NEPA Issues Planning-NEPA Linkage. The plaintiffs argued that it was improper for FHWA to incorporate planning documents – specifically, a feasibility study prepared by FDOT – in the NEPA process. The court rejected this argument, holding that “circuit precedent holds that incorporation of local planning documents is permissible and that references to such documents can satisfy the requirements of NEPA.” The plaintiffs also argued that FHWA could not rely on the planning documents because FHWA did not participate in preparing them. The court also rejected this argument, holding that FHWA’s planning regulations specifically state that “Publicly available documents … produced by, or in support of, the transportation planning process … may be incorporated directly or by reference into subsequent NEPA documents”. Purpose and Need. The plaintiffs claimed that FHWA had adopted an impermissibly narrow statement of purpose and need, because it specifically called for an “additional crossing of the South Fork of the [St. Lucie] River in Martin County, Florida.” The plaintiffs claimed the purpose was too narrow because it specifically called for a southern crossing. The court rejected this argument: “we find FHWA’s rationale — that an existing bridge across the river serves mainly the central and northern parts of the county — to be reasonable.” Range of Alternatives. The plaintiffs claimed that the range of alternatives was too narrow, because FHWA relied upon planning studies – completed prior to the NEPA process – as the basis for eliminating some alternatives. The court upheld FHWA’s ability to reject alternatives based on analyses completed in the planning process. The court also concluded that FHWA had considered an adequate range of alternatives in detail in the Final EIS: the No–Build Alternative, a Traffic System Management Alternative, the agencies’ preferred alternative, and a “Citizens’ Alternative” that had been proposed by the plaintiffs in their comments on the Draft EIS; the Citizens’ Alternative involved a combination of improvements to existing roads, without building a new bridge. Environmental Impact Analysis – Post-NEPA Studies. The plaintiffs claimed the impact analysis was inadequate, pointing to the fact that FHWA had agreed to conduct some additional impact analysis after completion of the NEPA process. The court held that “a commitment to ongoing studies alone is not necessarily indicative of an insufficient EIS.” Floodplain and Wetlands Findings. The plaintiffs claimed that FHWA’s finding under Executive Orders 11990 and 11988 (regarding avoidance of wetlands and floodplain impacts) were inadequate because they lacked detail and were conclusory. The court reviewed the analysis of these issues in the EIS and found them to be satisfactorily thorough. Indirect Effects/Induced Growth. The plaintiffs claimed that indirect effects analysis did not sufficiently consider the project’s potential to stimulate commercial development in a previously residential area. The EIS concluded that commercial development in the study area was already occurring and the project would not induce additional development. The court deferred to the agency’s expertise on this determination. Cumulative Impact Analysis – Geographic Scope. The plaintiffs claimed that the scope of the cumulative impacts analysis for fisheries was too narrow. The scope of the analysis had been limited to the drainage basin of the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. FHWA argued that this scope was appropriate because the basin studied was the only basin into which another bridge also drained, and thus the only area where cumulative impacts could potentially occur. The court upheld FHWA’s determination. Cumulative Impacts – List of Transportation Projects. The EIS identified transportation projects as in the region’s TIP – i.e., the five-year program – as reasonably foreseeable projects in the cumulative impacts analysis. The plaintiffs argued that all projects in the 20-year regional transportation plan should be considered reasonably foreseeable. The court upheld FHWA’s determination that projects in the 20-year plan (outside the 5-year TIP) were ”speculative” and therefore did not need to be included in the cumulative impacts analysis Phased Construction/Supplemental EIS. After the ROD was issued, FDOT announced that it intended to construct the project in four phases rather than building the entire project at once. The plaintiffs claimed that the decision to adopt phased construction required a supplemental EIS to be prepared. The court rejected this argument because the plaintiffs had not raised it in their complaint in the District Court; the court therefore did not need to address the substance of this claim. Section 4(f) Feasible and Prudent Alternatives. The plaintiffs challenged FHWA’s determination that there were no feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives, arguing that FHWA’s analysis was too conclusory and that FHWA had not specifically found that there were “extraordinary or unique circumstances.” The court held that “FHWA’s explanations are sufficient and will not be found lacking simply because they did not include the terms ‘extraordinary’ or ‘unique.’”