UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 et al, Plaintiffs, Case No. 18-cv-00333 (CRC) v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION et al, Defendants. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Background ................................................................................................................... 3 A. Factual Background............................................................................................... 3 1. The proposed project ......................................................................................... 3 2. The Secretary’s bond allocation ........................................................................ 4 3. The environmental review process .................................................................... 5 B. Procedural Background ......................................................................................... 7 II. Analysis..................................................................................................................... 9 A. The Bond Allocation ............................................................................................. 9 1. Section 142(m) ................................................................................................ 11 2. Section 147(f) .................................................................................................. 24 B. NEPA Compliance .............................................................................................. 35 1. Public-safety effects of the project .................................................................. 38 2. Effects of vessel queuing at railroad bridges over navigable waters ............... 49 3. Alternatives to the route and the use of moveable bridges .............................. 55 4. Noise impacts .................................................................................................. 59 5. Changes to freight operations .......................................................................... 66 III. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 72 1 This case was captioned Martin County et al v. Department of Transportation et al in all previous filings. The Court has adjusted the case name to reflect Martin County’s voluntary dismissal. See Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, ECF No. 48.f MEMORANDUM OPINION AAF Holdings, Inc. (“AAF”) plans to construct and operate an express passenger railway connecting Orlando and Miami, Florida. The initial segment of the line between Miami and West Palm Beach is currently operational. The extension of the line to Orlando is still in the planning stages. To help AAF finance the extension, the U.S. Department of Transportation has allocated $1.15 billion in federally tax-exempt bonds to be issued by a Florida economic development agency. The planned extension of the railway will run through Indian River County on Florida’s Treasure Coast. The County and its Emergency Services District (together, “Indian River County” or “Plaintiff”) have long objected to the project. In this, its second lawsuit challenging the project, Indian River County seeks summary judgment on two grounds. First, it contends that the Department of Transportation exceeded its authority in allocating the bonds because the project is not eligible to receive tax-exempt funding under two separate provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Second, the County maintains that the Federal Railway Administration (“FRA”) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) by conducting a flawed and incomplete review of the public health and safety consequences of the project. Defendants the Department of Transportation, its component FRA, and several of its officers (together, “federal Defendants,” “the Department,” or “FRA”) filed a cross motion for summary judgment, as did AAF, which has intervened as a defendant. Because the Department’s allocation met the tax code’s requirements and the FRA’s review complied with NEPA, the Court will deny Indian River County’s motion for summary judgment and grant the federal Defendants’ and AAF’s. 2 I. Background A. Factual Background 1. The proposed project AAF is in the process of constructing a private passenger train service that will ultimately provide service between Miami and Orlando. Phase I of the project currently operates from Miami to West Palm Beach. AR 65115–16. Phase II will run ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals