Opinion ID: 803993
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Environmental Impact Statement Challenge

Text: Appellants first claim the government’s adoption of the EIS did not comply with NEPA, and therefore was arbitrary and capricious. Appellants identify four flaws in the EIS: (1) the noise analysis failed to adhere to United States Department of Transportation regulations; (2) the government should not have rejected Alternative 42C; (3) the cost analysis underestimated the costs for 32B; and (4) the safety analysis used incorrect safety criteria. Our review of the statutory and administrative claims is de novo: We review NEPA claims under the APA independently, giving no particular deference to the district court’s review of an agency action. As with other challenges arising under the APA, we review an agency’s NEPA compliance to see whether it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. In the context of a NEPA challenge, an agency’s decision is arbitrary and capricious if the agency (1) entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, (2) offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so -6- implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise, (3) failed to base its decision on consideration of the relevant factors, or (4) made a clear error of judgment. Forest Guardians v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 611 F.3d 692, 710–11 (10th Cir. 2010). “Deficiencies in an EIS that are mere ‘flyspecks’ and do not defeat NEPA’s goals of informed decisionmaking and informed public comment will not lead to reversal.” New Mexico ex rel. Richardson v. BLM, 565 F.3d 683, 704 (10th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, even if an agency violates the APA, its error does not require reversal unless a plaintiff demonstrates prejudice resulting from the error. APA § 706 (“[D]ue account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.”); see New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 708. Importantly, “[a] presumption of validity attaches to the agency action and the burden of proof rests with the appellants who challenge such action.” New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 704. With this standard of review in mind, we turn to the four EIS deficiencies claimed by the Appellants. -7-

Federal law requires the Secretary of Transportation to “develop and promulgate standards for highway noise levels compatible with different land uses.” 23 U.S.C. § 109(i). This requirement is implemented by federal regulations establishing a three-stage noise analysis process that FHWA must follow for new highway projects. See 23 C.F.R. § 772. First, FHWA must determine whether a proposed project will result in “traffic noise impacts.” § 772.11(a). “Traffic noise impacts” are defined as noise levels that approach or exceed a defined limit listed in the regulations, or that create a substantial noise increase over existing noise levels. See § 772.5; tbl. 1. The defined limit varies depending on the land use; for example, hotels and offices have higher limits than residential areas. See id. To determine whether traffic noise impacts will occur requires FHWA to determine existing noise levels, predict future noise levels for each alternative under consideration, and compare the existing and predicted noise levels. 1 See § 772.11. Second, if FHWA determines that a project will create traffic noise impacts, “noise abatement shall be considered and evaluated for feasibility and 1 Specifically, the regulations state: “The highway agency shall determine and analyze expected traffic noise impacts. . . . For projects on existing alignments, predict existing and design year traffic noise impacts.” § 772.11(a). “The analysis of traffic noise impacts shall . . . validate predicted noise level [sic] through comparison between measured and predicted levels.” § 772.11(d). -8- reasonableness.” § 772.13(a). Before adopting a record of decision, FHWA must identify and document “(1) Noise abatement measures which are feasible and reasonable, and which are likely to be incorporated in the project; and (2) Noise impacts for which no noise abatement measures are feasible and reasonable.” § 772.13(g). Third, FHWA may not “approve project plans and specifications unless feasible and reasonable noise abatement measures are incorporated into the plans and specifications.” § 772.13(h). The final approval of plans and specifications is a separate decision from the adoption of a record of decision and, in this case, has not yet occurred.
The EIS includes the results of a noise impact analysis conducted by a government contractor. The contractor first measured existing noise levels at various points on the Haskell Farm and surrounding areas. The contractor then used computer modeling to forecast what noise levels would be in the year 2025 for each alternative with and without mitigating sound barriers, using 2025 vehicle traffic projections provided by KDOT. The results showed that Alternative 32B had a very significant impact on noise levels on the Haskell Farm without mitigation measures. But when sound barriers were included in the modeling, 32B had less noise impact than the “no action” and 42A alternatives, because those alternatives involved increased traffic on existing surface streets. -9- The parties dispute whether the EIS adequately compared future noise levels to existing levels. Appellants point to a sentence in the government’s Traffic Noise Analysis Summary that suggests a comparison was not made, and a direct comparison of existing and predicted noise levels does not appear in the body of that document, in the EIS, or in the 4(f) analysis. The government, however, points to some data tables in the record that it claims include the relevant comparison. The record is somewhat unclear as to whether these data constitute a full or only partial comparison of existing and predicted noise levels, and whether the government actually “validate[d] predicted noise level [sic] through comparison between measured and predicted levels” as required. § 772.11(d).
Even assuming the government’s analysis did not adequately compare existing and predicted noise levels, any error was harmless. The effect of the first stage of a § 772 analysis is only to determine whether there will be noise impacts. If there will be noise impacts, then the government is required to proceed to stage two and consider noise abatement measures. Here, the government in fact found there would be noise impacts, and continued to stage two. At stage two, the government conducted the correct analysis; that is, it identified “[n]oise abatement measures which are feasible and reasonable, and which are likely to be incorporated in the project.” § 772.13(g). Because any error at stage one did not -10- actually prevent the government from proceeding to stage two, and because the analysis at stage two was conducted correctly, we see no possible harm. The Appellants argue unpersuasively that we should not engage in a harmlessness analysis where the claim of error is procedural. Appellants are correct that, in some instances, a harmlessness analysis can be inappropriate. For example, when an agency fails “substantively to consider the environmental ramifications of its actions in accordance with NEPA,” Catron County Bd. of Comm’rs v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 75 F.3d 1429, 1433 (10th Cir. 1996), we will not uphold the agency’s decision on the grounds that it might have made the same decision even without the error; otherwise, NEPA would be a near-toothless environmental safeguard. Here, however, we know for a certainty that additional noise analysis could not have altered the outcome because, despite the potential flaw, the government determined there would be noise impacts and correctly proceeded to identify likely noise abatement measures. That is all the government was required to do at that point in the decisionmaking process, as it had not yet approved the project’s final “plans and specifications” at the third stage of the § 772 analysis. Thus, the Appellants cannot “show they were prejudiced” as required by APA § 706. Bar MK Ranches v. Yuetter, 994 F.2d 735, 740 (10th Cir. 1993). Appellants also argue the error was material because the noise analysis was used not only for purposes of the § 772 analysis, but also played a role in -11- selecting 32B over the other alternatives. But, in weighing the relative merits of each alternative, the government did compare the predicted noise levels against each other. The error Appellants identify—failure to compare predicted noise levels to existing noise levels—would not have affected this relative comparison of the alternatives. Thus, any error was harmless. Separately, Appellants claim the noise analysis was deficient in its geographic scope. Appellants briefly make this argument in very general terms in their opening brief, but only develop it in detail in their reply brief. Even there, Appellants cite no specific legal authority for the proposition that the government was required to consider a larger geographic area than it actually did. “Setting the boundaries of the region to be analyzed involved technical and scientific judgments within the [government’s] area of expertise.” San Juan Citizens Alliance v. Stiles, 654 F.3d 1038, 1057 (10th Cir. 2011). The applicable regulations, quite apart from requiring a noise analysis along the entire length of the proposed project, specifically state that “a highway agency shall give primary consideration to exterior areas where frequent human use occurs.” 23 C.F.R. § 772.11. Additionally, the regulations specifically exempt “developed lands that are not sensitive to highway traffic noise,” § 772.11(c)(vi), and “undeveloped lands,” § 772.11(c)(vii), from noise impact analyses under most circumstances. Here, the noise analysis focused on the sensitive areas in and around the Haskell Farm. As the government points out, most of the remaining land along -12- routes 32B and 42A is undeveloped. Appellants allege for the first time in their reply brief that the government “failed to consider 32B’s noise impacts on the nearby noise-sensitive Prairie Park and Nature Center and city homes east of the Haskell Farm.” Aplt. Reply Br. at 8. Appellants, however, have not laid a sufficient factual basis on the record for us to conclude that the government’s decision to restrict the noise analysis to the Haskell Farm was arbitrary and capricious. To the contrary, as far as the record shows, that decision, made pursuant to public comment on the project, was entirely reasonable. To find otherwise would be to engage in “flyspeck[ing]” the noise analysis based on factual allegations outside the record. New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 704. This we may not do. Accordingly, we find the government’s noise analysis did not violate the APA.
Next, Appellants claim the government erred by eliminating alternative 42C from consideration during the evaluation process and failing to reconsider this alternative at the Appellants’ request.
Before commencing in-depth analyses of EIS alternatives, agencies engage in scoping—“an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action.” -13- 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7. An agency need not “analyze the environmental consequences of alternatives it has in good faith rejected as too remote, speculative, or . . . impractical or ineffective.” Colo. Envtl. Coal. v. Dombeck, 185 F.3d 1162, 1174 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting All Indian Pueblo Council v. United States, 975 F.2d 1437, 1444 (10th Cir. 1992)). In reviewing an agency’s choice of which alternatives to eliminate at the scoping stage, we apply “[t]he rule of reason.” Custer County Action Ass’n v. Garvey, 256 F.3d 1024, 1040 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Am. Rivers v. Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n, 201 F.3d 1186, 1200 (9th Cir. 2000)). We also bear in mind that “an agency need not consider an alternative unless it is significantly distinguishable from the alternatives already considered.” New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 708–09.
At the earliest stage of project planning, the government developed five concept corridors for the SLT. One of these concept corridors was the 42nd Street corridor, which passed west of an S-curve in the Wakarusa River, at its narrowest point, and continued south of the floodplain. During the scoping process, the government developed 12 potential alignments along the five concept corridors for detailed review. Two of the 12 remaining alignments were along the 42nd Street corridor: alternatives 42A and 42B. Although these two alternatives mostly followed the path of the 42nd Street -14- concept corridor, they passed east of the S-curve in the Wakarusa River instead of west. The government admits that early in the scoping process it also considered an alternative along the 42nd Street alignment that would have passed west of the S-curve, but this alternative (along with several others) was eliminated due to safety concerns and thus was not included in the final 12. Later, the government narrowed the alternatives down to 32B and 42A, which were analyzed in further detail. Finally, the government selected 32B as its preferred alternative. The details about the concept corridors and the 12 alternatives were disclosed in the draft EIS that the government issued in September 2002. Appellants participated in the public comment process, but at that time did not propose an alternate route along the 42nd Street corridor. After the final EIS was released, the Appellants submitted a new alternative that they refer to as 42C. This alternative would cross the Wakarusa River west of the S-curve as envisioned by the original 42nd Street concept corridor. Appellants allege 42C would result in $17 million in savings relative to 42A because it would use multiple short bridges instead of a single long bridge to cross the floodplain. The government determined that the 42C alignment, as proposed by Appellants, encroached upon Lawrence park and public school properties, failed to provide a safe approach to bridges, and failed to properly align with the -15- proposed K-10 interchange. Nonetheless, the government developed a modified version of alternative 42C that remedied these problems. The government then considered and rejected the modified route. In a letter to Appellants, the government explained that 42C “would increase traffic accident risks due to increased curvature of the road” and due to ramping up and down between the multiple bridges. App. at 1014. In addition, the government determined that the cost savings from 42C would be only about $5 million, not the $17 million Appellants claimed. Thus, alternative 42C would still be significantly more expensive than alternative 32B. Appellants protested that the government’s modifications to alternative 42C were deliberately designed to sabotage the proposal. The government responded that it was “satisfied that the [modified] alignment . . . is reasonable and that it reflects appropriate roadway design.” App. at 976.
The government did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to include alternative 42C, or a similar route passing west of the S-curve, in the group of 12 alternatives selected for detailed consideration. At the start of a highway project like the SLT, there are numerous possible routes. By necessity, an agency must select a certain number of routes for serious study and eliminate the rest without detailed analysis. Thus, absent a showing of bad faith, we review an agency’s -16- selection of alternatives only for reasonableness. See Custer County Action Ass’n, 256 F.3d at 1040. Here, the government did not act unreasonably or in bad faith in its selection of alternatives. The government selected alternatives 42A and 42B after conducting an “early and open” scoping process in conformity with NEPAimplementing regulations. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7. Although alternatives 42A and 42B differed somewhat from the 42nd Street concept corridor, the very notion of a “concept” implies that some changes will be made as plans progress. Alternatives 42A and 42B did not differ significantly from the concept corridor in terms of basic function; all three went south around the floodplain, avoiding the Haskell Farm but requiring a longer route. Although the concept corridor may have been marginally less expensive, it was also more dangerous due to the road curvature required. Most significantly for NEPA purposes, there is no evidence that the concept corridor would have been significantly different than 42A and 42B in its environmental impact. To the extent Appellants argue the government erred in not giving sufficient consideration to their 42C proposal, we note that Appellants did not propose alternative 42C until after the government issued its final EIS. Appellants do not explain why they did not propose this route during the scoping process or during the public comment period for the draft EIS. Despite Appellants’ late proposal, the government considered their proposal and offered a -17- reasoned explanation of why it was inferior to the chosen alternative. Appellants argue that the government’s safety analysis for alternative 42C was inadequate, but given the timing of their proposal, the government arguably went above and beyond what was required. The government’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious. If Appellants intended a more robust review of alternative 42C’s safety, they could have proposed that route before the EIS was finalized.
Appellants next argue that the government significantly underestimated construction costs for alternative 32B. This argument, based on a single footnote in the EIS, warrants only a brief discussion. The footnote in question relates to Table 2-18 of the EIS, which shows estimated construction, operation, and maintenance costs for the 32B, 42A, and no-action alternatives. One of the cost items listed is “mitigation.” For alternative 32B, mitigation costs are listed at $18.6 million, with a footnote call appended. The footnote reads: “Mitigation cost for [alternative 32B] includes relocation of 31st Street, Haskell Avenue and Louisiana Street, as well as noise walls and additional landscaping.” App. at 551 n.11. Appellants interpret this footnote to mean that the $18.6 million figure only includes the costs listed in the footnote, erroneously excluding an additional $10 million in wetlands mitigation costs. -18- Although Appellants’ interpretation is perhaps plausible when the footnote is read in isolation, it is obviously incorrect when read in conjunction with other sections of the EIS. Specifically, the portion of the EIS entitled Environmental Consequences has a subsection specifically addressing wetland mitigation for the 32nd Street corridor. There, a table totaling the costs for 32B includes wetland mitigation measures as well as other measures and lists the total cost as $18.6 million. See App. at 665. Thus, we are unconvinced that the government erroneously omitted wetlands mitigation costs from its consideration of alternative 32B. 2
Finally, Appellants complain briefly that the EIS used the wrong vehicle accident rate metric to calculate the relative safety of each alternative. The EIS’s purpose and need statement used accidents per million vehicle miles driven, but the EIS’s safety analysis used accidents per year. The substantive difference between the two metrics is that accidents per million vehicle miles driven cancels out accident increases created solely by increased highway length, while accidents per year does not. Appellants claim the use of the latter metric in the safety analysis was erroneous given that the former metric was used to define the project’s purpose and need. 2 Although we find the government did not omit these costs from its NEPA analysis, the government admits that it did erroneously omit some costs from its section 4(f) analysis. We address this issue separately below. -19- We find the EIS’s use of accidents per year instead of accidents per million vehicle miles was not arbitrary and capricious. We “are not in a position to decide the propriety of competing methodologies in the transportation analysis context, but instead, should determine simply whether the challenged method had a rational basis and took into consideration the relevant factors.” Comm. to Pres. Boomer Lake Park v. Dep’t of Transp., 4 F.3d 1543, 1553 (10th Cir. 1993). Appellants do not explain why accidents per year lacks a rational basis for NEPA purposes. To us, the total number of accidents that will be caused (or avoided) each year appears a reasonable safety metric, and Appellants do not attempt to convince us otherwise. We note that there is no inherent inconsistency in using accidents per year to evaluate safety, while also using accidents per million vehicle miles as a minimum standard under the purpose and need of the project. The two analyses actually served somewhat different purposes; the safety analysis accounted for accidents avoided due to decreased use of more-dangerous surface streets in Lawrence, while the purpose and need standard considered only the safety of the highway itself, which had to meet or exceed the state average for highways in Kansas. Significantly, Appellants do not claim that alternative 32B would actually fail to meet the purpose and need statement’s minimum standard. Thus, we reject Appellants’ claim that the government failed to rigorously and objectively evaluate road safety. -20-