and “inform the public” of its analysis and 

conclusion. Balt. Gas & Elec. Co v. NRDC, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 

97 (1983). Completion of the EIS, however, does not always 

mark the end of the NEPA process. If “new information” arises 

that presents “a seriously different picture of the environmental 

landscape,” then the agency must prepare a supplemental EIS 

(“SEIS”). City of Olmsted Falls v. FAA, 292 F.3d 261, 274 

(D.C. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). 

Between 2003 and 2008, FTA and Maryland jointly 

prepared a draft EIS (“DEIS”). See 23 U.S.C. § 139(c)(3); 23 

C.F.R. §§ 771.109(c)(2), 771.111(a). The DEIS, which was 

released for public comment in October 2008, discussed eight 

project design alternatives for the Purple Line. Six were 

“build” alternatives, contemplating new construction of a light

rail or bus rapid transit system at varying investment levels. 

The seventh was a “transportation systems management” 

alternative in which there is no new construction but various 

improvements are made to existing systems. The eighth was 

the “no-build” alternative, in which no action is taken. See 40 

C.F.R. § 1502.14(d). The DEIS compared these alternatives on 

various grounds, including environmental impact, stating that 

because “the alternatives generally follow existing roadways 

and railroad rights-of-way . . . , the environmental and 

community impacts are relatively minor in type and degree for 

projects of this nature.” DEIS, ch. 6, at 6 (Oct. 2008). The 

DEIS therefore concluded that “[b]ecause all the alternatives 

would have similar alignment characteristics, [their] impacts 

on parks, wetlands, historic properties, business properties, and 

other environmentally sensitive sites would be similar . . . , and 

are thus unlikely to be a differentiating factor among the[m].” 

Id.

After the close of the comment period, Maryland publicly 

identified in August 2009 a modified version of the medium-
6 

investment light rail option as its “locally preferred alternative” 

for the Purple Line. See 49 U.S.C. § 5309(d)(2)(A)(i). 

Although acknowledging that the bus rapid transit option 

would be more cost-effective than light rail, Maryland 

identified offsetting benefits underlying its choice of light rail: 

greater expected ridership (and ability to expand capacity to 

meet future demand), greater opportunities for local economic 

development, faster travel times, and (importantly) local 

government support. Purple Line Locally Preferred 

Alternative, at 4 (Aug. 2009). 

Upon further study by Maryland and FTA, and public 

involvement, FTA issued the Purple Line’s final EIS (“FEIS”) 

in August 2013. The FEIS sets forth the project’s three 

purposes: 

(1) Provide faster, more direct, and more reliable east–

west transit service connecting the major activity 

centers in [Montgomery and Prince George’s 

counties, including] Bethesda, Silver Spring, 

Takoma/Langley Park, College Park, and New 

Carrollton, 

(2) Provide better connections to Metrorail services 

located in the corridor, and 

(3) Improve connectivity to the communities in the 

corridor located between the Metrorail lines. 

FEIS, ch. 1, at 1 (Aug. 28, 2013). With reference to these 

purposes, the FEIS compares in detail Maryland’s preferred 

light rail alternative and the “no-build” alternative. It includes 

chapters on adverse environmental effects resulting from 

construction and operation, indirect effects, impacts on nearby

historic properties, mitigation and minimization measures, 

FTA’s responses to public comments, and technical reports on 

noise impacts, travel forecasts, and other issues. In addition, 
7 

the FEIS compares the alternatives’ transportation-related 

effects, including future ridership forecasts and impacts on 

low-income and minority communities. It also incorporates by 

reference the earlier analysis of alternatives contained in the

DEIS. Id. ch. 2, at 1. In total, including technical reports, the 

FEIS is over eight hundred pages. 

Based on the FEIS, DEIS, and other supporting technical 

and design documents, FTA issued the Purple Line’s Record of 

Decision (“ROD”) in March 2014. 79 Fed. Reg. 18,113 (Mar. 

31, 2014). It certified the project’s compliance with NEPA, see 

49 U.S.C. § 5309(d)(1)(A)(i)(II), thereby advancing it to the 

next “New Starts” phase, in which engineering and design 

elements are finalized. See 49 U.S.C. § 5309(d)(2). 

 

In August 2014, Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail and 

two individual environmentalists (collectively, “the Friends”) 

filed suit against FTA in the federal district court here, alleging 

that in developing the FEIS, FTA had violated NEPA and other 

environmental statutes. The State of Maryland intervened in 

support of FTA. In October 2015, while the lawsuit was 

pending, the Friends wrote to FTA about purported new 

information on Metrorail’s safety and ridership problems. 

Their letter stated that a “series of incidents,” including the

death of a passenger in January 2015, “have raised questions 

about [Metrorail] passenger safety.” Friends Letter to FTA, at

2–3 (Oct. 9, 2015) (“Friends 2015 Letter”). It also described 

the decline in Metrorail ridership since 2009 “due to 

interruptions, delays, accidents[,] and the adoption of other 

means and patterns of travel.” Id. at 3. Because the Purple 

Line “is inextricably linked to and dependent upon” Metrorail, 

the Friends concluded that the problems experienced by 

Metrorail undermined the ridership projections in the FEIS 

and, therefore, necessitated preparation of a SEIS. Id. at 3. 
8 

Attached to the Friends’ letter were three declarations 

questioning the assumptions and methodology underlying the 

ridership projections in the FEIS. Id. at 5. Maryland’s 

response was that because the Purple Line and Metrorail are 

separate legal entities, “the financial or other issues currently 

being experienced by [Metrorail] do not involve the Purple 

Line, and they have no relationship to the environmental 

impacts of the Purple Line.” Maryland Letter to FTA, at 3 

(Dec. 7, 2015) (“Md. 2015 Letter”). Maryland characterized 

the declarations as simply “late-filed comment[s] on the 

analysis in the [F]EIS,” not new information warranting 

preparation of a SEIS. Id. at 9–10. FTA agreed and declined 

to prepare a SEIS to address the ridership issue. FTA Letter to 

Maryland, at 4 (Jan. 7, 2016) (“FTA 2016 Letter”). The 

Friends then filed an additional complaint under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706, 

alleging the refusal to prepare a SEIS was arbitrary. Crossmotions for summary judgment were filed. 

The district court granted partial summary judgment to the 

Friends. Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail v. FTA, 200 F. 

Supp. 3d 248 (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2016). It concluded that 

Metrorail’s ridership decline and safety problems “directly 

undermined the [ridership] rationale” upon which the Purple 

Line was justified, and that because the FEIS had estimated 

approximately a quarter of expected Purple Line riders would 

transfer to or from Metrorail, a potentially large change to that 

forecast requires reevaluation of the Purple Line project 

alternatives. Id. at 252–53. The district court ordered FTA to 

prepare a SEIS addressing the ridership issue and vacated the 

ROD pending its completion. Id. at 254. Subsequently, in 

responding to FTA’s motion for reconsideration, the district 

court permitted FTA to examine on remand the “significance 

of [Metrorail’s] ridership and safety issues [on the Purple Line] 

and determine what level of additional environmental analysis 
9 

is required.” Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail v. FTA, 218 

F. Supp. 3d 53, 58 (D.D.C. Nov. 22, 2016). 

In December 2016, FTA filed a memorandum with the 

district court based on Maryland’s evaluation of five 

hypothetical scenarios in which Metrorail ridership declines in

varying degrees to the year 2040. FTA Scenarios 

Memorandum (Dec. 13, 2016) (“FTA Scenarios Report”); see 

Maryland Metrorail Ridership Assessment (Nov. 3, 2016) 

(“Md. Ridership Assessment”). In the most extreme scenario, 

Metrorail ceases to function, resulting in zero transfers to and 

from the Purple Line. FTA Scenarios Report, at 4. FTA 

determined that under any of the five scenarios light rail would 

meet the Purple Line’s purposes as well as or better than any 

other option. Id. at 6–7. In addition, FTA emphasized, no 

matter the level of Metrorail’s ridership, the Purple Line’s 

environmental impact during construction and operation would 

not worsen. Id. at 4. Therefore, FTA again concluded that 

preparation of a SEIS was not required. Id. at 7. 

The district court disagreed. Friends of the Capital 

Crescent Trail v. FTA, 253 F. Supp. 3d 296 (D.D.C. May 22, 

2017). First, because FTA did not ascertain which of the five 

Metrorail ridership scenarios was most likely to occur, it found 

that FTA had no basis to conclude that the Purple Line would 

fulfill the stated purposes in all scenarios. Id. at 301. Second, 

it found that FTA failed to respond specifically and 

meaningfully to the criticisms raised by the Friends’ declarants. 

Id. at 301–02. The district court therefore ordered the 

preparation of a SEIS. Id. at 303. Its vacatur of the ROD 

pending completion of the SEIS remained intact. FTA and 

Maryland appeal. 

 
10 

NEPA itself does not state when a SEIS must be prepared, 

but the regulations promulgated by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) do. As explained by the 

Supreme Court, “[t]he CEQ regulations, which . . . are entitled

to substantial deference, impose a duty on all federal agencies

to prepare supplements to either draft or final EIS’s if there ‘are 

significant new circumstances or information relevant to 

environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or 

its impacts.’” Marsh, 490 U.S. at 372 (quoting 40 C.F.R. 

§ 1502.9(c)); see Union Neighbors United, Inc. v. Jewell, 831 

F.3d 564, 569 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Similarly, FTA’s own 

NEPA regulations, supplementing those of CEQ, require, as 

relevant, preparation of a SEIS where “[n]ew information or 

circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearing 

on the proposed action or its impacts would result in significant 

environmental impacts not evaluated in the [F]EIS.” 23 C.F.R. 

§ 771.130(a)(2); see id. § 771.101. Consistent with a “rule of 

reason,” an agency need not supplement an EIS every time new 

information comes to light after the EIS is finalized; rather, the 

need for supplementation “turns on the value of the new 

information to the still pending decisionmaking process.” 

Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374. 

Our review of the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment is de novo. Defenders of Wildlife v. Zinke, 849 F.3d 

1077, 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Review of 

FTA’s decision not to prepare a SEIS is “searching and 

careful,” but “narrow.” Marsh, 490 U.S. at 375–76; 5 U.S.C. 

§ 706(2)(A). Because this is a challenge to “an agency action 

under the APA, [this court] review[s] the administrative action

directly, according no particular deference to the judgment of 

the [d]istrict [c]ourt.” In re Polar Bear Endangered Species 

Act Listing, 709 F. 3d. 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2013). If an agency’s 
11 

decision not to prepare a SEIS turns on a “factual dispute the 

resolution of which implicated substantial agency expertise,” 

the court defers to the agency’s judgment. Marsh, 490 U.S. at 

376 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The 

Friends maintain the submitted Metrorail information 

undermines conclusions in the FEIS, while FTA and Maryland 

view the information as not significant with respect to either 

environmental effects or the choice of alternative. “Because 

analysis of the relevant documents requires a high level of 

technical expertise, we must defer to the informed discretion of 

the responsible federal agenc[y],” provided the “decision not to 

[prepare a SEIS] was not arbitrary or capricious.” Id. at 377 

(citations omitted); see id. n.23. In other words, the question is 

whether FTA’s “decision was based on a consideration of the 

relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of 

judgment.” Id. at 378 (quoting Citizens to Preserve Overton 

Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971)). “When 

specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have 

discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own 

qualified experts even if, as an original matter, a court might

find contrary views more persuasive.” Id. At the same time, 

“in the context of reviewing a decision not to supplement an 

EIS, courts should not automatically defer to the agency[] . . . 

without carefully reviewing the record and satisfying 

themselves that the agency has made a reasoned decision based 

on its evaluation of the significance — or lack of significance

— of the new information.” Id. 

Consistent with this standard of review, central to our 

resolution of the challenges to the order requiring the 

preparation of a SEIS is FTA’s Scenarios Report, which 

assesses the impact of five hypothetical scenarios of future 

Metrorail ridership decline on the Purple Line’s ridership. In

the most optimistic scenario of “near-term rebound,” Metrorail 

ridership declines through 2017, but after completion of safety
12 

and reliability improvements, ridership returns to its prior 

growth path from 2018 through 2040, the study’s cutoff date. 

FTA Scenarios Report, at 3. In the second scenario, Metrorail 

ridership increases from 2018 through 2040, but at a slower 

rate. Id. In the third scenario, Metrorail ridership stagnates 

between 2018 and 2040. Id. In the fourth scenario, Metrorail 

ridership declines through 2040 at the same rate it has for the

past decade. Id. In the fifth scenario, Metrorail ceases to exist, 

resulting in no transfers to or from the Purple Line. Id. at 4. 

With respect to the transportation-related impacts of 

Metrorail decline on the Purple Line, FTA acknowledged that 

in the fifth scenario the light rail option would no longer satisfy 

one of the Purple Line’s three purposes, namely, improving 

connectivity to Metrorail. Id. at 7. Nonetheless, FTA 

determined: 

This would not affect the choice between alternatives, 

however, because no alternative would be capable of 

meeting that [purpose], as it relies on the existence of 

the Metrorail system. Moreover, the corresponding 

increases in roadway congestion would amplify the 

extent to which the [light rail] project meets the [other, 

non-Metrorail-related purposes of the Purple Line], 

making [light rail] still the best able to meet [the Purple 

Line’s] overall Purpose and Need, even under this 

highly unlikely scenario. 

Id. 

Separately, FTA determined with respect to environmental 

impacts that none of the five scenarios would “affect the 

[construction-related environmental] footprint” of the Purple 

Line. Id. at 4–5. Indeed, were the Purple Line to reduce its 

frequency of service, its energy use and consequent operational
13 

environmental impact would also decrease. Id. at 5. Therefore, 

FTA concluded under its SEIS regulation, 23 C.F.R. 

§ 771.130(a)(2), that the Friends’ information on Metrorail 

ridership decline does not present “significant . . . new 

information” with respect to the Purple Line’s purposes or 

environmental impact that was not already “evaluated in the 

[F]EIS.” Id. at 7. 

This determination would appear to be precisely the type 

of judgment “implicat[ing] substantial agency expertise” to 

which the court owes deference. See Marsh, 490 U.S. at 376–

77. The Friends contend, however, that FTA erred as a matter 

of law because it should have applied the CEQ SEIS regulation 

rather than FTA’s own regulation, noting a textual difference 

between them. Compare 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii) (CEQ 

regulation) with 23 C.F.R. § 771.130(a)(2) (FTA regulation). 

The Friends view the CEQ regulation as substantially broader, 

requiring a SEIS in a greater range of circumstances. See 

Appellee Br. at 38–41. Their focus on the textual difference is 

not implausible. For example, if an agency received “new 

information” that seriously undermined a project’s rationale, 

thereby making environmentally friendlier alternatives more 

attractive, then under the CEQ regulation, the Friends suggest,

that information is “relevant to environmental concerns and 

bear[s] on the proposed action or its impacts,” thereby 

requiring preparation of a SEIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii). 

By contrast, under the FTA regulation, if that new information 

did not also reveal some new environmental impact “not 

evaluated in the [F]EIS,” then, they suggest, no SEIS would be 

required. 23 C.F.R. § 771.130(a)(2). The Friends, therefore, 

urge that even if its Metrorail ridership and safety information 

did not reveal an environmental impact of a kind not previously

addressed in the FEIS, it was surely “relevant” to the Purple 

Line’s environmental impact and “bear[s] on the proposed 

action” because it makes the bus rapid transit and other 
14 

alternatives more attractive. Appellee Br. at 40. They maintain 

that the district court properly ordered the preparation of a 

SEIS. Id. at 40–41. 

The Friends have overread the effect of the textual 

difference between the two regulations. As interpreted by the 

Supreme Court, NEPA requires the preparation of a SEIS 

where new information “will affect the quality of the human 

environment in a significant manner or to a significant extent 

not already considered.” Marsh, 490 U.S. at 373–74 

(emphasis added). Over the course of a long-running project, 

new information will arise that affects, in some way, the 

analysis contained in a prior FEIS. NEPA does not require 

agencies to needlessly repeat their environmental impact 

analyses every time such information comes to light. Rather, a

SEIS must be prepared only where new information “provides 

a seriously different picture of the environmental landscape.” 

Nat’l Comm. for the New River v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1323, 1330 

(D.C. Cir. 2004) (emphasis added). 

So understood, regardless of whether the CEQ or FTA 

regulation applies, FTA and Maryland reasonably explained 

why the Friends’ Metrorail information does not require 

preparation of a SEIS. Not only does that information not 

adversely affect the Purple Line’s environmental impact in an 

absolute sense — the construction and operational footprint 

would remain the same — neither does it have relative 

environmental or transportation effects that would alter 

Maryland’s selection of light rail over bus rapid transit or other 

alternatives. FTA determined that the Metrorail information 

offered no basis to distinguish the alternatives on 

environmental grounds: Each alternative “would have similar 

alignment characteristics” and thus similar “impacts on parks, 

wetlands, historic properties, residential and business 

properties, and other environmentally sensitive sites.” DEIS, 
15 

ch. 6, at 6. Given that the alternatives were rough equivalents 

with regard to their environmental impacts, Maryland 

concluded that “[a] reduction in Metrorail ridership, resulting

in a reduction in Purple Line ridership, would not cause any 

increase or decrease in the relative environmental impacts of 

the [bus rapid transit] and light rail alternatives.” Md. 

Ridership Assessment, at 31; see also id. at 33–34. 

Furthermore, the Metrorail information offered no reason 

for Maryland to reconsider the transportation reasons for 

selecting its preferred alternative. Even if Metrorail ceased to 

exist — an extreme and highly unlikely scenario given its 

centrality to transportation in the greater Washington 

metropolitan area — light rail would still provide faster (and 

higher-capacity) east–west connections between major 

Maryland activity centers in Montgomery and Prince George’s 

counties than would other alternatives, like bus rapid transit. 

See Md. Ridership Assessment, at 32. Light rail also would 

promote new economic opportunities in the underserved lowincome and minority communities located between those 

centers, and provide better connections to non-Metrorail 

regional transit options, including the MARC train, the Amtrak 

railroad, and local bus routes. See FTA Scenarios Report, at 6; 

FEIS, ch. 1, at 1. And in contrast to bus rapid transit, light rail 

would help reduce roadway congestion in a region with a fastgrowing population and economy. See ROD, at 3; FEIS, app. 

A, at 19–20; see also Md. Ridership Assessment, at 7–8, 32. 

FTA and Maryland, therefore, could reasonably conclude that 

the Metrorail information submitted by the Friends does not 

present any new environmental impacts, whether absolute or 

relative, that were “significant” enough to require preparation

of a SEIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii); 23 C.F.R. 

§ 771.130(a)(2). 
16 

The Friends resist this conclusion on an additional ground, 

pointing to Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism 

Association v. Morrison, 67 F.3d 723 (9th Cir. 1995). There, 

the Ninth Circuit required the agency to complete a SEIS in 

light of significantly changed conditions, namely, the 

cancellation of a long-term contract upon which the agency’s 

chosen alternative depended. Id. at 728–30. No analogous 

situation exists here. Alaska Wilderness involved a basic 

change that undercut the rationale upon which the agency 

action depended. By contrast, even with reduced Metrorail 

ridership, a light rail Purple Line still meets its Metrorailconnection purpose as well as or better than the other 

alternatives, and still meets its non-Metrorail-related purposes. 

To the extent the district court faulted Maryland and FTA 

for failing to respond to the Friends’ three declarations 

questioning and raising methodological concerns regarding 

FTA’s ridership numbers in the FEIS, the court’s analysis is 

flawed. Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail v. FTA, 253 F. 

Supp. 3d 296, 301–03 (D.D.C. May 22, 2017). The district 

court analogized to Public Employees for Environmental 

Responsibility v. Hopper, 827 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2016), 

where an agency’s post-remand determination not to prepare a 

SEIS was vacated because it had ignored and excluded data 

submitted by the plaintiffs. Id. at 1089–90. That is not what 

happened here. FTA and Maryland both referred to and 

discussed the views in the declarations. See FTA 2016 Letter, 

at 3; Md. 2015 Letter, at 9–10. Further, FTA had previously 

explained its assumptions in predicting Purple Line ridership, 

which the Friends’ declarants criticized without offering 

ridership numbers of their own. See DEIS, Travel Demand 

Forecasting Technical Report; FEIS, Travel Forecasts Results 

Technical Report. In these circumstances, treatment of the 

three declarations as “late-filed comments” was appropriate. 

Md. 2015 Letter, at 9–10. In addition, FTA’s response to the 
17 

Friends’ subsequent declarations criticizing its measurement of

future Metrorail ridership was reasonable. See FTA Scenarios 

Report. Agencies are not always required to give “point-bypoint responses” to every objection raised. Cf. Am. Forest & 

Paper Ass’n, Inc. v. EPA, 294 F.3d 113, 116 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 

2002). FTA and Maryland explained how they measured 

Metrorail ridership and its impact on the Purple Line. See FTA 

Scenarios Report, at 2–3; Md. Ridership Assessment, at 10–20. 

Absent more than mere disagreement about methodological 

choice, FTA’s responsive explanation “is entitled to deference 

from this court.” Cmtys. Against Runway Expansion, Inc. v. 

FAA, 355 F.3d 678, 689 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 

In sum, FTA and Maryland’s explanation of why the 

Metrorail problems identified by the Friends did not require 

preparation of a SEIS satisfies the CEQ and FTA regulations 

on supplementation, this court’s precedent, and Marsh’s “rule 

of reason,” 490 U.S. at 373–74, the overarching principle 

governing judicial review of NEPA. Because NEPA “does not 

mandate particular results,” the court’s role is to ensure that

agencies consider all significant and reasonably foreseeable 

environmental impacts. Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350. Assuming 

that NEPA requires a SEIS where new information justifies 

reconsideration of a more environmentally favorable 

alternative, on this record the court cannot say that the Friends’ 

Metrorail information constitutes such new information. At 

most it partially called into question one of the Purple Line’s

purposes. It did not call into question the entirety of the Purple 

Line, or the choice of light rail over other alternatives, or the 

Purple Line’s environmental impact — or at least FTA was 

entitled to so conclude. FTA and Maryland sufficiently 

examined the impact of Metrorail issues on the Purple Line’s 

three purposes, and reasonably concluded that Metrorail 

problems would not change the project’s preferred alternative, 

grounding that conclusion on an assessment of five ridership 
18 

scenarios. These circumstances warrant deference by the court 

to FTA’s (and Maryland’s) reasonable, fact-intensive, 

technical determination that preparation of a SEIS was not 

required. Accordingly, we reverse the order requiring FTA to 

prepare a SEIS. 

Separate from the Metrorail-related SEIS issue, the district 

court granted partial summary judgment to FTA on the 

Friends’ other environmental challenges to the Purple Line 

FEIS. Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail v. FTA, 255 F. 

Supp. 3d 60 (D.D.C. June 9, 2017). The Friends now appeal 

three of the district court’s rulings, contending that the 

alternatives analysis in the FEIS violates NEPA, as does its 

indirect effects analysis, and that Maryland’s elimination of the 

“green track” mitigation technique necessitates preparation of 

a SEIS. We agree with the district court that the Friends’ 

challenges to the sufficiency of the FEIS lack merit. See 

Defenders of Wildlife, 849 F.3d at 1082, 

Although the DEIS compared eight project alternatives, 

the FEIS for the Purple Line compared only two: Maryland’s 

“locally preferred” light rail alternative and the “no-build” 

option (i.e., taking no action and assuming all planned and inprogress local projects are completed). See 40 C.F.R. 

§ 1502.14(d). In the Friends’ view, the comparison in the FEIS

of only two starkly different alternatives precluded a 

meaningful analysis and was therefore insufficient. 

NEPA requires a detailed, meaningful alternatives 

analysis. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 4332(C)(iii), (E). The CEQ 

regulations, in turn, require agencies to “[r]igorously explore

and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for 
19 

alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, [to] 

briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.” 

40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a) (emphasis added). Further, the FTA 

NEPA regulations require the FEIS to “identify the preferred 

alternative and evaluate all reasonable alternatives

considered.” 23 C.F.R. § 771.125(a)(1) (emphasis added); see 

also id. § 771.111(f). 

The reasonableness of the analysis of project alternatives 

in a FEIS is resolved not by any particular number of 

alternatives considered, but by the nature of the underlying 

agency action. See Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 

938 F.2d 190, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1991). For some agency actions, 

the FEIS itself should consider a broad range of reasonable 

alternatives. See, e.g., Union Neighbors United, Inc. v. Jewell, 

831 F.3d 564, 576–77 (D.C. Cir. 2016). But the NEPA process 

adopted by FTA and Maryland for the Purple Line — an 

enormously complex project involving coordination between 

multiple government and private actors — fulfilled NEPA’s 

purposes. As the FEIS explained, Maryland initially 

considered numerous alternatives, evaluating them for their 

effectiveness in meeting project goals, engineering feasibility, 

cost, public support, and environmental impact. See FEIS, ch. 

2, at 4. Alternatives “not considered reasonable” were 

“eliminated from further consideration.” Id. The eight 

alternatives that met the reasonableness standard were 

evaluated in the DEIS at a range of investment levels. Id. at 5–

12. Following further study, Maryland chose the light rail 

option as its locally preferred alternative. Id. at 12–18. That 

choice narrowed FTA’s role: Its ultimate decision was to 

decide whether or not to fund the preferred alternative. The 

FEIS therefore focused on comparing light rail and the “nobuild” option. 
20 

This “funneling approach” adopted by Maryland and FTA, 

narrowing alternatives over a period of years, was in accord 

with NEPA’s “rule of reason,” Marsh, 490 U.S. at 373–74, and 

common sense: Agencies need not reanalyze alternatives 

previously rejected, particularly when an earlier analysis of 

numerous reasonable alternatives was incorporated into the 

final analysis and the agency has considered and responded to 

public comment favoring other alternatives. The alternatives 

analysis contained in the FEIS was sufficient under NEPA. 

The FEIS permissibly summarizes and expressly incorporates 

the analysis of eight alternatives contained in the DEIS, 

identifies the alternatives considered throughout the “New 

Starts” process, details the methodology used to compare 

alternatives, and explains the reasons light rail was chosen by

Maryland. See FEIS, ch. 2. It then compares the light rail and 

“no-build” alternatives. See id. ch. 3 (comparing transportation 

effects); id. ch. 4 (comparing environmental impacts and 

presenting mitigation measures); id. ch. 9 (evaluating 

alternatives). The FEIS also includes FTA’s earlier responses 

to comments on the DEIS’s alternatives analysis. See id. app. 

A. Requiring more detail on rejected alternatives would 

elevate form over function. The process undertaken fulfilled 

NEPA’s purpose to identify and analyze project alternatives, to

make that analysis available for public comment, and to 

respond to those comments in a manner that explained the 

preferred alternative, thereby promoting reasoned, wellconsidered decisionmaking. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. U.S. 

Dep’t of Energy, 867 F.3d 189, 196 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (citations 

omitted). 

The Friends’ challenge to the adequacy of the FEIS’s 

examination of the Purple Line’s indirect environmental 

effects, see 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16(a), (b), is similarly 

unavailing. In the Friends’ view, FTA failed to analyze 
21 

adequately the impact of Purple Line-induced economic 

development on local water quality and wildlife or on the 

socioeconomic makeup of local communities. 

 Under FTA’s regulations, “indirect effects” are those 

“caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed 

in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable”; they include 

“growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced 

changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth 

rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural 

systems, including ecosystems.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b). The 

required indirect effects analysis is thus limited to what is 

reasonably foreseeable, “with reasonable being the operative 

word.” Sierra Club, 867 F.3d at 198. “[B]aseless speculation 

is unhelpful,” id., and agencies “need not foresee the 

unforeseeable,” Del. Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 

1304, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Still, agencies must “fulfill [their] 

duties to the fullest extent possible” with the information 

available. Id. 

The analysis of indirect effects addressed in Chapter 7 of 

the FEIS meets this standard. That chapter defines the area of

analysis as “a reasonable walking distance around station areas

of approximately one-half-mile,” and identifies twelve urban 

light rail stations where the Purple Line would likely induce 

economic development. FEIS, ch. 7, at 2–6. It uses local land

use and zoning plans to describe possible economic 

development at these stations to the cutoff year 2040. Id. at 6–

18. Cautioning that development plans may change for myriad 

market- and regulation-related reasons, the FEIS describes 

existing and reasonably foreseeable future projects that could 

have environmental and socioeconomic effects in areas 

surrounding the Purple Line Stations. Id. This includes a 

discussion of water quality and stormwater drainage issues. 

For example, with respect to Coquelin Run, a stream near a 
22 

proposed Purple Line station in Chevy Chase, Maryland, the 

FEIS states that “any negative impact to water quality from the

increased development [surrounding the station] would be 

avoided through the requirements of state and federal water 

quality regulations and the stated intent of the community to 

restore” the stream, as shown in local planning documents. Id. 

at 11. The FEIS also acknowledges the potential for increased 

property values and discusses the potential socioeconomic 

effects at each station — including residential and commercial 

displacement, housing stock changes, business migration, and 

changes to neighborhood character. Id. at 11–18. 

Additionally, in Chapter 4, it considers environmental justice 

issues and impacts on poor and minority communities. Id. ch. 

4, at 143–69. Because national, state, and local politicoeconomic factors affect these kinds of issues, FTA explains that 

“[t]he degree to which the Purple Line would affect . . . 

property values would be subjective and difficult to quantify.” 

ROD, at 96; see also FEIS, ch. 4, at 166–67. 

The Friends rely on Sierra Club v. FERC, 867 F.3d 1357 

(D.C. Cir. 2017). There, the court invalidated an indirect 

effects analysis because the agency had technical and 

contractual information on “how much gas the pipelines 

[would] transport” to specific power plants, and so could have 

estimated with some precision the level of greenhouse gas 

emissions produced by those power plants. Id. at 1371–74. 

The court also recognized that “in some cases quantification 

may not be feasible.” id. at 1374, and this is such a case. Local 

land use planning documents are inherently less concrete than 

numerical estimates based on pipeline capacity and contractual 

usage commitments. FTA discussed Purple Line-induced 

indirect effects based on local planning and zoning documents 

while acknowledging the limits of its prediction. Even 

assuming the indirect effects analysis could “be[] more 

thorough”, City of Alexandria v. Slater, 198 F.3d 862, 869–70 
23 

(D.C. Cir. 1999), the Friends have not identified a critical flaw 

or glaring hole that would inhibit NEPA’s informationpromoting and accountability goals. See Robertson, 490 U.S. 

at 348–49. 

Likewise unpersuasive is the Friends’ challenge to FTA’s 

decision to abandon its commitment to use a “green track” 

mitigation measure. In responding to public comments, FTA 

stated in the ROD that the Purple Line “will use” green track 

in certain locations, in which vegetation would be planted 

along the light rail route to reduce impervious surfaces, limit

stormwater runoff, and provide aesthetic benefits. ROD, 

attach. C, at 91, 113; see FEIS, ch. 2, at 29. Subsequently, 

Maryland’s newly-elected Governor conditioned the State’s 

continued approval of the Purple Line on cost-cutting changes, 

including using other trackside mitigation measures such as 

crushed stone instead of green track. In the Friends’ view, this 

was a significant change that required preparation of a SEIS to

reevaluate the Purple Line’s stormwater effects. 

Although breaking a promise to use green track mitigation 

may present a political issue, the Friends fail to show the 

change is legally significant enough to require preparation of a 

SEIS. Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail v. FTA, 255 F. 

Supp. 3d 60, 68–69 (D.D.C. June 9, 2017). Use of green track 

as a mitigation measure is hardly a central piece of the Purple

Line, and FTA could reasonably conclude its elimination does 

not present a “seriously” different picture of environmental 

impacts that would require preparation of a SEIS. See Nat’l 

Comm. for the New River, 373 F.3d at 1330. State 

environmental and stormwater standards will apply regardless 

of whether green track or another stormwater mitigation 

measure is used, and to that extent the environmental impact is

the same. See Overview of Maryland Stormwater Management 
24 

Requirements and [Maryland’s] Approach to Stormwater 

Compliance for the Purple Line (Dec. 2015). 

National Wildlife Federation v. Marsh, 721 F.2d 767 

(11th Cir. 1983), illustrates the point. There, the agency 

revised its mitigation plan to consist of planting 200 acres of

“green tree reservoirs” (i.e., wooded areas that are seasonally

flooded to provide wildlife habitats) and adopting an “intense 

wildlife management” plan. Id. at 772–73, 782–83. The 

Eleventh Circuit concluded this was a “change in the character 

of the land itself,” and therefore required preparation of a SEIS. 

Id. at 783. Unlike those revisions, which “envision[ed] a 

change in the types of activities to be undertaken on the land,” 

id., there is no analogous basic change to the Purple Line 

project or its environmental effects. 

Finally, as to the district court’s order vacating the ROD 

pending completion of a SEIS, see Friends of the Capital 

Crescent Trail v. FTA, 200 F. Supp. 3d 248, 254 (D.D.C. Aug. 

3, 2016), our holdings that a SEIS was not required and that the 

FEIS challenges lack merit mean the vacatur was error. The 

court, therefore, need not address the parties’ contentions 

regarding the validity or not of vacatur. 

Accordingly, we reverse the grant of partial summary 

judgment to the Friends requiring the preparation of a SEIS and

vacating the ROD, and we affirm the grant of partial summary 

judgment to FTA on the Friends’ challenges to the FEIS.