Litigation Procedure

Standing.  The court held that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show that (1) it has suffered a concrete and actual or imminent injury, (2) the injury is caused by the defendant’s conduct, and (3) the requested relief will remedy the injury. The plaintiffs argued that construction of the moveable bridge would prevent them from using the river for recreation and harm their aesthetic interests. The court ruled that these alleged injuries were insufficient to demonstrate standing because a fixed bridge, which the plaintiffs preferred, would result in greater harm to their recreational and aesthetic interests: Construction of the moveable bridge would be 12 to 24 months shorter and would require fewer complete blockages of the river channel as compared to a fixed bridge. Thus, the “plaintiffs fail to show that their recreational and aesthetic enjoyment of the area would be lessened if a fixed bridge were chosen instead, and therefore lack standing to bring their claim.”

NEPA

Although the court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing, it also considered the merits of their arguments that FTA violated NEPA.

Purpose and Need.  The court upheld the agencies’ decision to revise the purpose and need statement after initial scoping to add “maintaining or improving navigational capacity.” The agencies revised the purpose and need statement based on concerns that the Coast Guard (a cooperating agency) would not approve the project if it did not maintain existing navigational capacity. Noting that initial scoping is not required for an EA and that agencies are entitled to deference with respect to the purpose and need statement, the court held that it was rational for the agencies to revise the purpose and need statement in response to public and agency comments received during and after scoping.

Alternatives.  The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the EA should have considered a low-level fixed bridge alternative. The agencies eliminated fixed bridge alternatives from more detailed study in the EA based on costs, construction time, waterway navigation impacts, and right-of-way requirements. The court held that the agencies adequately evaluated fixed bridge alternatives and justified their decision for not selecting them.

Public Participation.  The court held that the agencies provided more than an adequate level of public participation on the EA and sufficiently addressed concerns raised by public comments. The agencies chose to conduct scoping on the EA, released a draft EA for public review, and held public meetings to solicit comments on the EA. “Plaintiffs had multiple opportunities to comment on the project proposal, and Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs’ concerns and addressed those comments in a manner consistent with NEPA. Although Defendants did not revise the EA, they were not required to do so under NEPA.”

Segmentation.

Rail Projects.  The plaintiffs argued that the EA should have evaluated two nearby rail infrastructure projects. Those two projects would reduce train delays and service disruptions, and each was evaluated in a separate NEPA document. The court held that although those projects would help alleviate impacts from track outages during construction of the Walk Bridge Project, they were not improperly segmented because they each had independent utility. The court explained that each project had independent long-term benefits, and each project could go forward without the other being built.

Transmission Lines.  The plaintiffs argued that the EA should have considered the replacement of high-voltage transmission lines that used the existing Walk Bridge’s towers. The court held that it was not improperly segmented because the transmission lines would need to be replaced even in the absence of the Walk Bridge Project: “regardless of whether the Walk Bridge Project moves forward, those lines will need to move because the high towers are structurally unsound and require replacement. Because the transmission lines sit on the towers, they need to be removed and relocated. The relocation of those lines has an independent function regardless of whether the Walk Bridge Replacement Project is built; therefore, the relocation was not improperly segmented.”

• Norwalk Harbor Keeper v USDOT 7-8-2019.PDF (225 kb)