Federal Defendants Response To Sierra Mot Sj

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 1 of 55

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No. 07-2593 (MJD/SRN) Sierra Club North Star Chapter,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) 1 Ray LaHood, Secretary of ) Transportation, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION Sierra Club Northstar Chapter (“Sierra Club”) challenges actions by the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) and the National Park Service (“NPS”)(collectively “Defendants”) related to a proposed bridge that would cross the St. Croix River, a federally designated Wild and Scenic River, near Oak Park Heights, Minnesota (“the Project”).2 Sierra Club seeks judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701706, and asserts violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4332; Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (“Section 4(f)”), 49 U.S.C. § 303(c); the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (“WSRA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1284; the 1

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Ray LaHood is automatically substituted for former Secretary Peters. 2

The Court granted leave to intervene as defendants to the transportation departments from Minnesota (“MnDOT”) and Wisconsin (“WisDOT”).

1

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 2 of 55

National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (the “Organic Act”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1-18f-3; and General Authorities Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1a-1 et seq. The comprehensive administrative record demonstrates Defendants did not undertake the Project lightly.

Defendants developed and approved the Project in an open and

transparent manner after years of planning, consideration of numerous alternatives and expert analyses of likely environmental consequences, and extensive input from and careful consultation and coordination with numerous federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies, the public, and other stakeholders, including the Sierra Club. The FHWA took the requisite “hard look” at the Project under NEPA and determined under Section 4(f) there were no feasible and prudent alternatives to using properties protected by that statute. The NPS reasonably determined the Project, given the extensive mitigation package developed to avoid and minimize the impacts of the Project, would not have a direct and adverse effect on the St. Croix River. Because the Defendants did not act in an arbitrary, capricious, or illegal manner, the Court should uphold the Project decisions. BACKGROUND A.

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK. 1.

National Environmental Policy Act.

NEPA focuses the attention of federal agencies and the public on a proposed action so any environmental consequences of the action can be studied before a decision is made. 42 U.S.C. § 4321; 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1. NEPA imposes procedural requirements, not

2

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 3 of 55

substantive ones: “NEPA does not work by mandating that agencies achieve particular substantive environmental results.” Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 371 (1989). NEPA prescribes a set of “action-forcing” measures requiring federal agencies to take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of major federal actions before they are taken. Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 446 F.3d 808, 815 (8 th Cir. 2006). Both NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) regulations implementing NEPA, 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500-1517, require an agency to consider environmental impacts of proposed federal actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 42 U.S.C. § 4332; 40 C.F.R. § 1501. An agency’s environmental impact statement (“EIS”) should “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate” all reasonable alternatives, but need only “briefly discuss” the reasons why other alternatives were eliminated from more detailed study. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. An EIS also should identify the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of each alternative studied and consider mitigation measures to reduce any impacts to the environment. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14, 1502.16, 1508.7. FHWA regulations related to NEPA, which supplement the CEQ regulations, are at 23 C.F.R. Part 771. 2.

Section 4(f) .

Section 4(f) prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from approving a transportation project or program “requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of an

3

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 4 of 55

historic site of national, State, or local significance,” unless “(1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and (2) the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.” 49 U.S.C. § 303(c). FHWA regulations 3 require that, “[w]hen adequate support exists for a section 4(f) determination,” the discussion in the final EIS, FONSI, or “separate section 4(f) evaluation shall specifically address: (1) The reasons why the alternatives to avoid a section 4(f) property are not feasible and prudent; and (2) All measures which will be taken to minimize harm to the section 4(f) property.” 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(j) (2006). FHWA regulations also provide a final EIS or FONSI should document compliance with applicable requirements including Section 4(f). 23 C.F.R. § 771.133 (2006). 3.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Congress passed the WSRA to preserve selected rivers of the United States in their free-flowing condition for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. 16 U.S.C. § 1271. To qualify for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (“System”), a river must possess an “outstandingly remarkable” value in at least one of the following categories: scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or

FHWA’s Section 4(f) regulations have been revised since the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Project was completed in 2006. See Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites, 73 Fed. Reg. 13368 (March 12, 2008) (to be codified in 23 C.F.R. Parts 771 and 774). Because the Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Project was required to comply with the Section 4(f) regulations in effect at the time the evaluation was finalized, this memorandum of law cites to FHWA’s previous Section 4(f) regulations. 3

4

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 5 of 55

other similar attributes. Id. The WSRA identifies the rivers in the System, sets forth a procedure by which additional rivers may be added, and provides guidance on how the designated rivers should be managed. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1274-1284. The System includes the St. Croix River. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1274(a)(6), (8). The St. Croix extends from Solon Springs, Wisconsin to its confluence with the Mississippi River in Prescott, Wisconsin, and serves as the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin for a significant portion of its length. Congress designated the Upper St. Croix as a Wild and Scenic River in 1968. 16 U.S.C. § 1274(a)(6). The Lower St. Croix was added in stages subsequently. 16 U.S.C. § 1274(a)(9). The NPS administers the Lower St. Croix, in conjunction with the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin, under joint guidelines issued by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior at 47 Fed. Reg. 39,454 (Sept. 7, 1982). See also 36 C.F.R. § 297.1 et seq. The administering agency must manage each designated river segment “in such manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in said system without, insofar as is consistent therewith, limiting other uses that do not substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values.”

16 U.S.C. § 1281(a).

Management plans for any such

component may establish varying degrees of intensity for its protection and development, based on the special attributes of the area. Id. The NPS manages the upper 27 miles of lands and waters within the scenic riverway corridor, while Minnesota and Wisconsin administer the lower 25 miles. 66 Fed. Reg. at

5

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 6 of 55

56,848-56,849; see 16 U.S.C. § 1274(a)(9). The Project will be situated in the southern segment of the Lower St. Croix which is administered by the states on a day-to-day basis and over which the NPS exercises no control other than management planning and to discharge its WSRA Section 7 obligations. WSRA Section 7 provides for the protection of the free-flowing, scenic, and natural values of designated rivers by prohibiting federal agencies from assisting in the construction of “water resources projects” that would have a “direct and adverse effect on the values” for which any such river was included in the System. 16 U.S.C. § 1278(a). Section 7 directs the appropriate Secretary, here the Secretary of the Interior, to determine whether a proposed water resources project will “have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river was established.” Id. This Court upheld the NPS’s determination that an earlier bridge proposal over the St. Croix was a “water resources project.”

Sierra Club North Star

Chapter v. Pena, 1 F. Supp.2d 971, 979-80 (D. Minn. 1998)(“Pena”). While the application for or issuance of dredge and fill permits by the Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 401, et seq.) or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344) traditionally has triggered WSRA Section 7 determinations when the permits pertain to water resources projects on designated rivers, this Court determined the NPS’s Section 7(a) evaluation challenged by the Sierra Club in this action is ripe for judicial

6

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 7 of 55

review.4 4.

The Organic Act and General Authorities Act.

The Organic Act (“OA”) established the NPS and created its authority over the maintenance of national parks. It grants broad discretion to the NPS to balance the often competing policy goals of conservation, access, and safety, and provides the NPS is to "regulate the use" of national parks by means that conform to their "fundamental purpose": “to conserve the scenery and natural historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” 16 U.S.C. §1; see NPS Management Policies § 1.4 (2006). The General Authorities Act (“GAA”), a 1970 amendment to the OA, confirmed the mandate of the OA: “The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established,” except as otherwise provided by Congress. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1a-1. The NPS construes the “derogation” standard in the GAA as a reiteration of the non-impairment standard set forth in the OA–that is, a duty to prohibit the impairment of the integrity of park resources and values. See NPS

4

The Government disagrees with that determination and reserves that issue for any

appeal. 7

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 8 of 55

Management Policies § 1.4.2 (2006). B.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND. 1. Saint Croix River Crossing Project. The Project includes a crossing of the St. Croix River (the “Proposed Bridge”)

between Trunk Highway (“TH”) 36 in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota, and State Trunk Highway (“STH”) 64 in St. Joseph, Wisconsin. FHWA_AR_7826. Both highways are on the National Highway System (“NHS”), a system of roadways important to the economy, defense, and mobility of the United States. FHWA_AR_7841. The Project includes reconstruction of the Minnesota and Wisconsin approach roadways to the Proposed Bridge and construction in Stillwater and Bayport, Minnesota. FHWA_AR_7826. 2.

Purpose and Need.

Ten bridges already traverse the St. Croix River to link the transportation systems of Wisconsin and Minnesota, one of which is a two-lane lift bridge (“Lift Bridge”) between Stillwater, Minnesota, and Houlton, Wisconsin, that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. FHWA_AR_7827. The Lift Bridge is a critical crossing over the St. Croix River. FHWA_AR_7783. Built in 1931, the Lift Bridge is also a source of traffic congestion in Stillwater and Houlton, because vehicles must wait for the bridge to be raised and lowered to allow boats to travel under the bridge. Id. Traffic on the Lift Bridge has grown with increased tourism in the Saint Croix River valley and a growing population on both sides of the river. Id. The Lift Bridge has aged and has structural, operational, and maintenance

8

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 9 of 55

issues. Id. The limitations of a two-lane Lift Bridge, the demands of raising and lowering the bridge, and ongoing maintenance and operations have raised concerns about safety on the Lift Bridge as well as on the roadways approaching it. FHWA_AR_7787. Additionally, insufficient roadway/intersection capacity in downtown Stillwater causes poor traffic operations on TH 36, delays responses by emergency vehicles, and impedes access to properties. Id. The Project seeks to improve Minnesota TH 36 and Wisconsin STH 64 between TH 5/County State Aid Highway (“CSAH”) 5 in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota and 150th Avenue in St. Joseph, Wisconsin, to provide a safe, reliable, and efficient transportation corridor by reducing congestion, improving roadway safety, and providing an adequate level of service for forecasted year 2030 traffic volumes. FHWA_AR_7840. Transportation needs for the Project fall in two primary categories: (1) transportation mobility on a safe and efficient facility;5 and (2) a reliable crossing of the St. Croix River.6 Id. 3.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives and Public Input. a. The 1995 Proposal.

A replacement bridge crossing near Stillwater has been discussed for many years.

For a detailed discussion of the mobility and safety issues this Project is intended to address, see Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“FSEIS”), FHWA_AR_7843 – 7848. 5

For a detailed discussion of the purpose and need for this Project, see FSEIS, FHWA_AR_7848 – 7849. 6

9

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 10 of 55

FHWA_AR_7830. Formal assessment of the alternatives to address growing transportation problems in the area began in 1985. Id. Alternatives assessed in 1985 led to an analysis of three river crossing alternatives and two tunnel alternatives in the 1990 Draft EIS. Id. A Preferred Alternative was identified in the 1995 Final EIS (“1995 Preferred Alternative”). Pena, 1 F.Supp.2d at 974. The 1995 Preferred Alternative included (1) upgrading TH 36 for a new bridge approach, (2) construction of a new four-lane bridge over the St. Croix south of Stillwater between Oak Park Heights and Houlton, and (3) construction of a new bridge approach in Wisconsin (“1995 Project”). Id. The 1995 Project called for construction of eight piers in the bed of the St. Croix River and adjacent wetlands on the Minnesota side. Id. Construction activities would have required dredge and fill in the waterway and thus, pursuant to the Clean Water Act, a permit from the Corps of Engineers. Id.; see 33 U.S.C. § 1344. On December 27, 1996, the NPS issued a WSRA Section 7 determination concluding the 1995 Project would have a direct and adverse effect on the St. Croix River. This determination prohibited other federal agencies from issuing any further permits, approvals, or authorizations for the 1995 Project. 16 U.S.C. § 1278(a). This Court upheld the NPS’s determination. Pena, 1 F.Supp.2d at 983. b. Revised planning. After Pena, MnDOT retained Richard P. Braun to determine whether present and future traffic could be accommodated on the Lift Bridge or whether a replacement crossing

10

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 11 of 55

was needed and to investigate potential bridge alignment alternatives between the 1995 Preferred Alternative on the south and the Lift Bridge on the north. FHWA_AR_7831. The Braun facilitation process concluded a new four-lane bridge was required to satisfy present and future traffic demand and recommended further study of a bridge alignment 3,600 feet south of the Lift Bridge. Id. Meanwhile, on March 5, 1998, the Midwest Region of the NPS issued a memorandum entitled “Policy for integrating National Park Service Section 7 evaluations with the National Environmental Policy Act compliance process of the project sponsor.” Hanson Declaration, Exhibit A (Docket No. 19). The NPS prepared this directive to facilitate coordination among project sponsors earlier in a project process concerning the issues likely to be raised during a Section 7 evaluation process. This policy allows for preparation of a draft Section 7 evaluation to be included, if possible, in the Draft EIS and/or in the Final EIS prepared by the project sponsor: “To the extent practicable, impacts on Wild and Scenic River values will be considered in the context of other review procedures provided by law.” 36 C.F.R. § 297.6. In 1999, work began on a Supplemental Draft EIS (“SDEIS”), but was suspended for various reasons. FHWA_AR_7831-32. FHWA_AR_7832. In Fall 2001, while work on the project was suspended, FHWA requested assistance from the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (“IECR”).

Id.

The IECR met with the adjacent

communities, potential permitting agencies, and other interested parties and concluded a

11

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 12 of 55

consensus decision regarding the project was possible. FHWA_AR_992 – 1044. In September 2002, the facilitation firm RESOLVE was selected to mediate a process that centered on a “Stakeholders Group” composed of representatives of diverse interests, including the Sierra Club.7 FHWA_AR_7832. This “Stakeholder Resolution Process” responded to the need for a new approach to address the environmental, historical, and transportation issues related to the Project. Id. Formal stakeholder meetings began in June 2003, and a total of 18 stakeholder meetings were held.

FHWA_AR_4688-4689;

FHWA_AR_8249. Members of the Stakeholders Group also met separately as subgroups to analyze various aspects of the Project related to: (1) cumulative impacts, (2) cultural resources impacts/Section 106/Section 4(f), (3) water resources/standards, (4) public information meetings, (5) traffic forecasting, and (6) bridge design. FHWA_AR_4689-4690. The Stakeholder Resolution Process analyzed all alternatives previously studied, as well as new alternatives. FHWA_AR_9156; FHWA_AR_4161 – 4164. The Stakeholders

7

The Saint Croix River Crossing Stakeholders Group included MnDOT, WisDOT, FHWA, NPS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Minnesota and Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Offices, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, City of Stillwater, City of Oak Park Heights, Town of St. Joseph, Preservation Alliance of Minnesota, Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission, St. Croix River Association, Friends of the St. Croix, Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce, Sierra Club, St. Croix Alliance for an Interstate Bridge, St. Croix County Transportation Committee, Stillwater Lift Bridge Association, Western Wisconsin Realtors Association, New St. Croix Bridge Coalition, and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. FHWA_AR_8248. 12

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 13 of 55

Group reevaluated four corridors identified in the 1987 Scoping Decision Document, five corridors identified in the 1990 Draft EIS, the 1995 Preferred Alternative, and two alternatives

identified

in

the

1999

Amended

Scoping

Decision

Document.8

FHWA_AR_4162. The Stakeholders Group selected five build alternatives (Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E) and a No-Build Alternative as potentially meeting the Project’s transportation needs, and those alternatives and potential issues/impacts associated with them were discussed in the 2003 Amended Scoping Document/2003 Amended Draft Scoping Decision Document.9 FHWA_AR_9156 – 9200. In December 2003, MnDOT and WisDOT held two public scoping meetings for the Project, which presented information gathered during the Stakeholder Resolution Process to the public and solicited input from the public regarding the alternatives evaluated during the Stakeholder Resolution Process. FHWA_AR_30627 – 30717. After considering additional comments from the Stakeholders Group and the public, including the Sierra Club, see e.g., FHWA_AR_30733 – 30797 and 31561 – 31585,

8

Scoping, as the term is used in the NEPA process, means “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.” 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7 9

A draft of this document was provided to members of the Stakeholders Group for comment, and their comments were considered before this document was finalized in November 2003. FHWA_AR_30375 – 30458. 13

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 14 of 55

Alternative A was dismissed from further study the Supplemental Draft EIS.10 As explained in the 2004 Amended Final Scoping Decision Document, Alternative A was eliminated as a candidate for further study in the SDEIS because it did not meet the purpose and need for the project. Travel demand modeling results revealed only minor improvement in vehicle hours traveled, vehicle miles traveled, and vehicle miles traveled under congested conditions under Alternative A. Analyses of travel demand forecasting results revealed that Alternative A did not resolve the congestion problem in the project area, but shifted it to the I-94 corridor. FHWA_AR_2966 – 2967. Alternative B evolved into Alternative B-1, which was developed to reduce Alternative B’s impacts on the Wisconsin bluff and provide a more perpendicular crossing of the St. Croix River. FHWA_AR_2952. Alternative B-1 was also divided into two subalternatives: (1) Alternative B-1a where the Lift Bridge would be converted to a pedestrian and bicycle facility and (2) Alternative B-1b where the Lift Bridge would remain open to traffic. Id. On June 15 and June 21, 2004, the Stakeholders Group, MnDOT, and WisDOT held

10

The Sierra Club proposed Alternative A, FHWA_AR_8377 – 8411, to address transportation needs in the project area through use of transit and emergency vehicle advantages (transit and emergency vehicle lanes, park-and-ride facilities), new transit travel options (water transit service, express bus service, circulator shuttle, commuter rail lines), use of advanced technologies to enhance mobility (opticon emitters), widening STH 65 in Wisconsin from two lanes to four lanes for the purpose of redirecting more traffic to the I-94 river crossing, and use of other regional policy changes. FHWA_AR_4111. Alternative A was refined, based on recommendations by a panel of national travel demand experts, so that the alternative better meet future travel demands. FHWA_AR_4112. 14

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 15 of 55

public meetings regarding potential alternatives for the Project.

FHWA_AR_4694.

Approximately 450 people attended the two meetings, which included a presentation by a panel made up of representatives from MnDOT, WisDOT, and FHWA. Id. An Open House, featuring plans, drawings, and maps of the various alternatives, preceded each meeting. In June 2004, FHWA, MnDOT, and WisDOT, after considering comments from the Stakeholders Group and the public, circulated a preliminary version of the Supplemental Draft EIS (“SDEIS”) and the Section 4(f) Evaluation to all members of the Stakeholders Group for further comment. FHWA_AR_30802 – 31436 and 31442-31560. In August 2004, the SDEIS was published and released to the public. FHWA_AR_4016 – 5255. The rationale for not studying Alternative A further in the SDEIS was documented in the SDEIS and in the 2004 Amended Final Scoping Decision Document. FHWA_AR_4110 – 4113; FHWA_AR_2966 – 2967. The SDEIS evaluated the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of four Build Alternatives (Alternatives B-1, C, D, and E) and the No-Build Alternative 11 and analyzed in detail (1) social, relocation, and economic impacts, (2) land use impacts, (3) visual impacts, (4) air quality, traffic noise, and contaminated sites related impacts, (5) natural resource impacts, (6) water resources impacts, (7) archaeological and historic resources impacts, (8) construction impacts, and (9) cumulative impacts associated with the four Build and the No-Build

Alternatives.

FHWA_AR_4222 – 4664.

11

For a detailed discussion of each alternative, see FHWA_AR_4117 – 4164. 15

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 16 of 55

After the SDEIS was published, the transportation agencies accepted public comment. On September 21 and 22, 2004, MnDOT, WisDOT, and FHWA held two public hearings to present information on the SDEIS and gather public input on the SDEIS. FHWA_AR_32748 – 32766, 32723 – 32747. Approximately 400 people attended both meetings, which featured numerous plans, drawings, maps and video animations of the various alignments and the impact analyses. Over 600 comments on the SDEIS were received, including comments from the Sierra Club. FHWA_AR_8257–8491, 32958–33204. In July 2005, FHWA, MnDOT, and WiscDOT circulated to the Stakeholders Group a preliminary version of the Supplemental Final EIS (“SFEIS”) and the Section 4(f) Evaluation. FHWA_AR_33920 –34618, 34690-34739. After another year of evaluation, which included more Stakeholders Group meetings and further consideration of public, federal, state, and local agency comments, MnDOT, WisDOT, and FHWA issued the Supplemental Final EIS (“SFEIS”) for the Project in June 2006. FHWA_AR_7751 – 8870. The SFEIS documented the rationale for not studying Alternative A further in the SDEIS. FHWA_AR_7852, 7858. FHWA’s Final Section 4(f) Evaluation was included in the SFEIS as Appendix E. FHWA_AR_9274 – 9335. The NPS’s Draft Section 7(a) Evaluation of the Project was included in the SFEIS as Appendix F (“Section 7(a) Evaluation”). FHWA_AR_8580 – 8649. 4.

The 2006 Preferred Alternative.

The 2006 SFEIS identified a Preferred Alternative, Alternative B-1a (“2006 Preferred

16

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 17 of 55

Alternative”), FHWA_AR_7864 – 7876. The 2006 Preferred Alternative includes a roadway from the Highway 5/Highway 36 interchange in Minnesota, crossing the St. Croix River along the B-1 alignment, and ending at the 150th Avenue overpass in Wisconsin. The Proposed Bridge would be an extra dosed bridge consisting of towers with cables connecting the towers to the bridge deck. The bridge deck will be 113 to 159 feet above the river surface and the towers would extend approximately 60 feet above the bridge deck. Under the 2006 Preferred Alternative, the Lift Bridge will be converted to a pedestrian/bicycle facility and be a component of a loop trail connecting Minnesota and Wisconsin via the Lift Bridge and the new bridge. The 2006 Preferred Alternative contains significant new mitigation measures not present in the 1995 proposal. FHWA, MnDOT and WisDOT, in consultation with the Stakeholders Group, developed the mitigation package, funded at over $16.5 million, to address natural, social, and cultural impacts. Key elements of the mitigation package include wetland replacement, relocation of threatened and endangered species, bluff land restoration and preservation activities, removal of visual intrusions from the riverway, and funding for the long-term preservation of the Lift Bridge. The Riverway Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”)

documents

the

process

to

implement

the

mitigation

package.

FHWA_AR_00008691 – 00008710. An Amended Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) was also developed to mitigate the impacts to historic resources, including the Lift Bridge. FHWA_AR_00008650 – 00008690. A MOU was also executed to establish a water

17

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 18 of 55

quality management advisory committee. FHWA_AR_00008720 – 00008724. Finally, to address the potential negative impacts to area resources from accelerated growth in St. Croix County, mitigation measures were identified to provide support to local governments in managing growth through local plans, ordinances, and other related tools. The Growth Management MOU documents the administrative process to implement these mitigation measures. FHWA_AR_00008711 – 00008719. The SFEIS also analyzed in detail (1) social, relocation, and economic impacts, (2) land use impacts, (3) visual impacts, (4) air quality, traffic noise, and contaminated sites related impacts, (5) natural resource impacts, (6) water resources impacts, (7) archaeological and historic resources impacts, (8) construction impacts, (9) indirect effects, and (10) cumulative impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. FHWA_AR_7921 – 8194. After the SFEIS was published, the transportation agencies accepted public comment. 5.

Differences between 1995 and 2006 Preferred Alternatives.

The 2006 Preferred Alternative differs substantially from the 1995 Preferred Alternative. FHWA_AR_00007877. The extra dosed design of the 2006 Proposed Bridge reduces the apparent mass of the structure by reducing the number of piers in the water and the height of structures above the bridge deck. The 2006 Proposed Bridge alignment is more perpendicular to the riverway than was the 1995 proposed bridge, resulting in less bridge structure over the St. Croix and fewer piers in the riverway (4 to 6 piers in the river as opposed to the 8 piers in the 1995 plan). Fewer piers in the river results in less obstruction

18

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 19 of 55

for recreational boaters on the St. Croix and less disturbance to the riverway. The extra dosed bridge design will allow for a 200-foot mussel shelf along the Wisconsin shoreline to be spanned by the bridge structure thereby avoiding impacts to this aquatic habitat. As opposed to the 1995 plan, the Xcel Energy barge facility will be used for barge docking and staging for construction of the river crossing prior to its eventual removal from the riverway. The re-use of this existing facility for the Project avoids the placement of a temporary barge docking facility that would otherwise be constructed in the river were the Xcel facility not present. Unlike the 1995 plan, the Lift Bridge will be closed to vehicular traffic and will be converted to a pedestrian/bicycle facility under the 2006 Preferred Alternative. Finally, as stated, the 2006 Preferred Alternative mitigation package includes a number of items to offset the impacts of a new bridge on the values of the Lower St. Croix Riverway. See SFEIS, Table 15-2, FHWA_AR_8211.

See also FHWA_AR_57 – 59, 155-159,

FHWA_AR_7864 – 7877, 8209 – 8247. 6.

The Section 7(a) evaluation.

The NPS prepared the Section 7(a) Evaluation in October 2005 to evaluate the impact of Alternative B-1 for the Project on the values for which the Riverway was established. Section 7(a) Evaluation at 1, NPS_AR_1758 et seq. See Hanson Declaration, Exhibit B (Docket 19). The NPS confirmed the Project is a water resources project subject to WSRA Section 7(a) that will require Federal assistance in the form of funding from the FHWA and permits from the Corps of Engineers. Id. at 2, NPS_AR_1759.

19

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 20 of 55

The Section 7(a) Evaluation described the impacts of the Project on the free-flowing character of the St. Croix and its water quality, including hydrology, sedimentation, and erosion. Id. at 15-26, NPS_AR_1773-84. The Section 7(a) Evaluation also analyzed the Project’s effects both temporary impacts during bridge construction and long-term impacts on the river’s outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, and geologic values, including impacts to landforms, vegetation, wildlife, scenic views, and land- and water-based recreational activities.12 Id. at 27-47, NPS_AR_1785-1805. The NPS examined the effect of the proposed mitigation measures on Project impacts in the Section 7(a) Evaluation. It included a table summarizing the mitigation items and a detailed description of each item. Id. at 8-15, NPS_AR_1766-73. The NPS concluded the Preferred Alternative, when taken along with the proposed mitigation package, would not have a direct and adverse effect on the Riverway’s scenic and recreational values, provided certain identified measures are ultimately incorporated into the Project to ensure mitigation success. Id. at 49, NPS_AR_1807. 7.

The Record of Decision.

On November 13, 2006, FHWA issued a Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the Project. FHWA_AR_9019 – 9130.

12

The outstandingly remarkable geologic values for which the Rvierway was designated refer to the Dalles, located approximately 25 miles upstream of the proposed project location. These geologic values will not be affected by the bridge project. Id. at 49, NPS AR 1807. 20

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 21 of 55

On December 5, 2006, the FHWA published a notice in the Federal Register that announced that a number of federal agency actions related to the Project were final. FHWA_AR_9138 – 9139. Sierra Club filed its complaint on June 5, 2007. ARGUMENT I.

STANDARD AND SCOPE OF REVIEW. NEPA, Section 4(f), the WSRA, the OA, and the GAA do not provide waivers of

sovereign immunity; thus, Sierra Club seeks judicial review under the APA. Under the APA, this Court may set aside the decisions to approve the Project only if it finds that Defendants’ decisions were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971). Sierra Club bears the burden of demonstrating Defendants’ decisions fail under the APA. Sierra Club v. Marita, 46 F.3d 606, 619 (7th Cir. 1995). The role of a court in reviewing agency decision-making is limited. Friends of Boundary Waters Wilderness v. Dombeck, 164 F.3d 1115, 1127 (8 th Cir. 1999), citing Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 555 (1978). In upholding an agency’s decision, it is not necessary that all the evidence in the administrative record or, indeed, even the weight of that evidence, support the agency decision. The fact that conflicting views are expressed, particularly where, as here, there is opposition to the project, does not thereby render the agency decision invalid. A reviewing

21

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 22 of 55

court “must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” Volpe, 401 U.S. at 416. In other words, a court’s role is only to assess whether the agency’s decision is “within the bounds of reasoned decision making,” Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87, 105 (1983), and whether the agency in question took a ‘hard look’ at the environmental consequences of the proposed action. Arkansas Wildlife Federation v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 431 F.3d 1096, 1101 (8 th Cir. 2005). A reviewing court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the agency. Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. at 555. The scope of the court’s review is limited to the administrative record before the agency when it made its decision. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743 (1985). II. NO VIOLATION OF THE COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN. Count I of the complaint alleges a violation of the WSRA based on alleged violations of the Cooperative Management Plan (“CMP”) for the Lower St. Croix. NPS_AR_001-78. This claim fails for several reasons. The WSRA charges the NPS with developing and administering the comprehensive management plan for the St. Croix River. The CMP is a joint planning document for the riverway prepared by the NPS, MnDOT and WisDOT. 66 Fed. Reg. 56,848 (Nov. 13, 2001). The Project lies within the southernmost portion of the Lower St. Croix over which the NPS exercises no control other than its Section 7 responsibilities. The WSRA provides for considerable flexibility and agency discretion regarding

22

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 23 of 55

creation and implementation of river management plans. “Management plans for any such component may establish varying degrees of intensity for its protection and development, based on the special attributes of the area.”

16 U.S.C. § 1281(a). Furthermore, the

“Secretary of the Interior, in his administration of any component of the national wild and scenic rivers system, may utilize such general statutory authorities relating to areas of the national park system and such general statutory authorities otherwise available to him for recreation and preservation purposes and for the conservation and management of natural resources as he deems appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act.” 16 U.S.C. § 1281(c). The CMP provides “a policy-level management framework for the riverway.” 66 Fed. Reg. at 56,851. Management plan provisions and general management policies are not enforceable absent some clear and mandatory duty imposed on the agency. Riverhawks v. Zepeda, 228 F. Supp.2d 1173, 1186 (D. Or. 2002). Nothing in the CMP imposes any clear and mandatory duty on the NPS with respect to their actions on the Project; therefore, this claim fails. The NPS has complied with the CMP. Under the 2006 Preferred Alternative, the NPS insisted the Lift Bridge be closed to vehicular traffic and converted to a recreational facility for pedestrian/bicycle use to enhance the recreational value of the Riverway. FHWA_AR_7875, 8629, 8696-8698. Thus, consistent with the CMP, the Lift Bridge will no longer be a transportation crossing. The NPS had the discretion to determine this alternative complies with the goals of the CMP and fulfills the NPS’s role in balancing

23

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 24 of 55

competing river values. Riverhawks, 228 F. Supp.2d at 1184. FHWA has no statutory or regulatory responsibilities related to the comprehensive management plan for the St. Croix River. See 16 USC 1274(d). The Court should grant summary judgment to Defendants on Count I. III. THE NPS IS NOT LIABLE UNDER COUNTS II, IV, OR V. A. THE SECTION 7(A) DETERMINATION IS NOT REVIEWABLE The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the WSRA claim, because, while generally judicial review of agency actions is available under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 702, Congress provided that no judicial review was permitted of “agency action...committed to agency discretion by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). The exemption applies where the subject statute, WSRA here, is “drawn in such broad terms that there is no law to apply.” Volpe, 401 U.S. at 410. There must be law to apply in the particular case, not just law in the abstract which could possibly be applied. Id.; see generally, Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831-32 (1985); Greer v. Chao, 492 F.3d 962, 964-67 (8th Cir. 2007). In the absence of legislated standards stating how an agency is to exercise its discretion, its decision not to enforce in a particular situation is nonreviewable.

Heckler, 470 U.S. at 832-33. This exemption

precludes review of the WSRA claim. The only court that appears to have addressed this issue held a Section 7(a) determination was not reviewable, because “[n]either the WSRA nor the implementing regulations provide any legal standard by which to review their decision to base the Section

24

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 25 of 55

7(a) determination on the [selected] alternative [dam] operating mode. Likewise, no legal standard in the statute or the regulations governs how the determination is to be made, what experts are to be consulted, or how the opinions of those consulted are to be evaluated, weighed, accepted, or rejected.” Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Marsh, 845 F. Supp. 758, 770 (D. Ore. 1994), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 52 F.3d 1485 (9 th Cir. 1995). Similarly, here, Sierra Club asks the Court to second guess the NPS, but offers the Court no law from WSRA to apply in support of its claims. In the absence of such substantive law, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the Section 7(a) determination. In the event the Court finds jurisdiction, its standard of review is highly deferential to the NPS. Substantial weight must be given to the NPS’s application of Section 7(a) which Congress has entrusted it to administer. Id., citing inter alia Chevron United States, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984). Accord Mausolf v. Babbitt, 125 F.3d 661, 667 (8 th Cir. 1997); Pena, 1 F. Supp. 2d at 981. The issue is whether the NPS rationally concluded the Project will not have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which the Lower St. Croix was designated as a Wild and Scenic River. Assuming a Section 7(a) determination may be reviewed, Pena, 1 F. Supp. 2d at 983 (upholding the NPS’s Section 7 determination of adverse effect), the NPS’s Section (a) Evaluation in this case was likewise “a rational one.” Id. at 983. B.

THE SECTION 7 DETERMINATION SATISFIES THE APA. 1. The NPS is not bound by its Section 7 determination on the 1995 Proposal.

25

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 26 of 55

The NPS is not bound by its Section 7 determination on the 1995 proposal. In High Country Resources v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm’n (FERC), 255 F.3d 741, 747 (9 th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit held a regional forester was not barred from making a later, contrary Section 7 determination on a proposed FERC-licensed project. The Ninth Circuit held there was no res judicata effect of the first Section 7(a) determination, although that final decision of the agency was made on appeal to the Chief of the Forest Service.

Id.

Rather, the Ninth Circuit held the earlier

determination was not binding where the case involved “consecutive decisions reached within a single agency after new information” became available. Id. Similarly, here the 2006 Preferred Alternative contains significant differences from the 1995 Proposal. Consequently, the NPS was not bound by its prior evaluation of a different project. 2. The NPS’S Section 7(a) Evaluation is worthy of deference. The WSRA set forth a national policy: that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. 16 U.S.C. § 1271. Such protected rivers were also to be managed to protect water quality and to fulfill other national conservation purposes. Id. The 1973 study that recommended the Lower St. Croix River for addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System found that this lower 52-mile stretch of the river possessed outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, and

26

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 27 of 55

geologic values. Section 7(a) Evaluation at 2-3, NPS_AR_1760. The original Master Plan for management of the Riverway and the updated CMP also identify the river’s outstandingly remarkable values as scenic, recreational, and geologic.13 Id. at 3, NPS_AR_1760. As described in the Section 7(a) Evaluation, the four to six piers located in the river would serve as a minor obstruction to its free-flowing character. Section 7(a) Evaluation at 15-20, 49, NPS_AR_1778.

While that impact would be negligible, there would be a

measurable alteration of the bed and banks of the river. Id. at 49, NPS_AR_1778. However, the proposed bridge would have no measurable influence on flood elevations, the velocity of the river, and water depth upstream. Id. The Section 7(a) Evaluation analyzed effects on water quality, finding the Proposed Bridge may have temporary negative impacts on the Riverway’s outstanding water quality, particularly during construction of the bridge and piers. Section 7(a) Eval. at 20-28, 49-50, NPS_AR_1784. Other negative impacts could occur after bridge construction is complete if storm water run-off systems fail or retention/detention basins are flushed during flood events. Id. Sedimentation from erosion of the Wisconsin bluff caused by construction activities could also result in longer-lasting temporary impacts. Id. at 25, NPS_AR_1784. However, various types of potential water quality impacts were thoroughly analyzed. The NPS considered the mitigation solutions associated with installation of coffer dams and 13

The outstandingly remarkable geologic values for which the Riverway was designated refer to the Dalles, located approximately 25 miles upstream of the proposed project location. These geologic values will not be affected by the bridge project. Id. at 51, NPS AR 1807. 27

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 28 of 55

construction of pier supports, coffer dam dewatering, bridge deck construction, and removal of Xcel Energy barge mooring cells and the Terra Terminal shoreline restoration. Id. at 23-26, NPS_AR_1783. The NPS concluded most of the water quality impacts would be temporary or could be avoided if precautions are taken to protect the basins from floods and the planned safeguards (such as the storm water run-off system) do not fail. Id. at 50, NPS_AR_1784. Longer-term sedimentation impacts from the Wisconsin bluff will require effective erosion control measures, including best management practices, constant maintenance, and frequent assessment. Id. at 27-28, NPS_AR_1784. The Section 7(a) Evaluation concluded the Project would alter the scenic qualities of this segment of the river. Id. at 50, NPS_AR_1806. However, significant new mitigation measures included in the 2006 Preferred Alternative provided the basis for the NPS’s determination that the Project will not have a “direct and adverse impact” on the Lower St. Croix’s scenic and recreational values. Removal of the 18 mooring cells and the barge off-loading facility at the Xcel Energy Allan S. King Plant would have a positive influence on the river’s free-flowing condition. This action would remove a large mass of material that currently serves as an unnatural modification of the Riverway. Id. at 49, NPS_AR_1778; see Photos, NPS_AR_1810. In the context of analysis of impacts to scenic qualities, the NPS considered impacts to landforms and terrain, vegetation, wildlife, and views upstream and downstream from the water and the banks.

Id. at 29-38, NPS_AR_1785-1794; see

28

Photo Simulations,

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 29 of 55

NPS_AR_1817-24. Various mitigation strategies would be implemented to minimize the visual impact of the Proposed Bridge, beginning with bridge location, siting, and design. The Proposed Bridge uses an alignment that is mostly perpendicular to the river and located in existing bluff cuts in an effort to minimize bridge length and bluff impacts. Id. at 39, NPS_AR_1795. The location of the crossing minimizes impacts to the historic scene of Stillwater, Minnesota. Id. The extra dosed bridge design and materials reduce the apparent mass of the structure by minimizing the number of piers and overall height. Id. The aesthetic design and the use of context sensitive materials further minimize impacts to the scene, as determined by the Visual Quality Planning Process, in which NPS was a participant.14 Id. at 39-40, NPS_AR_1795. Other measures that will minimize visual impacts include treatments on the piers and abutments to provide an obvious connection to the historic materials found in structures in nearby downtown Stillwater and the natural materials that compose the river bluffs. Id. at 40, NPS_AR_1796. The NPS acknowledged minimization strategies alone cannot reduce the impact of a bridge this size on the scenic values of the Riverway to an acceptable level. Id. However, the NPS concluded that “the minimization strategies that have been incorporated into the project may reduce its impact to the level that remaining impacts could be adequately offset by mitigation measures that restore the affected environment and/or compensate for the impacts 14

The mission of the Visual Quality Planning Process is to “articulate community values to ensure sensitive visual quality and aesthetic design results while at the same time satisfying transportation needs and avoiding adverse impacts to the area’s social, economic, cultural, and environmental needs.” Section 7(a) Evaluation at 38, NPS AR_1796. 29

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 30 of 55

by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.” Id. Mitigation measures identified to repair, rehabilitate, or restore the affected views by removing visual intrusions in the same viewshed—and to be comparable to the proposed construction project in terms of scope and scale—include removal of the Xcel barge unloading facility and mooring cells, removal of the large “Hollywood”-style “Buckhorn” sign on the Wisconsin bluff, removal of the Terra Terminal Building, and removal of vehicular traffic from the Lift Bridge. Id. at 4041, NPS_AR_1797 and photos at NPS_AR_1810, 1812, 1814. Offsite restorative measures to mitigate impacts to vegetation and wildlife include funding for archaeological surveys necessary to facilitate offsite restoration of native vegetation, habitat, and views, as well as development of new recreational facilities, such as primitive campsites. Id. at 41, 47, NPS_AR_1797. Compensatory mitigation measures that provide substitute resources or environments include the purchase of offsetting blufflands within one-quarter mile of the project and restrictive covenants on any excess property in the area sold by WisDOT. These will restore views along the Riverway and protect them from development. Id.; see also, Comparison Chart of Proposed Bridge and Direct Offsets for corresponding scope and scale, id. at 42-43, NPS_AR 1797. Effectiveness of these measures is also positively evaluated. Id. at 43-44, NPS_AR_1796-1801. According to the eligibility study, the characteristics that make the Lower St. Croix an outstanding recreational resource are its high water quality suitable for many outdoor recreation pursuits, including whole body contact activities; its highly scenic course; and,

30

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 31 of 55

because of its proximity to the Twin Cities area, its capacity to provide outdoor recreation opportunities to an urban population. Id. at 45, NPS_AR_1801. The NPS determined the Proposed Bridge would degrade the recreational experience by creating a visual intrusion on the natural and historic scene, by generating noise, and by placing obstructions in the river channel. Id. at 46-47, NPS_AR 1804. But, in addition to the measures described above, additional mitigation for impacts to recreation compensates for the impact by providing substitute resources or environments. The removal of vehicular traffic from the Lift Bridge would reduce the noise level in the vicinity and make the area more pleasant for recreational activities. Id. at 47, NPS_AR_1804. The proposed pedestrian/bicycle loop trail provides a new recreational activity in the affected area. See photo simulations, NPS_AR_1813, 1815. The Project provides kiosks for interpretation of the natural and cultural resources of the Riverway and restroom facilities would provide recreationists with new opportunities to learn about the significance of the Riverway and enhance their experience. Id. The plan calls for a new public boat launch and restroom facilities on the affected stretch of river, which would satisfy a need identified by the MnDNR for additional public boat access in the area. Id. All recreational facilities are to be designed in such a way so they do not adversely affect the scenic values of the Riverway. Id. at 48-49, NPS_AR_1804. The removal of vehicular traffic from the Lift Bridge also will improve water quality and fisheries near the Lift Bridge by eliminating emissions and depositions from traffic in the area. Removal of the Xcel barge facilities also will have a positive impact on fish and the

31

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 32 of 55

aquatic community by restoring and enhancing habitat in the river along the Minnesota shore. Id. at 48, NPS_AR_1804. In rendering its overall Section 7 determination, the NPS concluded that, although there is no single mitigation measure that completely offsets the impact of the Proposed Bridge on the scenic and recreational resources, “the total package” was adequate “provided that the Visual Quality Planning Process results in a context sensitive design and assurances are built in to each mitigation measure to secure their long-term success.” Id. at 49-50, NPS_AR_ 1806. The NPS reached its Section 7(a) determination the Proposed Bridge, “when taken along with its mitigation package would not have a direct and adverse effect on the scenic and recreational values for which the Riverway was included in the System provided that the measures as identified [sic] Section VII and IIX [sic] of this document are incorporated into the project to insure that the mitigation package remains intact in perpetuity.” Id. at 51, NPS_AR_1807. Finally, as described, the 2006 Preferred Alternative mitigation package is implemented through various MOUs and MOAs among the appropriate parties with respect to particular resources and responsibilities to ensure mitigation success. Id. at 52, NPS_AR_ 1808. A similar approach to an NPS Section 7 determination was accorded deference by the court in Coalition for Canyon Preservation v. Hazen, 788 F. Supp. 1522, 1524-29 (D. Mont. 1990). Safety and access concerns were weighed by the NPS in reaching its decision to authorize construction of a new bridge, and the ultimate design of the bridge was based on

32

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 33 of 55

consideration of historic, cultural, and scenic values associated with the entire area, including the wild and scenic river corridor. Id. at 1524-28. The court concluded that “it is clear from the record that the Park Service was cognizant of these [wild and scenic river] values and took steps to protect the historic, scenic, aesthetic, archaeologic, and scientific features of the river.” Id. at 1529. This Court should likewise defer here to the expertise of the NPS where the record is “clear” that “the Park Service was cognizant of [the wild and scenic river] values and took steps to protect the historic, scenic, aesthetic, archaeologic, and scientific features of the [lower St. Croix]” and surrounding area. Id. This Court should uphold the NPS’s Section 7(a) determination on the Project and grant summary judgment to the NPS on Count II. C. THE ORGANIC ACT AND GENERAL AUTHORITIES ACT CLAIMS. Count IV alleges violations of the WSRA, the OA, and the GAA, allegedly because the Project allows “impairment” of riverway resources. The Proposed bridge would be located in the state administered portion of the Lower St. Croix, so the OA and the GAA would not apply. Morever, as explained in the ROD for the St. Croix River CMP, the “[i]mpairment that is prohibited by the NPS Organic Act and the General Authorities Act is an impact that, in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS manager, would harm the integrity of riverway resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the

33

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 34 of 55

enjoyment of those resources or values.” 66 Fed. Reg. at 56,850 (emphasis added); see also, NPS Management Policies §§ 1.4.2, 1.4.5 (2006). Similarly, the 1982 Department of Agriculture and Interior Guidelines interpret the management principles of Section 1281(a) of the WSRA as stating a “nondegradation and enhancement policy for all designated river areas, regardless of classification.” 47 Fed. Reg. at 39,458. The Guidelines further explain the WSRA requires the NPS to manage each riverway so as to protect and enhance the values for which it was designated, “while providing for public recreation and resource uses which do not adversely impact or degrade those values.” Id. at 39,458-39,459. The Guidelines envision the use of varying strategies and implementations, depending on the river segment’s classification and ownership. Id. at 39,459. The “nondegradation” and “nonimpairment” mandates of these Acts afford NPS managers broad discretion in achieving the statutes’ general mandates and do not prohibit all impacts. See Fire Island N.Y. Coastal P’Ship, Inc. v. United States Dept. of the Interior, 341 F.3d 112, 117-18 (2nd Cir. 2003); Fund for Animals v. Norton, 512 F. Supp.2d 49, 54-55 (D.D.C. 2007); International Snowmobile Mfrs. Ass’n v. Norton, 340 F. Supp.2d 1249, 1266 (D. Wyo. 2004); Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Babbitt, 952 F. Supp. 1435, 1441 (D. Mont. 1996). The NPS has authority to balance the potential harms of development or other projects with its responsibilities for conservation, preservation, and public service, and to take into

34

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 35 of 55

account mitigation measures to offset impacts. City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1226-1227 (9 th Cir. 2004). Much like the Project at issue here, impacts of the construction project at issue in City of Sausalito were to be offset by removal of existing structures, enhancement or restoration of deteriorated landscape features, landscape and building changes in keeping with the historic character of the site, and intensive uses to remain in areas where they currently occur. Id. at 1226. The court recognized that, like the Project in this case, “the Proposed Action would provide for maximum protection of the site's cultural and natural resources to protect the intangible qualities that contribute to its special character” and “[p]reservation of the character of [the site] is considered a beneficial impact.” As in City of Sausalito, “[o]n this record, [this Court] cannot conclude that the development contemplated by the [Project] is fundamentally at odds with the directives of the Organic Act.” Moreover, the St. Croix River CMP ROD specifically recognizes the nonimpairment policy “does not prohibit all impacts to riverway resources and values,” but rather gives the NPS the discretion to allow impacts to riverway resources and values “when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a riverway” and in such a manner that “[o]verall…would protect and enhance the riverway’s natural, cultural, and scenic resources and the diverse recreational uses found there.” 66 Fed. Reg. at 56,850-56,851. The NPS acted within its discretion and expertise in determining the Project, including the changes from the 1995 Proposal and the extensive mitigation package, would not have a 35

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 36 of 55

direct and adverse impact on the St. Croix River. This court should grant summary judgment to the NPS on plaintiff’s WSRA, OA, and GAA claims. D. THE NPS HAS NOT GRANTED A RIGHT OF WAY. The Project is located in the State-administered portion of the Riverway. Because the NPS does not own land in the Project area, Sierra Club’s allegations in Count V that the NPS has granted a “new right-of-way” over the Lower St. Croix are factually and legally incorrect. The Project required a Section 7 determination by NPS, because the Project involves a “water resources project” under the WSRA. The NPS is entitled to summary judgment on Count V. IV.

THE FHWA COMPLIED WITH NEPA AND SECTION 4(f). A.

FHWA COMPLIED WITH NEPA.

1. FHWA Properly Evaluated the Alternatives. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Sierra Club asserts FHWA failed to consider adequately the alternatives for the Project. Sierra Club criticizes FHWA’s decision not to study Alternative A in detail in the SDEIS (Complaint, ¶ 85), FHWA’s alleged failure to consider a bridge with reversible lanes adjacent to the Lift Bridge (Id.), and FHWA’s alleged failure to consider other alternatives, “like the construction of a smaller, two-lane bridge south of Stillwater, expansion of the preexisting I-94 crossing at Hudson, or other options.” Complaint, ¶ 86. Under the CEQ regulations, agencies shall “[r]igorouly explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were

36

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 37 of 55

eliminated from detail study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). Sierra Club’s contentions lack merit under this standard. First, contrary to Sierra Club’s suggestion, the FHWA considered numerous alternatives throughout two decades of study as described above in detail; starting in September 2002, through the Stakeholder Resolution Process, all alternatives previously studied as well as new alternatives were reconsidered. FHWA_AR_9156. The Stakeholders Group reevaluated twelve alternatives (four corridors identified in the 1987 Scoping Decision Document, five corridors identified in the 1990 Draft EIS, the 1995 Preferred Alternative, and two alternatives identified in the 1999 Amended Scoping Decision Document). FHWA_AR_4162. The Stakeholders Group selected five build alternatives (Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E) and a No-Build Alternative as potentially meeting the project’s transportation needs; but Alternative A was eliminated as a candidate for further study in the SDEIS because it did not meet the purpose and need for the project. FHWA_AR_2966 – 2967. In August 2004, after considering comments from the Stakeholders Group and the public, a SDEIS was published, which evaluated the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of four Build Alternatives (Alternative B-1, C, D, and E) as well as the No-Build Alternative. The rationale for not studying Alternative A in the SDEIS was explained in the SDEIS. FHWA_AR_4111 – 4113.

The SDEIS also analyzed in detail all the relevant impacts (direct, indirect,

cumulative, and otherwise) associated with the Build Alternatives and the No-Build Alternative. FHWA_AR_4222 – 4664. After another year of evaluation, MnDOT, WisDOT,

37

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 38 of 55

and FHWA issued the SFEIS for the Project in June 2006. FHWA_AR_7751 – 8870. The rationale for not studying Alternative A in the SDEIS was explained in the SFEIS. See FHWA_AR_7852, 7858. The 2006 SFEIS identified a Preferred Alternative, Alternative B1a (“2006 Preferred Alternative”). FHWA_AR_7864 – 7876. The SFEIS also analyzed in detail all the relevant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, and otherwise) associated with the Preferred Alternative. FHWA_AR_7921 – 8194. FHWA’s Final Section 4(f) Evaluation and the Section 7(a) Evaluations were appended to the SFEIS. This history demonstrates FHWA, with input from MnDOT, WisDOT, the Stakeholders Group, and others, in fact considered virtually every conceivable reasonable alternative. FHWA carefully considered Alternative A and correctly discarded it because it did not satisfy the Project’s purpose and need. Sierra Club proposed Alternative A to address transportation needs in the project area through use of various means as described above. See footnote 10 supra.

FHWA_AR_8377–8411.

Alternative A was refined, based on

recommendations by a panel of national travel demand experts, so it would meet future travel demands better. FHWA_AR_4112. FHWA determined Alternative A, as modified, did not meet the purpose and need of the Project. FHWA_AR_4111 – 4113 and FHWA_AR_7858. Analyses of travel demand forecasting results indicated that Alternative A did not resolve the congestion problem in the project area, but shifted it to the I-94 corridor. FHWA_AR_2928 – 2937; FHWA_AR_4112. Continued use of the Lift Bridge, which was a part of Alternative A, did not address concerns associated with the reliability of the bridge, which has been

38

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 39 of 55

susceptible to closures due to flooding, repairs, and maintenance. FHWA_AR_4112. Since Alternative A did not meet the purpose and need for the project, it did not require further study in the EIS. “An alternative that does not accomplish the purpose of the project in question is unreasonable and does not require detailed attention in the FEIS.”

City of

Bridgeton v. FAA, 212 F.3d 448, 456 (8 th Cir. 2000). Accord Associations Working for Aurora’s Residential Environment v. Colorado DOT and FHWA, 153 F.3d 1122 (10 th Cir. 1998) (mass transit alternative did not meet the purpose and need for the project; thus alternative properly rejected under NEPA and Section 4(f)); Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States, Inc. v. U.S. DOT, 524 F.Supp.2d 642, 670-671 (D. Md. 2007) (same). FHWA’s decision not to study Alternative A in detail in the SDEIS was not arbitrary, capricious, or illegal. Similarly, the Court should reject as without merit Sierra Club’s assertion that FHWA was required to consider a bridge adjacent to the Lift Bridge, which would have had reversible lanes instead of one-way lanes. Although Sierra Club opines a second bridge in Stillwater with reversible lanes “would have better met the stated purposes of the project,” (Complaint, ¶ 85), “[i]t is not the Court's role to get involved in what some may label as a ‘tug of war game’ between Sierra Clubs and Defendants to determine which alternatives are actually better [at meeting a project’s purpose] . . . .” Audubon Naturalist Society, 524 F.Supp.2d at 670. Second, FHWA did consider a bridge adjacent to the Lift Bridge and also considered 39

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 40 of 55

a bridge adjacent to the Lift Bridge with reversible lanes.15 As explained in the SFEIS, the original proposal to build a bridge adjacent to the Lift Bridge was referred to as the “3 Architects” proposal. FHWA_AR_8348. The original “3 Architects” proposal, later renamed the “Twin Bridge Proposal,” was evaluated prior to the Stakeholder Resolution Process, see e.g., FHWA_AR_30247–30258, and considered during the Stakeholder Resolution Process, see e.g., FHWA_AR_33109 – 33115. During the evaluation of this proposal, a number of design considerations were analyzed, including reversible lanes on the bridge adjacent to the Lift Bridge. FHWA_AR_8348. The “3 Architects” proposal eventually developed into Alternative E, which was designed to meet or exceed minimum federal and state design standards and was studied in detail in the SDEIS. See FHWA_AR_4153–4160, 3061 – 3065. Ultimately, Alternative E was not identified as the Preferred Alternative in the SFEIS for a number of reasons including the likelihood of not receiving a positive Section 7(a) Evaluation from the NPS. FHWA_AR_7864. For this and other reasons identified in the SFEIS, FHWA concluded Alternative E should not be identified as the Preferred Alternative. FHWA_AR_7862 – 7864. This conclusion would have been the same whether or not Alternative E included reversible lanes, because the environmental, cultural, and social considerations and issues associated with continued use of the Lift Bridge that led to 15

Alternative D included a four-lane river crossing located approximately 1,900 feet south of the Lift Bridge along the Minnesota shoreline and approximately 160 feet south of the Lift Bridge along the Wisconsin shoreline. FHWA_AR_7861. Alternative E included a two-lane river crossing located approximately 2,000 feet south of the Lift Bridge along the Minnesota shoreline and approximately 200 feet south of the Lift Bridge along the Wisconsin shoreline. FHWA_AR_7862. 40

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 41 of 55

Alternative E not being identified as the preferred alternative would remain the same in any event. Id. Thus, FHWA’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious, nor was FHWA’s decision not to include reversible lanes as a part of Alternative E. NEPA does not require a “separate analysis of alternatives which are not significantly distinguishable from alternatives actually considered or which have substantially similar consequences.” Audubon Naturalist Society, 524 F.Supp.2d at 670, citing Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 376 F.3d 853, 868 (9th Cir.2004). Sierra Club asserts that FHWA was required to consider other alternatives, “like the construction of a smaller, two-lane bridge south of Stillwater, expansion of the preexisting I94 crossing at Hudson, or other options.” Complaint, ¶ 86. The court should reject these claims. Initially, Sierra Club forfeited the two lane bridge and “other options” claims by not raising them administratively. See Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 764-65 (2004). In any event, Sierra Club’s assertions are patently unreasonable. NEPA and its implementing regulations only require the following with respect to the number of alternatives that must be considered by a federal agency: (1) an EIS must “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” and must “briefly” explain why it has eliminated an alternative from detailed study, 40 C.F.R. 1502.14(a) (emphasis added); and (2) the agency must consider a “no action” alternative, id. § 1502.14(d). Thus, under NEPA, 41

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 42 of 55

FHWA “need not consider all of the possible alternative actions in the EIS; it is only required to look at those that are reasonable in light of the project's stated purpose.” Audubon Naturalist Society, 524 F.Supp.2d at 667. Moreover, the existence of an unexamined alternative does not render an environmental impact statement inadequate. Dombeck, 164 F.3d at 1128. Courts review an agency’s selection of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIS under a “rule of reason.” City of Bridgeton, 212 F.3d at 455. Sierra Club’s post-NEPA process contention that FHWA was required to consider “construction of a smaller, two lane bridge south of Stillwater,” Complaint ¶ 85, is inconsistent with its position during the NEPA process. See FHWA_AR_8377 (“We support No Build.”). Sierra Club’s assertion that FHWA was required to consider the “expansion of the preexisting I-94 crossing at Hudson” is a veiled attempt to have the Court rewrite the purpose and need statement for this project. The Court should decline to do so. The purpose of the Project was not to expand capacity along the I-94 corridor, as the Sierra Club implies. Rather, the purpose of the Project was to improve the Minnesota TH 36/Wisconsin STH 64 corridor some 10 miles north of I-94. FHWA_AR_7840. The SFEIS identified a number of transportation issues this project was intended to address, including improving mobility and safety in the project area. Id. Given this project purpose and the transportation needs the Project is intended to address, FHWA, along with the Stakeholders Group that included the Sierra Club, considered a broad range of alternatives, including the no build alternative and all alternatives previously studied as well as new alternatives. See e.g., FHWA_AR_2906 –

42

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 43 of 55

2986, FHWA_AR_4117 – 4164, and FHWA_AR_9140 -- 9273. FHWA also held two public meetings to solicit input on the alternatives to be considered, and FHWA documented and explained the reasons why some alternatives were not studied in detail in the SDEIS. FHWA_AR_2966 – 2967; FHWA_AR_4110 – 4113. The SDEIS evaluated the potential impacts of four Build Alternatives (Alternative B-1, C, D, and E) and the No-Build Alternative. As mentioned, one of the alternatives studied in detail in the SDEIS was Alternative E, a two-lane bridge next to the Lift Bridge. Alternative E was not identified as the preferred alternative for a number of reasons, including the fact that it would not satisfy future traffic needs in the project area as well as Alternative B-1. FHWA_AR_7862 – 7864. This fact would presumably be true whether a new two-lane bridge was built in downtown Stillwater or south of Stillwater. In any event, after extensive analysis and consideration of comments from federal, state, and local agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the public, a preferred alternative that is south of downtown Stillwater was identified in the SFEIS.

FHWA_AR_7865.

The record clearly demonstrates that FHWA adequately

considered alternatives, engaged in a very thorough and collaborative process when deciding which alternatives would be eliminated, and specifically analyzed the alternative proposed by Sierra Club during the environmental process. Accordingly, FHWA’s analysis of alternatives for the Project was not arbitrary or capricious and should be upheld by this Court. See Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. at 551-52; City of Alexandria v. Slater, 198 F.3d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

43

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 44 of 55

2. FHWA Properly Addressed the Indirect Effects of the Project. Sierra Club asserts FHWA failed to address properly the project’s indirect effects. Complaint, ¶ 87. The record belies Sierra Club’s claim. The SFEIS’s indirect effects section, is not “conclusory” but instead contains a methodical assessment of induced (indirect) growth, easily satisfying the requirements of NEPA. An EIS’s discussion of indirect impacts should be “reasonably thorough.” Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. v. U.S. DOT, 42 F.3d 517, 526 (9 th Cir. 1994). The indirect effects analysis for the Project far surpasses that standard. The CEQ regulations define “indirect effects” as follows: “Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may 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. § 1508.7. The indirect effects analysis for the Project was discussed concurrently with direct effects in the SDEIS. FHWA_AR_8141. In response to comments on the SDEIS, FHWA wrote a new chapter to aggregate in one section the indirect effects analysis for the project in the SFEIS, including the Wisconsin-related indirect effects of the project. FHWA_AR_8151 – 8156. The indirect effects analysis for the Project--written with input from the Stakeholders Group including the Sierra Club--satisfies NEPA. The indirect effects analysis for this Project is more detailed than the analysis upheld in Hunt v. North Carolina Dept. of Transp., 299 44

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 45 of 55

F.Supp.2d 529 (E.D.N.C. 2004). Hunt involved a project to replace a single lane, floating bridge in Sunset Beach, North Carolina, with a new high-level, fixed-span bridge. The FEIS in Hunt contained a discussion of the indirect effects of the project, including the effects of “(1) a full build out of the island, (2) the installation of [a] sewer system, (3) population growth, and (4) increased day visitors [to the island].” Hunt, 299 F.Supp.2d at 536. The Court found the defendants had taken a “hard look” at the effects of the proposed bridge. Id. Similarly, here, the Project analysis contained a methodical assessment of indirect impacts and satisfies NEPA. See SFEIS, Chapter 13, FHWA_AR_8141-8163. In evaluating indirect impacts of the project, FHWA analyzed numerous questions related to the project, including, for example: “Would the project influence the types of development (residential, commercial, industrial) anticipated within the area of influence? Would the project influence the amount of development anticipated in the area of influence? Would the project influence the location of development anticipated in the area of influence? Would the project influence the timing of development anticipated in the area of influence? How does the type, amount, and timing of development affect natural, cultural, social, and economic resources in the area of influence? What are the factors that influence the beneficial and adverse qualities of these effects?” FHWA_AR_8142. FHWA also collected data on (1) existing and future land use, (2) existing population and employment, (3) future population and employment estimates, (4) growth management strategies from local plans, and (5) land use regulation and ordinances such as zoning. Id. FHWA also held a series of discussions with local government and

45

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 46 of 55

planning officials related to land use trends. FHWA_AR_8146. The indirect effects analysis found: (1) substantial growth trends are already apparent in western Wisconsin despite uncertainty regarding the construction of a new river crossing; (2) the influence of improved mobility provided by the Preferred Alternative on the amount of growth anticipated is uncertain; (3) potential negative impacts resulting from land development are not within the control of FHWA and the DOTs but rather are within local government control; and (4) local planning efforts have anticipated the bridge crossing and have adopted policies to protect area resources. FHWA_AR_8158. FHWA concluded the Project could accelerate growth in St. Croix County and identified, with input from the Stakeholders Group and local government agencies, measures to mitigate possible effects associated with that potential accelerated growth. FHWA described those measures in the SFEIS, FHWA_AR_8158 – 8163, and they were made elements of the Growth Management MOU, FHWA_AR_8711 – 8719. NEPA requires no more. FHWA’s analysis of the indirect effects of the Project was not arbitrary or capricious and should be upheld by this Court. 3. FHWA Properly Addressed the Cumulative Impacts of the Project. The court should reject Sierra Club’s assertion that FHWA failed to address the Project’s cumulative impacts properly. First, despite being a member of the Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Subgroup, Sierra Club failed to raise specific concerns during the public comment period about FHWA’s analysis of cumulative impacts. FHWA_AR_8377 – 8413. Therefore, Sierra Club waived this claim. Dep’t of Transp., 541 U.S. at 764. 46

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 47 of 55

FHWA’s cumulative impacts analysis meets the requirements of NEPA. Federal agencies have substantial discretion as to the extent of the cumulative impacts assessment and appropriate level of explanation, Marsh, 490 U.S. at 376-77, and may properly limit the scope of their cumulative effects analysis based on practical considerations, Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 414 (1976), so long as the administrative record contains “a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences.” Swanson v. U.S. Forest Service, 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996) quoting Oregon Environmental Council v. Kunzman, 817 F.2d 484, 492 (9th Cir. 1987). Accord, Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 352 F.Supp.2d 909, 925-926 (D. Minn. 2005). The CEQ regulations define a cumulative impact as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. A cumulative impact analysis “must identify (1) the area in which the effects of the proposed project will be felt; (2) the impacts that are expected in that area from the proposed project; (3) other actions-past, present, and proposed, and reasonably foreseeable-that have had or are expected to have impacts in the same area; (4) the impacts or expected impacts from these other actions; and (5) the overall impact that can be expected if the individual impacts are

47

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 48 of 55

allowed to accumulate.” Grand Canyon Trust v. F.A.A., 290 F.3d 339, 345 (D.C.Cir.2002). The cumulative impact analysis for the Project meets each of these criteria. Sierra Club claims the cumulative impacts assessment lacks “quantified or detailed information” citing Habitat Educ. Ctr., Inc. v. Bosworth, 363 F.Supp.2d 1070 (E.D. Wis. 2005). Such reliance is misplaced. In Habitat, the court held the Forest Service’s cumulative impact analysis concerning the red-shouldered hawk, goshawk, and certain rare plants was deficient because it lacked sufficient detail about those resources. Id. at 108083. Here, the Project cumulative impacts analysis contains abundant and quantifiable detail and is a careful and reasonable assessment that considered the relevant factors and constitutes a “hard look” under NEPA. The cumulative impacts analysis for the Project is contained in Chapter of 13 of the SDEIS and Chapter 14 of the SFEIS. FHWA_AR_8164 – 8194. The analysis first sets the geographic boundaries of the cumulative impacts assessment and the time period of the assessment.

FHWA_AR_8165.

Next, FHWA’s cumulative impacts analysis (1)

summarized the existing condition of each potentially affected resource and how it has been affected by other actions (public or private); (2) summarized impacts from the Preferred Alternative on each potentially affected resource; (3) identified other present actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions and their possible impacts on those resources; and (4) discussed the potential for cumulative impacts on those resources and measures that could avoid or minimize negative effects on those resources. Id. This 48

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

analysis was performed for the following areas:

Filed 05/29/09 Page 49 of 55

(1) land development, (2) prime

agricultural land, (3) social (neighborhoods, communities, etc), (4) regional economy, (5) air quality, (6) noise, (7) wetlands, (8) water quality and quantity, (9) aquatic resources, (10) vegetation, (11) wildlife, (12) parks and recreational lands, (13) aesthetics, and (14) archaeological and historic resources. FHWA_AR_8171 – 8193. Based on this analysis, FHWA concluded that potential impacts were greater in the areas of (1) land use, (2) prime agricultural land, (3) water quality and quantity, (4) vegetation, (5) wildlife, (6) aesthetics, and (7) historic resources and that these impacts could be avoided through land use controls, other development controls, and roadway access restrictions. FHWA_AR_8194. FHWA’s analysis of the cumulative impacts for the Project was not arbitrary or capricious and should be upheld by this Court. The administrative record demonstrates FHWA complied fully with NEPA. FHWA considered a full range of alternatives before reaching the preferred alternative; and having properly identified the preferred alternative, FHWA provided an objective, detailed, and thorough presentation of the project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. FHWA’s actions were not arbitrary and capricious and should be upheld by this Court. B. THE FHWA COMPLIED WITH SECTION 4(f). Section 4(f) prohibits the use of land from a publicly owned park, wildlife refuge, or recreation area, or a historic site for a transportation project unless: (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using the land, and (2) all possible planning is taken to 49

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 50 of 55

minimize harm to the park, wildlife refuge, recreation area, or historic site. 49 U.S.C. § 303(c). The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation included in the SFEIS demonstrates that FHWA fully complied with Section 4(f). FHWA_AR_9274 – 9335. First, FHWA identified the resources in the study area subject to protection under Section 4(f) (“Section 4(f) resources”). FHWA_AR_9286 – 9290. Next, FHWA determined whether the project, as proposed, would result in the "use" of Section 4(f) resources. This analysis was conducted for all build alternatives studied in the Draft SEIS, FHWA_AR_4742 – 4746, and for the Preferred Alternative, FHWA_AR_9278 – 9282. FHWA then considered whether there were any feasible and prudent “avoidance alternatives,” i.e., alternatives that would avoid all Section 4(f) resources, and concluded that there were none. FHWA_AR_9285. The only alternatives that might altogether avoid Section 4(f) resources were the No Build Alternative and those which entailed no new road construction--these alternatives were determined to be not “prudent” since they would not meet the project’s purpose and need. Id. Having determined there were no feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives, FHWA evaluated measures to avoid and minimize impacts to individual Section 4(f) resources. FHWA concluded the Preferred Alternative would result in the least impacts to Section 4(f) resources. FHWA_AR_9320. This process was consistent with FHWA regulations and guidance, and the resulting conclusions were not arbitrary or capricious. See 23 C.F.R. § 771.135 (2006) and FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper, FHWA_AR_35952 – 35990.

50

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 51 of 55

Sierra Club criticizes the Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Project in two respects. First, Sierra Club claims FHWA failed to consider alternatives that would have avoided use of the Riverway, specifically Alternative A and expansion of the I-94 corridor. Complaint, ¶ 91. Second, Sierra Club alleges the FHWA failed to minimize harm to the Riverway by not picking a less intrusive option such as a two lane bridge. Complaint, ¶ 92. These claims are a rehash of the failed NEPA claims and are otherwise without merit. 1. FHWA Correctly Dismissed Alternative A. FHWA properly eliminated Alternative A. Alternative A was eliminated from consideration as an alternative because it did not meet the project’s purpose and need. FHWA_AR_4111 – 4113 and FHWA_AR_7858. As in the case of NEPA analysis, alternatives which do not meet a project’s purpose and need are not feasible and prudent under Section 4(f). Indeed, this view has been adopted by the Eighth Circuit and is shared by many other circuits. City of Bridgeton, 212 F.3d at 461; Ringsred v. Dole, 828 F.2d 1300, 1304 (8 th Cir. 1987); Committee to Preserve Boomer Lake Park v. Skinner, 4 F.3d 1543, 1550 (10th Cir. 1993); Arizona Past & Future Found., Inc. v. Lewis, 722 F.2d 1423, 1425-1426 (9 th Cir. 1983); Hickory Neighborhood Def. League v. Skinner, 910 F.2d 159, 164 (4th Cir. 1990); Louisiana Envtl. Soc’y v. Coleman, 537 F.2d 79, 85 (5th Cir. 1976); Druid Hills Civic Ass’n. Inc. v. FHWA, 772 F.2d 700, 715 (11th Cir. 1985). Sierra Club’s assertion the FHWA erred in eliminating Alternative A, because it did not meet the project’s purpose and need, should be rejected. 51

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 52 of 55

Sierra Club’s assertion that FHWA did not “consider other possibilities that would have avoided degradation of the Riverway,” Complaint, ¶ 91 is similarly unavailing. As FHWA explained in the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, “[t]he only alternative that could avoid use of the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway is the No-Build Alternative; however, the No-Build Alternative is not a feasible and prudent alternative as it would not address the project’s purpose and need (refer to Chapter 2 and 3 of this SFEIS).” FHWA_AR_9285. To reiterate, an alternative that does not meet a project’s purpose and need is properly eliminated under Section 4(f). The I-94 claim is patently untenable. It would not address the problem of the traffic corridor ten miles north. Expansion of existing roads or building new roads on both sides of the Riverway would engender as many problems as has this Project with the end result being that traffic would be diverted 20 miles more per crossing. FHWA properly concluded that Alternative A and the NoBuild Alternative were not “prudent” alternatives and did not require further evaluation under Section 4(f). This conclusion was not arbitrary or capricious and should be upheld by this Court. 2. FHWA’s Planning Minimized Impacts to 4(f) Properties. FHWA’s Section 4(f) Policy Paper provides that “[m]inimization of harm entails both alternative design modifications that lessen the impact on 4(f) resources and mitigation measures that compensate for residual impacts. Minimization and mitigation measures should be determined through consultation with the official of the agency owning 52

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

or administering the resource.”

Filed 05/29/09 Page 53 of 55

FHWA_AR_35962.

To minimize impacts to 4(f)

resources, including the St. Croix River, FHWA consulted and coordinated with numerous federal, state, and local government agencies and NGOs. After years of consultation and coordination, a number of minimization measures were adopted for this project including: (1) a river crossing more perpendicular to the centerline of the St. Croix River, thereby minimizing the bridge length over the St. Croix River; (2) design considerations to avoid and minimize impacts to endangered mussel species in the riverway; and (3) incorporating elements into the final bridge design (e.g., measures to transition from higher speed in Wisconsin to lower speed in Minnesota; bridge deck design and construction to minimize noise transmission to the riverway; minimal use of roadway signage; shielded roadway lighting fixtures; use of Xcel barge unloading facility for construction staging prior to removal) that would minimize other impacts to the St. Croix River. FHWA_AR_8209 – 8247 and FHWA_9317 -- 9319. In addition, non-bridge design related actions were adopted to specifically mitigate impacts to the riverway. Those steps include: (1) mitigation for damages to blufflands; (2) bluffland restoration; (3) removal of the Terra Terminal building, solid waste disposal, and restoration of the Minnesota shoreline near the building; (4) removal of non-historic, man-made items from Kolliner Park; (5) completion of a loop trail system including grading of the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility property and conversion of the Lift Bridge to a pedestrian/bicycle facility; (6) covenants on excess property owned by WisDOT within the riverway (west of STH 35)

53

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 54 of 55

and between STH 35 and the Preferred Alternative STH 64/35/CTH E interchange; and (7) a spill response plan. Id. Finally, Defendants completed a MOU to minimize and mitigate impacts to the riverway. FHWA_AR_8691 – 8710. The mitigation and minimization measures adopted for this Project easily satisfies Section 4(f)’s requirement that FHWA engage in all possible planning to minimize harm to Section 4(f) resources. FHWA’s Final Section 4(f) evaluation was not arbitrary and capricious. FHWA correctly identified impacts to Section 4(f) resources, concluded that there was no avoidance alternative that was feasible and prudent, and determined that all alternatives to the proposed action would have greater impacts to Section 4(f) resources than the Preferred Alternative. FHWA engaged in all possible planning to minimize harm to Section 4(f) resources and selected the alternative that would cause least harm to Section 4(f) resources.

54

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 91

Filed 05/29/09 Page 55 of 55

CONCLUSION The Court should enter summary judgment for the FHWA and the NPS. Dated: May 29, 2009

FRANK J. MAGILL, JR. United States Attorney s/ Friedrich A.P. Siekert BY: FRIEDRICH A. P. SIEKERT Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorney ID No. 142013 [email protected] United States Attorney’s Office 600 U.S. Courthouse 300 South Fourth Street Minneapolis, MN 55419 Telephone: (612) 664-5600 Fax: (612) 664-5788

55