Opinion ID: 162578
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Impacts to Wetlands

Text: 78 An EIS must analyze the indirect impacts of a proposed action. Custer County, 256 F.3d at 1035. Indirect impacts are defined as being caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but still reasonably foreseeable. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b). The Appellants allege that the Agencies violated NEPA by their inadequate analysis of impacts on wetlands. After reviewing the FEIS, especially chapters three and four, we find that the indirect impact on wetlands analysis is not inadequate to the point of being arbitrary and capricious. I Aplee. App. at 325-441; 442-617. 79 The Appellants also contend that NEPA was violated because the Agencies: (1) failed to classify the wetlands into subcategories, (2) failed to take actual field data, (3) assumed that land use changes within 1000 feet of a wetland perimeter adequately predicted the wetlands' level of functionality, and (4) used the Everglades HGM Regional Guidebook. 80
81 The Appellants argue that the Appellees acted arbitrarily and capriciously by violating the hydrogeomorphic methodology (HGM) protocols by only classifying the wetlands into the general categories of groundwater slope, basin depressional, and lacustrine fringe without providing an explanation in the record. Aplt. Br. at 64 (citing 62 Fed.Reg. 33,609-10 (NAP)). The Appellees assert that the Legacy HGM was merely guided rather than limited by the NAP and point out that early analyses that included subclassifications did not increase the accuracy of the model over the use of the basic classifications. The Appellants' contention that the subcategories were omitted without explanation in the record is simply inaccurate. The FEIS states that: 82 Initially, the wetlands were characterized by HGM category and then each category was subdivided into subclasses, based upon the primary wetland vegetative community. These subclasses were used in the development of various HGM models. Many of these vegetative communities were mapped separately, but are part of a larger depression or basin. After the HGM model was initially developed, it was found that using these subclasses of smaller vegetative communities produced results that do not accurately reflect the way these wetlands are performing their functions. Consequently, subdivision into vegetative subclasses was eliminated and the wetlands functional models are now based on the more general HGM categories (lacustrine fringe, groundwater slope and basin depressional wetlands). 83 I Aplee. App. at 390-91. It is arbitrary and capricious not to follow a protocol without giving a rational explanation. Big Horn Coal Co., 793 F.2d at 1169 (citations omitted) (Agencies are under an obligation to follow their own regulations, procedures, and precedents, or provide a rational explanation for their departures.). See also Midwestern Transp., Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 635 F.2d 771, 777 (10th Cir.1980) ([T]he court must require the agency to adhere to its own pronouncements or explain its departure from them;....); Squaw Transit Co. v. United States, 574 F.2d 492, 496 (10th Cir.1978) (same). Here, however, even accepting the contention that protocols were not followed, a rational explanation was given. I Aplee. App. at 390. 84 The Appellants respond in their reply brief that [i]f Agencies' initial subclassification was inadequate, the appropriate response was to improve, not abandon the necessary work. Aplt. Reply Br. at 25. It is well established that agencies are entitled to rely on their own experts so long as their decision is not arbitrary and capricious. Custer County, 256 F.3d at 1036. The fact that the Appellants consider the experts' decision to be an inappropriate response does not render the FEIS inadequate. 85
86 The Appellants contend that NEPA was violated by the Agencies' failure to develop functional profiles for each wetlands subclass within the affected region and to identify and collect field data on measurable ecological attributes. Aplt. Br. at 65. As discussed immediately above, the Agencies gave a rational explanation for not classifying the wetlands into subcategories. It would not be rational to require the Agencies to develop functional profiles for each subclass when they were not required to identify subclasses. See supra I.I.1. The Appellants' claim that the Agencies failed to identify and collect field data on measurable ecological attributes is contradicted by the record. IV Aplee. App. at 1378, 1379, 1380, 1557; III Aplee. App. at 1122.4. Additionally, we find it significant that the NAP states, The functional profile is based on the experience and expertise of the A-team [assessment team] and information collected from reference wetlands. 62 Fed.Reg. 33,607, 33,610 (June 20, 1997). 87
88 The Appellants allege that the Agencies violated the HGM protocols by treating all three types of wetlands as having the same functions and associated indicators based on the assumption that land use changes within 1000 feet of the wetlands' perimeter adequately explains variations in the wetlands' function. Aplt. Br. at 66. Appellants cite to a 1993 Wetlands Research Program Technical Report that states, Each population of wetland types or classes would be identified with a unique list of functions and associated indicators. (If the list is not unique in some way for the wetland type, then it is probably not adequate for assessment. In other words, the classification was not specific enough and the functional profile was not adequately prepared.) I Aplt.App. at 82 (Mark Brinson, A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands). 89 The NAP instructs that [t]he functional profile is based on the experience and expertise of the A-team and information collected from reference wetlands. 62 Fed.Reg. at 33,610. Based on their experience and expertise, the A-team concluded that the amount and degree of anthropogenic influences either within or surrounding a wetland serve as an indicator of the level of wetland functionality. This assumption was based on several regional guidebooks developed in Florida and research completed in Canada. III Aplee. App. at 1122.2. Additionally, information was collected from reference wetlands that verified the model. IV Aplee. App. at 1379, 1380. Consequently, this court is unable to say that this decision of the Agencies' experts renders the EIS inadequate. See Custer County, 256 F.3d at 1036. 90
91 The Appellants contend that use of the Everglades HGM Regional Guidebook by the A-team conducting the Legacy HGM was arbitrary and capricious because the Guidebook state[s] that it is a guidebook designed to apply to only certain types of depressional wetlands in Florida, that using the guidebook for other types of wetlands even in Florida was inappropriate, and that other guidebooks will be developed for assessing the functions of other types of Florida depressional wetlands. Aplt. Br. at 68 (citing to II Aplt.App. 698A which is from a 1997 Field Test Draft of the Everglades HGM Regional Guidebook). However, no such statement appears on the page cited by Appellants. Additionally, the record shows that the A-team considered other documents before deciding to use the Everglades HGM Regional Guidebook. III Aplee. App. at 1122.2-22.3. J. Failure to Consider Impacts to Wildlife 92 The Appellants charge that the FEIS is inadequate and violates NEPA regulations because: (1) only wildlife impacts within 1000 feet of the ROW were considered, (2) the FEIS contains inadequate wildlife impact analysis; (3) the Agencies failed to adequately consider noise impacts on wildlife; and (4) wildlife impact and success of mitigation were not considered in light of the dynamic cycle of the GSL. Because we find that the wildlife impact analysis is inadequate under NEPA because the 1000 foot radius excluded consideration of impacts on migratory birds, it is not necessary to reach (2)-(4). 93 1. Only considered impacts to wildlife within 1000 feet of project 94 Appellants contend that the FEIS violated NEPA by only considering impacts on wildlife habitat within an arbitrary 1000 foot distance from the right of way. I Aplee. App. 558, 565. This was done even though the FWS presented evidence to the Federal Agencies that roads can cause significant adverse effects to bird populations as far as 1.24 miles from roadways, especially in open terrain like that adjacent to the proposed Legacy Parkway. Aplt. Br. at 69. 95 In response to a comment that was submitted alleging that the 1000-foot distance was chosen arbitrarily, the Federal Agencies made the following response: The HGM model used 1000 feet because the data we collected for land use (which extended to 1 mile from the edge of the wetland) did not result in any statistical difference from the data collected at 1000 feet. 96 Aplee.App. at 1322 (Response to Comments, October 26, 2000). However, by only evaluating impacts to habitat structure within 1000 feet of the roadway, the Applicant and Agencies effectively limited any assessment of wildlife use and value to smaller, less mobile species and ignored the primary concern of many public and private entities: impacts to the GSL ecosystem and its ability to continue as a nationally and internationally significant wildlife use area, particularly for migratory birds. I Aplt.App. at 355 (April 2000 letter from FWS to UDOT). The record repeatedly and without contradiction indicates that the 1000-foot limit used in the FEIS does not allow for consideration of impacts on migratory birds. I Aplee. App. at 401 (FEIS) (noting that because birds have a migratory range up to miles they are beyond the scope of the assessment model); IV Aplee. App. at 1267 (July 2000 Wetland QC Report Legacy Parkway) (same); I Aplt.App. at 223 (December 1999 Meeting Minutes) (UDWR and FWS comment that the barrier variable does not take into account the impact to avian species. Response: That information cannot be included in the HGM model, it's too specific. It will have to be assessed elsewhere.); Aplt. App. at 339 (June 2000 letter from FWS to FHWA) ([T]he extent of many potential impacts to wildlife had not been quantified by HGM or any other approach.). While we recognize that the failure to employ a particular method of analysis in an EIS does not render it inadequate, Utah Shared Access Alliance, 288 F.3d at 1212, here the FEIS simply is inadequate to address the impact on migratory birds. 97 The Appellees respond that they fully explained the rationale for their decision to study indirect wildlife impacts in a 1000 foot zone on each side of the Parkway right-of-way, Aplee. Br. at 58. However, their only citation in support of this statement is a response to a comment from October 2000 that does not address their own admission that birds were beyond the scope of the HGM. IV Aplee. App. at 1322; I Aplee. App. at 401. Further, this response regarding statistical differences in land use is so unclear as to make us question whether it even relates to the effects on wildlife. The Appellees also reply that 317 acres of land preservation were added to the mitigation package because of the criticisms. Aplee. Br. at 57. Increasing the mitigation package, however, does not resolve the inadequacy of the FEIS's wildlife impact analysis. Given that some two to five million birds use the GSL each year, a large portion of which are migratory birds, we find that limiting the wildlife impact analysis so that migratory birds are beyond its scope renders the FEIS inadequate. 9 K. Air Quality Impacts 98 In response to comments on the DEIS, the FEIS increased by two million its estimate of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per day in 2020 under both the no-build and build scenarios. Compare II Aplt.App. at 529 (DEIS estimating VMT in 2020 at 46 million), with II Aplt.App. at 775 (FEIS estimating VMT in 2020 at 48 million). Additionally, the FEIS attributed 3.3 percent of the total project demand for 2020 to latent demand. II Aplt. App. at 562. Appellants assert that the FEIS is inadequate because the air pollution analysis was not adjusted to reflect the increase in VMT or the latent demand. Aplt. Br. at 76. 99 The FEIS did not recalculate the impact on air pollution, compare III Aplt.App. at 526, with III Aplt.App. at 603. This was because of the addition of a fourth county to the revised model, was explained in the FEIS, and does not make the FEIS inadequate. III Aplt.App. at 603. As explained in the FEIS, latent demand is the portion of total demand that is influenced by the presence of impediments to travel. III Aplt.App. at 559. It does not represent an increase in total demand. Therefore, not adjusting the air pollution impact analysis because some of the total demand was attributed to latent demand does not make the FEIS unscientific or inadequate. 100 The Appellants also argue that some of the comments requested that the FEIS include a hot spot analysis and that its absence is a violation of FHWA guidance documents and agency practice in other parts of the country. Aplt. Br. at 78. However, the Appellants failed to provide any support for this claim in their opening brief. The FEIS explained that because all intersections were anticipated to perform at a service level of C or higher, no hot spot analysis was required. II Aplt. App. at 604. The FEIS is not inadequate on this basis. L. Failure to Disclose Unresolved Issues 101 Relying upon 42 U.S.C. § 4332 and 23 C.F.R. § 771.125(a)(2), Appellants contend that the FEIS is inadequate for failing to disclose unresolved issues, specifically where the Agencies' own experts and consultants may have expressed disagreement. Aplt. Br. at 79. We believe that this issue has already been adequately addressed in the context of Appellants' various challenges and does not warrant discussion, particularly because Appellants have failed to identify exactly which issues remain unresolved and have failed to brief the issue adequately. M. Failure to Insure Accuracy of the FEIS 102 Appellants argue that the Federal Agencies involved abandoned their obligation under NEPA to evaluate submitted information independently and insure the accuracy of the FEIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1506.5(a); 23 C.F.R. 771.109(c)(1). They rely upon the lack of any independent evaluation of project costs submitted by UDOT. Aplt. Br. at 81. This issue has already been adequately addressed above and does not warrant additional analysis. See supra I.A. and II.A. 103 N. Failure to Insure Professional and Scientific Integrity of the EIS 104 NEPA imposes an affirmative duty on federal agencies to insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in the environmental impact statements. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24. The Appellants advance that the Federal Agencies violated this duty as to the HGM model, the travel demand model (TDM), and by using different versions of the VMT model. Aplt. Br. at 82-85. Because we have addressed Appellants' arguments about the HGM model and use of different versions of the VMT model above, we now consider only the TDM. See supra I.I and I.K. 105 The WFRC's daily TDM predicts that building the Legacy Parkway will result in congestion speeds being reduced from 11.4 mph to 6.9 mph but an increase in VMT. I Aplee. App. at 62 (correcting FEIS chart in II Aplee. App. at 780). The Appellants conclude that this result is illogical and inconsistent with the stated goals for the FEIS. The Appellees explain that this result is tied to a change in the parameters used in the no-build and the ... build alternatives. WFRC made a rational judgment to change the parameter so that the model could more accurately reflect the public's likely response to extreme congestion, that response being that some travelers will take a more circuitous route to avoid congestion. Aplee. Br. at 74. See also IV Aplee. App. at 1333 (Response to comment on decreased congestion speed under build alternatives), 1334. The Appellees also indicate that only the daily TDM predicts lower congestion speeds under the build alternatives while the AM and PM TDMs predict higher congestion speeds under the build alternatives. Applying the rule of reason and overlooking minor technical deficiencies, the TDM does not render the FEIS inadequate. See Swanson v. United States Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339, 343-44 (9th Cir.1996). O. Segmentation of Transportation Projects 106 Travel demand projections for the North Corridor indicate that by 2020 a range of multi-modal transportation solutions will be needed to accommodate the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. The Legacy Parkway will provide a portion of the transportation facilities needed as one element of the Shared Solution transportation plan. The Shared Solution also includes reconstruction and expansion of I-15 to ten lanes, and expansion of the public transit system. II Aplt. App. at 567. According to the FEIS, the I-15 project is being proposed concurrently with the Legacy Parkway, but the results of this evaluation are being reported in a separate EIS. II Aplt.App. at 551. The FEIS for the I-15 project was scheduled to be completed by mid 2000 with construction to begin in 2008 after completion of the Legacy Parkway. II Aplt.App. at 620A, 570 (FEIS). If the Legacy Parkway is not constructed, the FEIS indicates that it would not be reasonable to proceed with the I-15 project because of the unlikely chance that any advantages whatsoever would develop compared to the extreme cost to travelers. II Aplt.App. at 570. 107 NEPA instructs that significant cumulative impacts are not to be made to appear insignificant by breaking a project down into small component parts. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(7). NEPA's description of the proper scope of an EIS in 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25 instructs that (1) connected actions should be discussed in the same EIS, and (2) similar actions should be discussed in the same EIS when the best way to assess adequately the combined impacts of the similar actions or reasonable alternatives to such actions is to treat them in a single impact statement. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.25(a)(1), (3). A connected action is defined as being closely related to other actions and is identified based on three factors: (i) Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements. 108 (ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously. 109 (iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. 110 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(1). Similar actions are actions that when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together, such as common timing or geography. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(3). 111 Generally [under NEPA], segmentation of highway projects is improper for the purpose of preparing environmental documentation. Ross v. Federal Highway Admin., 162 F.3d 1046, 1049 n. 3 (10th Cir.1998) (citing Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. Barnhart, 906 F.2d 1477, 1483 (10th Cir.1990)). However, the rule against segmentation is not required to be applied in every situation. To determine the appropriate scope for an EIS, courts have considered such factors as whether the proposed segment 112
113
114
115
116 Piedmont Heights Civic Club, Inc. v. Moreland, 637 F.2d 430, 439 (5th Cir.1981) (citing cases from the 7th Cir., 9th Cir., and 8th Cir.); Ross, 162 F.3d at 1049 n. 3 (applying same test to portion of a highway project that was segmented in an attempt to avoid NEPA requirements as to that portion); Village, 906 F.2d at 1483 (applying same test to local bridge in determining that it was not segmented improperly from a federal project). This test seems to come in part from 23 C.F.R. § 771.111(f). See also Coalition on Sensible Transp., Inc. v. Dole, 826 F.2d 60, 68 (D.C.Cir.1987). In Custer County, 256 F.3d at 1037, we noted that projects that have independent utility are not connected actions under 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(1)(iii). An inquiry into independent utility reveals whether the project is indeed a separate project, justifying the consideration of the environmental effects of that project alone. Piedmont, 637 F.2d at 440. 117 The Appellants assert that NEPA requires that a single EIS be prepared for the Legacy Parkway, the I-15 project, and the expansion of the public transit. Aplt. Br. at 86. They characterize all three projects as connected and similar actions and as interdependent parts such that the best way to assess adequately the combined impacts of the three components and reasonable alternatives both to and among the components is without doubt a single EIS. Id. at 88-89. Appellants rely upon the FEIS: 118 It is not reasonable to include construction of I-15 North in the No Build Alternative because of the unlikely chance that any advantages whatsoever would develop compared to the extreme cost to travelers. In fact, the entire cost of Legacy Parkway is economically justified, based on its value as an alternative route during reconstruction of I-15. 119 The Legacy Parkway is part of the Shared Solution of transportation systems management, transit, and roadways proposed for the North Corridor. The 2020 capacity needs in the North Corridor would not be met without both the Legacy Parkway and the I-15 North Improvements, even with aggressively enhanced transit. Moreover, the North Corridor transportation needs for safety and an alternate north-south route, as well as engineering and construction constraints, compel a reasonable sequencing of construction under which the I-15 North Improvements would occur after completion of the Legacy Parkway. 120 II Aplt.App. 570. What this tells us is that the I-15 reconstruction will not proceed without the Legacy Parkway, and that Legacy Parkway's utility as an alternate route during that reconstruction alone would justify the Legacy Parkway's cost. 121 Applying the test contained in the regulation, 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(1)(i)-(iii), the Legacy Parkway does not automatically trigger the reconstruction of I-15, or the transit expansion. The Legacy Parkway may proceed without the reconstruction of I-15; the regulation views actions as connected if they cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously. Here, the I-15 project will occur, if at all, subsequently. 122 The Appellants argue that the three components of the Shared Solution require a single EIS. The FEIS estimates that the Legacy Parkway will facilitate 16 percent of the 2020 demand, the expansion to I-15 will facilitate 8 percent, and the expanded transit will facilitate 12 percent. I Aplee. App. at 323. Each component can serve its transportation purpose whether or not the other projects are built. The components, although interrelated as part of an overall transportation plan, should individually contribute to alleviation of the traffic problems in the Northern Corridor, and are therefore not improperly segmented as separate projects. See Piedmont, 637 F.2d at 440-41 (rejecting similar argument that projects were improperly segmented). Additionally, the FEIS does not state that the I-15 project lacks independent utility from the Legacy Project. It merely points out that, without the Legacy Parkway as an alternative route, large scale reconstruction and expansion of I-15 would impede traffic to the point that the short-term costs of the project would outweigh the long-term benefits. II Aplt.App. at 570. Moreover, there is some evidence of coordination insofar as preparation of the EIS is concerned. I Aplee. App. at 1 (While each project is considered separately, FHWA has developed a record that enabled the public and the decision makers to be aware of the relationship of the two projects to the overall transportation needs in the North Corridor by developing parallel Chapters 1 & 2 for the separate EIS's.). Given our deferential standard of review, we cannot conclude that the FEIS is deficient because the three aspects of the Shared Solution were not evaluated in a single EIS. 123 P. Illegal Delegation of NEPA Responsibility and Oversight 124 While admitting that an EIS for any major federal action funded under a program of grants to states is not legally insufficient solely because it was prepared by a state agency, see 42 U.S.C. § 4332(D), 10 the Appellants argue that this EIS is legally insufficient because it was prepared by a state agency for a state-funded project, to be used by the COE to issue a § 404(b) permit. Aplt. Br. at 89. In the alternative, they argue that even if a state agency could prepare the EIS, the federal agencies did not sufficiently participate and independently review the work of the state agency and its contractors. 125 Appellants rely on Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 701 F.2d 1011, 1037-39 (2d Cir.1983), which held that the COE, as a permitting rather than a funding agency, should have prepared its own FEIS and not relied on the FEIS prepared by the state agency regardless of the FEIS's accuracy. The court determined that the indicated remedial order would have been to require the COE to prepare a completely new EIS, not merely a supplemental EIS. However, the court declined to order a new FEIS because such a remedy would have required a wasteful duplication of effort as to issues the court had found adequately treated and because relief under NEPA should not be punitive. Id. at 1039. 126 Although 40 C.F.R. § 1506.4 (Any environmental document in compliance with NEPA may be combined with any other agency document to reduce duplication and paperwork.) and 40 C.F.R. § 1506.5(a) (environmental information submitted by an applicant does not have to be redone but must be verified by the agency) urge against redundancy, there appears to be stronger support in the CFR for the Appellants' and Second Circuit's positions that the wrong party prepared the EIS. 127 Except as provided in §§ 1506.2 11 and 1506.3, 12 any environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to the requirements of NEPA shall be prepared directly by or by a contractor selected by the lead agency.... Contractors shall execute a disclosure statement prepared by the lead agency ... specifying that they have no financial or other interest in the outcome of the project. If the document is prepared by contract, the responsible Federal official shall furnish guidance and participate in the preparation and shall independently evaluate the statement prior to its approval and take responsibility for its scope and contents. 128 40 C.F.R. § 1506.5(c). Based on the clear language of § 1506.5(c), we hold that the COE and the FHWA erred to the extent they allowed UDOT or contractors hired by UDOT to prepare the FEIS. 129 Having determined the Agencies to have been in error, we must now consider what remedy if any is appropriate. We find Associations Working for Aurora's Residential Env't (AWARE) v. Colorado Dep't of Transp., 153 F.3d 1122, 1127-30 (10th Cir.1998) informative. In AWARE, the FEIS was prepared by a contractor hired by the Colorado Department of Transportation. The plaintiffs asserted that Colorado's practice of awarding final design contracts to the company who prepared the FEIS gave the contractor an incentive to promote a build alternative over a non-build alternative. They contended that this incentive qualified as a conflict of interest and placed the contractor in breach of the 40 C.F.R. § 1506.5(c) requirements. Assuming without deciding that a conflict of interest existed such that a breach had occurred, the AWARE court determined that the ultimate question was whether the breach compromised the objectivity and integrity of the NEPA process and that the district court could evaluate the oversight that the agency provided to the EIS process as a factual matter and make a determination upholding the EIS. Id. at 1129. 130 In this case, the district court's decision does not address this issue. Appellants include four examples in their brief which they claim demonstrates the bias and result-oriented nature of the analysis of the Legacy Parkway. These items range from criticism of the tone of the EIS as advocacy to a failure to adequately consider alternatives. Aplt. Br. 90-91. We are satisfied that this case differs from Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1112-13 (10th Cir.2002), where this court reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction holding that federal decisionmakers prejudged NEPA issues. In Davis, a municipality had contracted with a city for a predetermined result and the federal agencies failed to exercise independent review. Id. at 1112. We find no such preordained result in this case-though it does merit our concern. We do not find the EIS inadequate based upon this procedural claim.