The panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act arising from litigation challenging the construction of a high-speed rail project in Honolulu, Hawaii. The panel held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the Environmental Impact Statement adequately identified project objectives and analyzed alternatives as required by NEPA. The panel also held that the defendants did not violate Section 4(f) in their evaluation of alternatives and treatment of potential archeological sites.
This document summarizes a research paper about active transportation in Pinellas County, Florida. It discusses the history of passenger rail, bus service, and trails as forms of public transportation. It also analyzes political opposition to expanding public transportation options from groups influenced by Tea Party ideology who oppose additional taxes and government spending. The document evaluates arguments for and against a proposed sales tax increase to fund improvements to bus service and the development of light rail.
LULAC Civil Rights Complaints at TahoeJerry Dinzes
North Lake Tahoe LULAC worked with the California LULAC board on a series of complaints that helped to keep the Kings Beach area safe from traffic hazards and environmental degradation. These complaints pertain to two major infrastructure projects: 1) A wood burning biomass plant that Placer County voted to build in Kings Beach. The power plant was in close proximity to residential homes and an elementary school. The plant impeded on the beautiful viewshed of the Tahoe Basin. After a contentious battle, Placer County agreed to build the biomass plant outside of the Tahoe Basin, at a landfill site. 2) The Kings Beach Commercial Core Improvement Project will divert significant traffic through residential neighborhoods in the years to come. LULAC fought to stop residential cut through traffic. After a contentious battle, Placer County agreed to commit nearly $2 million to a neighborhood traffic management plan. This money was invested in speed humps and sidewalk development.
Complaints filed by North Tahoe LULAC were written and submitted by Jerry Dinzes, (BTW: These complaints were written prior to any formal university education. Just saying, I've come a long way.) Complaints submitted by Cal LULAC were originally drafted by Jerry Dinzes and Dave McClure. Cal LULAC's executive board made final revisions and submitted.
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) files a formal complaint regarding a highway project in Kings Beach, California. LULAC argues that reducing highway lanes from four to two will significantly increase traffic and divert it through low-income Hispanic neighborhoods, negatively impacting the community. LULAC believes the project's environmental review was inadequate and did not properly address community concerns, environmental justice, or civil rights issues. LULAC requests that the Federal Highway Administration review the status of the project to ensure it complies with regulatory requirements.
This order addresses cross-motions for summary judgment regarding a lawsuit filed against the Federal Transit Administration and the City and County of Honolulu challenging their approval of a 20-mile elevated rail project in Honolulu under the National Environmental Policy Act, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The order provides background on the project and approval process. It then discusses the legal standard for reviewing agency decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act. Finally, it addresses the merits of the claims under Section 4(f), finding for the plaintiffs on three claims, and the merits of all other claims, finding for the defendants.
This document summarizes the history of road development from ancient times to the modern era. It discusses how early roads were often developed by militaries for transporting supplies or laid out in grid patterns by rulers. It also describes how many early American roads were built and maintained through forced labor or private turnpike corporations that charged tolls. In the early 20th century, the rise of the automobile led to increased government funding of roads through gas taxes and the creation of highway departments. However, some roads have continued to be built and operated through public-private partnerships or private investment using tolls. The document argues there is debate around the appropriate roles of government versus private sector in funding and operating roads.
This document is an answer filed by the City and County of Honolulu and Wayne Yoshioke, Director of the City's Department of Transportation Services, in response to a complaint filed against them and other defendants. The answer provides background on the rail project and denies or admits various allegations in the complaint. It argues the complaint fails to state a valid claim and the city defendants fully complied with applicable laws and regulations in their environmental review and approval of the project.
This document provides testimony opposing resolutions (HR 113, HCR 153, SR 45, SR 93) that would exempt Hawaii from the U.S. build requirement of the Jones Act for large ocean-going ships. It provides background on the Jones Act and examines a GAO report on the potential effects of exempting Puerto Rico from the Jones Act. While reform should be considered, a full exemption is not in Hawaii's best interest due to national security, homeland security, and support for the domestic shipping and maritime industries.
This document summarizes a research paper about active transportation in Pinellas County, Florida. It discusses the history of passenger rail, bus service, and trails as forms of public transportation. It also analyzes political opposition to expanding public transportation options from groups influenced by Tea Party ideology who oppose additional taxes and government spending. The document evaluates arguments for and against a proposed sales tax increase to fund improvements to bus service and the development of light rail.
LULAC Civil Rights Complaints at TahoeJerry Dinzes
North Lake Tahoe LULAC worked with the California LULAC board on a series of complaints that helped to keep the Kings Beach area safe from traffic hazards and environmental degradation. These complaints pertain to two major infrastructure projects: 1) A wood burning biomass plant that Placer County voted to build in Kings Beach. The power plant was in close proximity to residential homes and an elementary school. The plant impeded on the beautiful viewshed of the Tahoe Basin. After a contentious battle, Placer County agreed to build the biomass plant outside of the Tahoe Basin, at a landfill site. 2) The Kings Beach Commercial Core Improvement Project will divert significant traffic through residential neighborhoods in the years to come. LULAC fought to stop residential cut through traffic. After a contentious battle, Placer County agreed to commit nearly $2 million to a neighborhood traffic management plan. This money was invested in speed humps and sidewalk development.
Complaints filed by North Tahoe LULAC were written and submitted by Jerry Dinzes, (BTW: These complaints were written prior to any formal university education. Just saying, I've come a long way.) Complaints submitted by Cal LULAC were originally drafted by Jerry Dinzes and Dave McClure. Cal LULAC's executive board made final revisions and submitted.
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) files a formal complaint regarding a highway project in Kings Beach, California. LULAC argues that reducing highway lanes from four to two will significantly increase traffic and divert it through low-income Hispanic neighborhoods, negatively impacting the community. LULAC believes the project's environmental review was inadequate and did not properly address community concerns, environmental justice, or civil rights issues. LULAC requests that the Federal Highway Administration review the status of the project to ensure it complies with regulatory requirements.
This order addresses cross-motions for summary judgment regarding a lawsuit filed against the Federal Transit Administration and the City and County of Honolulu challenging their approval of a 20-mile elevated rail project in Honolulu under the National Environmental Policy Act, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The order provides background on the project and approval process. It then discusses the legal standard for reviewing agency decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act. Finally, it addresses the merits of the claims under Section 4(f), finding for the plaintiffs on three claims, and the merits of all other claims, finding for the defendants.
This document summarizes the history of road development from ancient times to the modern era. It discusses how early roads were often developed by militaries for transporting supplies or laid out in grid patterns by rulers. It also describes how many early American roads were built and maintained through forced labor or private turnpike corporations that charged tolls. In the early 20th century, the rise of the automobile led to increased government funding of roads through gas taxes and the creation of highway departments. However, some roads have continued to be built and operated through public-private partnerships or private investment using tolls. The document argues there is debate around the appropriate roles of government versus private sector in funding and operating roads.
This document is an answer filed by the City and County of Honolulu and Wayne Yoshioke, Director of the City's Department of Transportation Services, in response to a complaint filed against them and other defendants. The answer provides background on the rail project and denies or admits various allegations in the complaint. It argues the complaint fails to state a valid claim and the city defendants fully complied with applicable laws and regulations in their environmental review and approval of the project.
This document provides testimony opposing resolutions (HR 113, HCR 153, SR 45, SR 93) that would exempt Hawaii from the U.S. build requirement of the Jones Act for large ocean-going ships. It provides background on the Jones Act and examines a GAO report on the potential effects of exempting Puerto Rico from the Jones Act. While reform should be considered, a full exemption is not in Hawaii's best interest due to national security, homeland security, and support for the domestic shipping and maritime industries.
Federal rules regulating the maximum hours truck drivers can work have been debated since the 1930s, with the first rule in 1938 allowing 12 hours of work per day. Over the decades, various agencies proposed and finalized new rules, many of which faced legal challenges. The latest rule from 2011 kept the 11-hour daily driving limit but placed new restrictions on restart periods drivers must take between work weeks. These changes aimed to reduce fatigue but remained controversial as trucking and safety groups disagreed on the appropriate regulations.
The document proposes updates to the transportation element of Fort Lauderdale's comprehensive plan to enhance equity, connectivity, and livability through transportation initiatives. It recommends expanding public transit options like the Wave streetcar, implementing a bus rapid transit network, and establishing an intracoastal ferry system. It also proposes designating urban growth areas to concentrate future development, adopting a modal hierarchy prioritizing pedestrians and transit, implementing complete streets design standards, and designating some streets as public spaces. The goals are to provide more equitable, sustainable, and multimodal transportation access for all citizens.
The document summarizes testimony given to the Senate about challenges in implementing recommendations from the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. It discusses three main challenges: 1) Changing FAA's organizational culture and resource management, as recent studies found its culture contributes to problems; 2) Strengthening partnerships between FAA and industry, which are important for safety programs but raise oversight questions; 3) Determining costs of recommendations and funding sources, as budget cuts are proposed for some safety programs despite a goal to reduce accidents by 80% in 10 years.
San Francisco is the most densely populated city in California, with over 17,000 people per square mile. It has a diverse public transportation system that includes Muni buses and light rail, BART subway, Caltrain commuter rail, ferries, and the iconic cable cars. Over 30% of San Francisco residents use public transit for their daily commute, ranking it first among West Coast cities. The city also has a large number of people who walk and cycle for transportation each day due to its compact size and transit accessibility.
The Northeast megalopolis (also Boston–Washington corridor or Bos-Wash corridor) is the second most populous megalopolis in the United States with over 50 million residents, the most heavily urbanized agglomeration of the United States, and the one with the world's largest economic output. Located primarily on the Atlantic Ocean in the Northeastern United States, with its lower terminus in the upper Southeast, it runs primarily northeast to southwest from the northern suburbs of Boston, Massachusetts, to the southern suburbs of Washington, D.C., in Northern Virginia. It includes the major cities of Boston, Providence, New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., along with their metropolitan areas and suburbs. It is sometimes defined to include smaller urban centers beyond this, such as Richmond and Norfolk, Virginia to the south and Portland, Maine to the north.
JENNIFER L. HARDY EUGENE A. PREY, Senior Program Officer
MEMBERS DIANE Q. BRAUD, Senior Program Officer
JENNIFER L. ALKIRE KAREN N. JANUS, Senior Program Officer
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
TCRP SYNTHESIS STAFF
PAUL P. BINGHAM NANDA SRINIVASAN, Director, Synthesis Studies
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
DOROTHY D. ROBYN, Senior Program Officer
LARRY L. BLACKWOOD THOMAS BRADY, Program Associate
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
EDITOR
This document is a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii by several plaintiffs against various government defendants. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the implementation of the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project, an elevated railroad, until the defendants fully comply with federal environmental laws. The plaintiffs allege the project will have significant negative impacts on historic and cultural resources, parks, schools, views, and public safety without improving traffic conditions.
The document summarizes the key recommendations from a conference on improving America's transportation system. It identifies 10 recommendations, including addressing the immediate funding crisis, developing alternative user fees to the gas tax, directing stimulus spending towards long-term job creation and competitiveness, clarifying decision-making authority, adopting a capital budget, taking an integrated intermodal approach, reducing urban congestion, encouraging public-private partnerships with oversight, reforming the project approval process, and improving transportation data collection. The conference brought together over 80 experts to develop a comprehensive agenda for policymakers.
“You are the master of your own destiny. Use your strengths well. They are the keys to your destiny and your success in life. Once you know yourself and take action to realize your dreams, you can unlock the doors to your own potential.”
~Neil Somerville
“America should be free ground - all of it. Not divided by a line between slave state and free, all the way from here to the Pacific Ocean. No man has to bow. No man born to royalty. Here, we judge you by what you do, not by who your father was. Here, you can be something. Here, is the place to build a home. But it's not the land. There's always more land. It's the idea that we all have value - you and me. What we're fighting for, in the end, we're fighting for each other.”
~ Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Gettysburg
This complaint was submitted to Caltrans by California LULAC. The complaint was drafted by Jerry Dinzes and Dave McClure for the California LULAC's executive director.
This document provides a summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project. The project proposes to build a 20-mile elevated rail system from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center, including stations along the route and a maintenance facility. The document identifies the preferred alternative and evaluates its environmental impacts. It also addresses public comments received on the draft EIS and documents mitigation measures to reduce environmental effects.
The document is a letter from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to the Director of the Department of Transportation Services for the City and County of Honolulu. It announces that the FTA has issued an environmental Record of Decision (ROD) for the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project after reviewing public comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The letter specifies mitigation requirements and pre-award authorizations for the project and notifies the city that any proposed changes must be approved by the FTA.
This is the transportation planning module I developed for the Suncoast Section of the Florida APA's AICP prep course. I deliver it each March to help new professionals prepare for the exam.
This is the transportation planning module I developed for the Suncoast Section of Florida APA. I deliver it each March at their AICP prep course. Hopefully these new professionals learn a little something about transportation and pass the exam too.
Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Roundtable Program History, Goals and Objectives Tom Christoffel
This paper summarizes the history of the development and evolution of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Roundtables from their inception in 2005 to the 7th event in 2010. This effort has led to the development of a Mind-Atlantic Regional Planning Learning Network
Program History, Goals and Objectives
This document is a letter from Clifton M. Hasegawa requesting an investigation by the Department of Transportation Inspector General into the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART). It summarizes past audits that found deficiencies in HART's internal controls, financial oversight, and compliance with laws and regulations. It notes billions in federal funds have been committed to the project and requests an investigation be conducted to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of these funds.
Improving the Nation's Freight Transportation SystemBobby Fraser
This document provides an overview of the various modes that comprise the United States freight transportation system, including highways and trucking, freight rail, shipping and ports, inland waterways, air cargo, warehouses and logistics, and pipelines. It finds that the current state of highway infrastructure does not adequately serve growing freight needs and that the Highway Trust Fund will soon be insolvent. The document also examines challenges facing freight rail, shipping and ports, inland waterways, and air cargo. It concludes that improving the efficient flow of freight across all transportation modes is critical to the US economy given the integrated nature of freight movement between different modes.
Beyond Traffic: US DOT's 30 Year Framework for the FutureLudovic Privat
This document provides an introduction to a draft report titled "Beyond Traffic: Trends and Choices 2045". It summarizes that the report analyzes current transportation trends and projects what the system will look like in 30 years if changes are not made. It finds that population growth, changing travel patterns, and increased freight volume will overwhelm the existing system by 2045 if no new strategies are implemented. The report is intended to spur national discussion on critical policy choices regarding how people and goods will move in the future, and how to best align decisions and funding to adapt the system. It does not prescribe specific solutions, but rather presents data to frame important issues that need addressing.
This document provides an introduction to the report "Beyond Traffic: Trends and Choices 2045". It notes that while the US once led the world in building transportation infrastructure like canals and railroads, its infrastructure is now aging and the country has outgrown it. Traffic congestion costs Americans and businesses billions of dollars per year in lost time and fuel. The report aims to analyze current transportation trends, identify challenges, and discuss potential solutions to address these issues through an open national dialogue. It is intended as the starting point for public feedback to inform a final version of the report.
This document summarizes a court order on a motion to amend a complaint and a motion to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the approval of the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project. The court granted both motions. Regarding the motion to amend, the court found that while the statute of limitations had passed, the proposed additions to the complaint arose from the same facts and occurrences as the original complaint. Regarding the motion to intervene, the court allowed three organizations and an individual to intervene as defendants to represent interests not addressed by the existing defendants.
Running head LOS ANGELES UNION STATION AS A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPME.docxcharisellington63520
Running head: LOS ANGELES UNION STATION AS A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
LOS ANGELES UNION STATION AS A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Los Angeles Union Station as a Sustainable Development Project
Institution
Course Name
Name
Date
I. Development description of rebuilding the Union Station in Los Angeles
Located strategically in Northeastern of Downtown Los Angeles, the Union Station celebrated its 75th anniversary this year since it began operations. Owned by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a private governing body, this public facility serves approximately 1.643 million passengers a year. Significant dates of this station include beginning official operation in 1939, added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1980 and became part of the Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument in 1972 (Maltzan, 2011). In September 17, 2014 the master vision of upgrading this facility was revealed. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) revealed the final project’s master plan that seek to transform this historic station into a more modern facility in the contemporary environment that need sustainability.
II. Purpose of rebuilding
The Union Station is due for major innovation to build a modern super transportation station. Although several projects including New transit station on El Monte Busway, Southern California Regional Interconnect Project, and Former Run-Through Tracks Project have been proposed before and fail to receive attention from legislators, the approved 2014 master plan was developed for California High-Speed Rail project. This project seeks to transform the Union Station into a major hub of transportation with new rail system and new railway station infrastructure. The Metro Authority indicated that the California High-Speed Rail system project will improve rail transportation and passengers will be able to travel from this station to Transbay Terminal in San Francisco in less than three hours(Chester and Horvath, 2010). As the master plan of the new station reveal, the project will feature aerial structures that will be built above the existing platform and underground structures. Apart from improving transportation, increasing convenience and serving more passengers, this project aims to utilize resource in order to enhance sustainability in the transport sector in California. In America, California is the most populous State, with most polluted cities from motor vehicles, port operations and various industries; any sustainable transportation project is welcome.
III. Demographic Snapshot of the Los Angeles
The neighborhood is an important stakeholder and a major consideration during a major infrastructure development. The proposed station will have numerous activities going on during building. During the process of rebuilding this station, it is expected to give inconveniences to the Los Angeles residents and neighboring residen.
Federal rules regulating the maximum hours truck drivers can work have been debated since the 1930s, with the first rule in 1938 allowing 12 hours of work per day. Over the decades, various agencies proposed and finalized new rules, many of which faced legal challenges. The latest rule from 2011 kept the 11-hour daily driving limit but placed new restrictions on restart periods drivers must take between work weeks. These changes aimed to reduce fatigue but remained controversial as trucking and safety groups disagreed on the appropriate regulations.
The document proposes updates to the transportation element of Fort Lauderdale's comprehensive plan to enhance equity, connectivity, and livability through transportation initiatives. It recommends expanding public transit options like the Wave streetcar, implementing a bus rapid transit network, and establishing an intracoastal ferry system. It also proposes designating urban growth areas to concentrate future development, adopting a modal hierarchy prioritizing pedestrians and transit, implementing complete streets design standards, and designating some streets as public spaces. The goals are to provide more equitable, sustainable, and multimodal transportation access for all citizens.
The document summarizes testimony given to the Senate about challenges in implementing recommendations from the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. It discusses three main challenges: 1) Changing FAA's organizational culture and resource management, as recent studies found its culture contributes to problems; 2) Strengthening partnerships between FAA and industry, which are important for safety programs but raise oversight questions; 3) Determining costs of recommendations and funding sources, as budget cuts are proposed for some safety programs despite a goal to reduce accidents by 80% in 10 years.
San Francisco is the most densely populated city in California, with over 17,000 people per square mile. It has a diverse public transportation system that includes Muni buses and light rail, BART subway, Caltrain commuter rail, ferries, and the iconic cable cars. Over 30% of San Francisco residents use public transit for their daily commute, ranking it first among West Coast cities. The city also has a large number of people who walk and cycle for transportation each day due to its compact size and transit accessibility.
The Northeast megalopolis (also Boston–Washington corridor or Bos-Wash corridor) is the second most populous megalopolis in the United States with over 50 million residents, the most heavily urbanized agglomeration of the United States, and the one with the world's largest economic output. Located primarily on the Atlantic Ocean in the Northeastern United States, with its lower terminus in the upper Southeast, it runs primarily northeast to southwest from the northern suburbs of Boston, Massachusetts, to the southern suburbs of Washington, D.C., in Northern Virginia. It includes the major cities of Boston, Providence, New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., along with their metropolitan areas and suburbs. It is sometimes defined to include smaller urban centers beyond this, such as Richmond and Norfolk, Virginia to the south and Portland, Maine to the north.
JENNIFER L. HARDY EUGENE A. PREY, Senior Program Officer
MEMBERS DIANE Q. BRAUD, Senior Program Officer
JENNIFER L. ALKIRE KAREN N. JANUS, Senior Program Officer
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
TCRP SYNTHESIS STAFF
PAUL P. BINGHAM NANDA SRINIVASAN, Director, Synthesis Studies
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
DOROTHY D. ROBYN, Senior Program Officer
LARRY L. BLACKWOOD THOMAS BRADY, Program Associate
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
EDITOR
This document is a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii by several plaintiffs against various government defendants. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the implementation of the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project, an elevated railroad, until the defendants fully comply with federal environmental laws. The plaintiffs allege the project will have significant negative impacts on historic and cultural resources, parks, schools, views, and public safety without improving traffic conditions.
The document summarizes the key recommendations from a conference on improving America's transportation system. It identifies 10 recommendations, including addressing the immediate funding crisis, developing alternative user fees to the gas tax, directing stimulus spending towards long-term job creation and competitiveness, clarifying decision-making authority, adopting a capital budget, taking an integrated intermodal approach, reducing urban congestion, encouraging public-private partnerships with oversight, reforming the project approval process, and improving transportation data collection. The conference brought together over 80 experts to develop a comprehensive agenda for policymakers.
“You are the master of your own destiny. Use your strengths well. They are the keys to your destiny and your success in life. Once you know yourself and take action to realize your dreams, you can unlock the doors to your own potential.”
~Neil Somerville
“America should be free ground - all of it. Not divided by a line between slave state and free, all the way from here to the Pacific Ocean. No man has to bow. No man born to royalty. Here, we judge you by what you do, not by who your father was. Here, you can be something. Here, is the place to build a home. But it's not the land. There's always more land. It's the idea that we all have value - you and me. What we're fighting for, in the end, we're fighting for each other.”
~ Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Gettysburg
This complaint was submitted to Caltrans by California LULAC. The complaint was drafted by Jerry Dinzes and Dave McClure for the California LULAC's executive director.
This document provides a summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project. The project proposes to build a 20-mile elevated rail system from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center, including stations along the route and a maintenance facility. The document identifies the preferred alternative and evaluates its environmental impacts. It also addresses public comments received on the draft EIS and documents mitigation measures to reduce environmental effects.
The document is a letter from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to the Director of the Department of Transportation Services for the City and County of Honolulu. It announces that the FTA has issued an environmental Record of Decision (ROD) for the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project after reviewing public comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The letter specifies mitigation requirements and pre-award authorizations for the project and notifies the city that any proposed changes must be approved by the FTA.
This is the transportation planning module I developed for the Suncoast Section of the Florida APA's AICP prep course. I deliver it each March to help new professionals prepare for the exam.
This is the transportation planning module I developed for the Suncoast Section of Florida APA. I deliver it each March at their AICP prep course. Hopefully these new professionals learn a little something about transportation and pass the exam too.
Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Roundtable Program History, Goals and Objectives Tom Christoffel
This paper summarizes the history of the development and evolution of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Roundtables from their inception in 2005 to the 7th event in 2010. This effort has led to the development of a Mind-Atlantic Regional Planning Learning Network
Program History, Goals and Objectives
This document is a letter from Clifton M. Hasegawa requesting an investigation by the Department of Transportation Inspector General into the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART). It summarizes past audits that found deficiencies in HART's internal controls, financial oversight, and compliance with laws and regulations. It notes billions in federal funds have been committed to the project and requests an investigation be conducted to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of these funds.
Improving the Nation's Freight Transportation SystemBobby Fraser
This document provides an overview of the various modes that comprise the United States freight transportation system, including highways and trucking, freight rail, shipping and ports, inland waterways, air cargo, warehouses and logistics, and pipelines. It finds that the current state of highway infrastructure does not adequately serve growing freight needs and that the Highway Trust Fund will soon be insolvent. The document also examines challenges facing freight rail, shipping and ports, inland waterways, and air cargo. It concludes that improving the efficient flow of freight across all transportation modes is critical to the US economy given the integrated nature of freight movement between different modes.
Beyond Traffic: US DOT's 30 Year Framework for the FutureLudovic Privat
This document provides an introduction to a draft report titled "Beyond Traffic: Trends and Choices 2045". It summarizes that the report analyzes current transportation trends and projects what the system will look like in 30 years if changes are not made. It finds that population growth, changing travel patterns, and increased freight volume will overwhelm the existing system by 2045 if no new strategies are implemented. The report is intended to spur national discussion on critical policy choices regarding how people and goods will move in the future, and how to best align decisions and funding to adapt the system. It does not prescribe specific solutions, but rather presents data to frame important issues that need addressing.
This document provides an introduction to the report "Beyond Traffic: Trends and Choices 2045". It notes that while the US once led the world in building transportation infrastructure like canals and railroads, its infrastructure is now aging and the country has outgrown it. Traffic congestion costs Americans and businesses billions of dollars per year in lost time and fuel. The report aims to analyze current transportation trends, identify challenges, and discuss potential solutions to address these issues through an open national dialogue. It is intended as the starting point for public feedback to inform a final version of the report.
This document summarizes a court order on a motion to amend a complaint and a motion to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the approval of the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project. The court granted both motions. Regarding the motion to amend, the court found that while the statute of limitations had passed, the proposed additions to the complaint arose from the same facts and occurrences as the original complaint. Regarding the motion to intervene, the court allowed three organizations and an individual to intervene as defendants to represent interests not addressed by the existing defendants.
Running head LOS ANGELES UNION STATION AS A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPME.docxcharisellington63520
Running head: LOS ANGELES UNION STATION AS A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
LOS ANGELES UNION STATION AS A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Los Angeles Union Station as a Sustainable Development Project
Institution
Course Name
Name
Date
I. Development description of rebuilding the Union Station in Los Angeles
Located strategically in Northeastern of Downtown Los Angeles, the Union Station celebrated its 75th anniversary this year since it began operations. Owned by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a private governing body, this public facility serves approximately 1.643 million passengers a year. Significant dates of this station include beginning official operation in 1939, added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1980 and became part of the Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument in 1972 (Maltzan, 2011). In September 17, 2014 the master vision of upgrading this facility was revealed. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) revealed the final project’s master plan that seek to transform this historic station into a more modern facility in the contemporary environment that need sustainability.
II. Purpose of rebuilding
The Union Station is due for major innovation to build a modern super transportation station. Although several projects including New transit station on El Monte Busway, Southern California Regional Interconnect Project, and Former Run-Through Tracks Project have been proposed before and fail to receive attention from legislators, the approved 2014 master plan was developed for California High-Speed Rail project. This project seeks to transform the Union Station into a major hub of transportation with new rail system and new railway station infrastructure. The Metro Authority indicated that the California High-Speed Rail system project will improve rail transportation and passengers will be able to travel from this station to Transbay Terminal in San Francisco in less than three hours(Chester and Horvath, 2010). As the master plan of the new station reveal, the project will feature aerial structures that will be built above the existing platform and underground structures. Apart from improving transportation, increasing convenience and serving more passengers, this project aims to utilize resource in order to enhance sustainability in the transport sector in California. In America, California is the most populous State, with most polluted cities from motor vehicles, port operations and various industries; any sustainable transportation project is welcome.
III. Demographic Snapshot of the Los Angeles
The neighborhood is an important stakeholder and a major consideration during a major infrastructure development. The proposed station will have numerous activities going on during building. During the process of rebuilding this station, it is expected to give inconveniences to the Los Angeles residents and neighboring residen.
Can someone please answer this one Its related to health informatic.pdfsels6
Can someone please answer this one? Its related to health informatics. Envisioning a Global
Community Historically, health has been described as a community affair (National Commission
on Community Health Services 1966), a perspective that still pervades cultures around the world.
The transformation from a local, agrarian culture to a global, information-driven world
characterizes most industries and services (Toefler 1980). For example, the construction and
maintenance of roads in the United States were primarily the responsibility of townships, the
most basic unit of government. Work to build and repair roads was carried out by local citizens
who collaborated to complete the task. Most transportation was provided by horses and within
the boundaries of a township. The next larger unit was the county, which was made up of
townships with a city center called the county seat, which was physically accessible through a
network of county roads maintained by county employees. The county seat was home to the
county public health department, hospital, sheriff, jail, and courthouse. The county was managed
by commissioners charged with collecting taxes and administering elections. Counties were
generally configured such that a person could ride a horse-drawn buggy to the county seat,
conduct business or attend events there, and then return home by nightfall. This township
structure was logical, functional, and effective, based on horses being the primary mode of
transportation. Fast-forward to modern times, when cars and trucks travel nonstop at high speeds
on four- to six-lane interstate highways. The structures of townships and counties were not the
feasible political units to enable this change. In 1956, the US Congress passed the National
Interstate and Defense Highways Act (Public Law 84-627), placing much of the financial burden
and responsibility for design and overall control of highways on the federal government. States
strongly resisted the federal government's involvement,
stalling the construction process. Only when national defense was added as a rationale for the
interstate highway initiative did the project move along. President Dwight Eisenhower had
encountered the design and utility of such roads in Germany during World War II, when the
German government was building the autobahn to support the movement of military units. The
reason for the opposition to the Highways Act was that it took away power and control over
roads from townships, counties, and states, even though transportation technology and use had
evolved beyond the horse and buggy. The same type of resistance to advances in technology and
standards exists today-not only in the United States but throughout the world. The ability and
availability of IT to enable greater global-or even nationalinformation exchange are offset by the
constraints of traditions, politics, economics, business models, and cultural values that were
established and followed in a different era. The basi.
This document is a motion filed by the plaintiffs-appellants requesting expedited treatment of their appeal from a district court decision regarding the Honolulu High-Capacity Transportation Corridor Project. Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that expedited treatment is necessary to avoid mootness, irreparable harm, and emergency motions if construction begins as scheduled in September 2013 before the appeal can be resolved. The motion provides background on the project, the district court decision finding violations of Section 4(f) regarding traditional cultural properties and parks but otherwise upholding the project, and the risk that construction will commence before the appeal is heard. The plaintiffs request an expedited briefing schedule and oral argument.
“Diligent follow-up and follow-through will set you apart from the crowd and communicate excellence”
~ John C. Maxwell
“It is the 'follow through' that makes the great difference between ultimate success and failure, because it is so easy to stop”
~ Charles Kettering
“Character is the ability to follow through on a resolution long after the emotion with which it was made has passed”
~ Brian Tracy
This document introduces the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications. It provides background on the development of bridge design standards in the US, from the original 1931 AASHO standard to the current 2002 edition. It notes a 1987 review found gaps and inconsistencies in the standard, and recommended adopting an LRFD philosophy which considers variability in loads and structural resistance, as other countries had done. AASHTO then developed this new LRFD Specifications as an alternative to the existing Standard Specifications, giving bridge engineers a choice of design standards.
Gov. Ige sent a letter to California Congresswoman Anna Eshoo in response to her August 2020 request for information about Hawaii's pandemic response.
https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/08/california-congresswoman-wants-answers-on-hawaiis-virus-response-effort/
Audit of the Department of the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s Policies, Proc...Honolulu Civil Beat
This audit was conducted pursuant to Resolution 19-255,
requesting the city auditor to conduct a performance audit of the Honolulu Police Department and the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney’s policies and procedures related to employee misconduct.
Audit of the Honolulu Police Department’s Policies, Procedures, and ControlsHonolulu Civil Beat
The audit objectives were to:
1. Evaluate the effectiveness of HPD’s existing policies, procedures, and controls to identify and respond to complaints or incidents concerning misconduct, retaliation, favoritism, and abuses of power by its management and employees;
2. Evaluate the effectiveness of HPD's management control environment and practices to correct errors and prevent any misconduct, retaliation, favoritism, and abuses of power by its
management and employees; and
3. Make recommendations to improve HPD’s policies, procedures, and controls to minimize and avoid future managerial and operational breakdowns caused by similar misconduct.
The report summarizes use of force incidents by the Honolulu Police Department in 2019. There were 2,354 reported incidents, an increase from 2018. Physical confrontation techniques were used most often (53% of applications). The most common types of incidents requiring force were simple assault (13.4%), mental health cases (13.2%), and miscellaneous public cases (6.7%). Most incidents occurred on Mondays and Saturdays between midnight and 1:59am and involved males aged 34 on average, with the largest proportion being Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders (34.5%).
The Office of Health Equity aims to eliminate health disparities in Hawaii. Its vision is for policies and programs to improve the health of underserved groups. Its mission is to increase the capacity of Hawaii's health department and providers to eliminate disparities and improve quality of life. The office identifies disparities, recommends actions to the health director, and coordinates related activities and programs. It works to establish partnerships, identify health needs, develop culturally appropriate interventions, and promote national health objectives. The office's strategic goals are to increase awareness of disparities, strengthen leadership, improve outcomes through social determinants, improve cultural competency, and improve research coordination.
The document calls for unity and collaboration between Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities in Hawaii to address COVID-19. It summarizes that government leaders have failed citizens by being slow to respond to the crisis, not working together effectively, and one in three COVID cases impacting Pacific Islanders. It calls on officials to take stronger, transparent leadership and get resources like contact tracers deployed quickly from Pacific Islander communities. Each day without action will lead to more cases, hospitalizations and deaths. It establishes a response team to improve COVID data and policies for Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities.
This letter from the ACLU of Hawaii to the Honolulu Police Department raises concerns about racial disparities in HPD's enforcement of COVID-19 orders and use of force. It cites data showing Micronesians, Black people, Samoans and those experiencing homelessness were disproportionately arrested. It recommends HPD end aggressive enforcement of minor offenses, racial profiling, and using arrest statistics to measure performance. It also calls for implicit bias training, data collection and transparency regarding police stops, searches and arrests.
This letter from the ACLU of Hawaii to the Honolulu Police Department raises concerns about racial disparities in HPD's enforcement of COVID-19 orders and use of force. It cites data showing Micronesians, Black people, Samoans and those experiencing homelessness were disproportionately arrested. It recommends HPD end aggressive enforcement of minor offenses, racial profiling, and using arrest statistics to measure performance. It also calls for implicit bias training, data collection and transparency regarding police stops, searches and arrests.
This document is a complaint filed in circuit court by Jane Doe against The Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific and several individuals. Jane Doe alleges she has experienced discrimination and harassment at her job as a physical therapist at Rehab Hospital based on her sexual orientation. She lists several causes of action against the defendants and is seeking damages for the harm to her career and emotional distress caused by the defendants' actions.
This document provides guidance for large or extended families living together during the COVID-19 pandemic. It recommends designating one or two household members who are not at high risk to run necessary errands. When leaving the house, those individuals should avoid crowds, maintain social distancing, frequently wash hands, avoid touching surfaces, and wear cloth face coverings. The document also provides tips for protecting high-risk household members, children, caring for sick members, isolating the sick, and eating meals together while feeding a sick person.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) requests that the State of Hawaii prioritize collecting and reporting disaggregated data on Native Hawaiians relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, OHA asks for disaggregated data from the Departments of Health, Labor and Industrial Relations, and Human Services on topics like COVID-19 cases, unemployment claims, and applications for assistance programs. Disaggregated data is critical to understand how the pandemic is impacting Native Hawaiians and to direct resources most effectively. OHA also requests information on how race data is currently collected by these agencies.
The CLA audit of OHA from 2012-2016 found significant issues in OHA's procurement processes and identified $7.8 million across 32 transactions as potentially fraudulent, wasteful, or abusive. The audit found 85% of transactions reviewed contained issues of noncompliance with policies and laws, while 17% (32 transactions) were flagged as "red flags". Common issues included missing procurement documents, lack of evidence that contractors delivered on obligations, and contracts incorrectly classified as exempt from competitive bidding. The audit provides a roadmap for OHA to investigate potential wrongdoing and implement reforms to address deficiencies.
This document provides a list of pro bono legal service providers for immigration courts in Honolulu, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. However, as of the January 2018 revision date, there are no registered pro bono legal organizations for the immigration courts in Honolulu, Hawaii, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands. The document also notes that the Executive Office for Immigration Review maintains this list of qualified pro bono legal service providers as required by regulation, but that it does not endorse or participate in the work of the listed organizations.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive function. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
Mayor Kirk Caldwell issued a statement regarding the construction of a multi-purpose field at Waimānalo Bay Beach Park. City Council member Ikaika Anderson had requested halting all grubbing work until September 15 out of concern for the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat. However, the environmental assessment states grubbing of woody plants over 15 feet tall should not occur after June 1 to protect young bats. The city contractor will finish grubbing by the end of May as required. Canceling the contract would cost $300,000 in taxpayer money. Therefore, the city will proceed with completing Phase 1, including a multi-purpose field, play area, and parking lot, for $1.43 million, and will review additional
1. FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM; CLIFF
SLATER; BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO;
WALTER HEEN; HAWAII’S
THOUSAND FRIENDS; THE SMALL
BUSINESS HAWAII
ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION
FOUNDATION; RANDALL W. ROTH;
MICHAEL UECHI, DR.; THE
OUTDOOR CIRCLE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION; LESLIE ROGERS,
in his official capacity as Federal
Transit Administration Regional
Administrator; PETER M. ROGOFF, in
his official capacity as Federal
Transit Administration
Administrator; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; RAY LAHOOD, in
his official capacity as Secretary of
Transportation; THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF HONOLULU; WAYNE
YOSHIOKA, in his official capacity as
Director of the City and County of
No. 13-15277
D.C. No.
1:11-cv-00307AWT
OPINION
2. 2
HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
Honolulu Department of
Transportation,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
FAITH ACTION FOR COMMUNITY
EQUITY; THE PACIFIC RESOURCE
PARTNERSHIP; MELVIN UESATO,
Intervenor-Defendants–Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
A. Wallace Tashima, Senior Circuit Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
August 15, 2013—San Francisco, California
Filed February 18, 2014
Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Stephen Reinhardt,
and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Schroeder
3. HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
3
SUMMARY*
National Environmental Policy Act / Jurisdiction
The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of
plaintiffs’ claims under the National Environmental Policy
Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act
arising from litigation challenging the construction of a highspeed rail project in Honolulu, Hawaii.
The panel held that it had appellate jurisdiction under
either 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), as an appeal from the grant or
refusal of injunctive relief, or 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as an appeal
of a final judgment. The panel also held that the
Environmental Impact Statement’s identification of the
project objectives, and analysis of alternatives, satisfied the
National Environmental Policy Act’s requirements. The
panel further held the defendants did not violate Section 4(f)
of the Department of Transportation Act where the
defendants did not adopt a Managed Lanes Alternative or bus
rapid transit alternative, and where defendants made a good
faith and reasonable effort to identify known archeological
sites along the proposed project route and developed an
appropriate plan for dealing with such sites that may be
discovered during construction.
*
This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
4. 4
HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
COUNSEL
Nicholas C. Yost (argued) and Matthew G. Adams, Dentons
US LLP, San Francisco, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Brian
C. Toth, David Glazer, and David C. Shilton (argued),
Attorneys, Kathryn B. Thomson, Acting General Counsel,
Paul M. Grier, Assistant General Counsel for Litigation, Peter
J. Plocki, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Litigation,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.;
Timothy H. Goodman, Senior Trial Attorney, United States
Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.; Dorval R.
Carter, Jr., Chief Counsel, Nancy-Ellen Zusman, Assistant
Chief Counsel, Joonsik Maing and Renee Marler, AttorneyAdvisors, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C.,
for Defendants-Appellees Federal Transit Administration, et
al.
Robert D. Thornton (argued), Special Deputy Corporation
Counsel, City and County of Honolulu, Nossaman LLP,
Irvine, California; Edward V.A. Kussy, Special Deputy
Corporation Counsel, City and County of Honolulu,
Nossaman LLP, Washington, D.C.; John P. Manaut and
Lindsay N. McAneeley, Special Deputies Corporation
Counsel, City and County of Honolulu, Carlsmith Ball LLP,
Honolulu, Hawaii; Donna Y.L. Leong and Don S. Kitaoka,
Deputy Corporation Counsel, City and County of Honolulu,
Honolulu, Hawaii, for Defendants-Appellees The City and
County of Honolulu and Michael Formby.
William Meheula (argued), Meheula & Devens LLP,
Honolulu, Hawaii, for Intervenors-Defendants-Appellees.
5. HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
5
Elizabeth S. Merritt, Deputy General Counsel, National Trust
for Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C., for Amicus
Curiae National Trust for Historic Preservation.
OPINION
SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge:
I. INTRODUCTION
This litigation represents a challenge to the construction
of a 20-mile, high-speed rail system (the “Project”) from the
western portion of Oahu through the downtown area of
Honolulu, Hawaii. Honolulu has been unsuccessfully
struggling to cope with traffic congestion since the mid1960s. That was when Congress passed the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964, later amended in the Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1978, which mandated the creation of
Metropolitan Planning boards to develop long-range plans for
efficient public transportation. See 49 U.S.C. §§ 5303 and
5304. Honolulu is now reportedly the second-most congested
metropolitan area in the nation. Courtney Subramanian, Top
10 U.S. Cities with the Worst Traffic, Time (May 7, 2013),
newsfeed.time.com/2013/05/07/top-10-u-s-cities-with-theworst-traffic/.
In earlier decades, Honolulu developed plans for a rail
system and later for a bus system that never came to fruition.
Its efforts are documented in the Environmental Impact
Statement (“EIS”) that was prepared for the project we deal
with in this case. A survey in 2004 showed broad public
support for the concept of a rail system, and in 2005 the
Legislature provided the funding mechanism for such a
6. 6
HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
system. The construction of an elevated, high-capacity rail
system from the University of Hawaii campus at Manoa,
through downtown Honolulu, to an agricultural area known
as Kapolei is now underway.
Plaintiffs are a consortium of interest groups and
individuals opposing the Project. They filed the action in
2011 against the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”), the
U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”), the City and
County of Honolulu, and various federal and local
administrators. Plaintiffs raise challenges under the National
Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 4321–4347, the National Historic Preservation Act
(“NHPA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 470 to 470x-6, and Section 4(f) of
the Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 303. The
litigation reflects the controversies that continue over the
method and route of mass transit on Oahu.
The district court granted summary judgment to
Defendants on the NEPA claims, the NHPA claims, and all
but three of the Section 4(f) claims, thereby permitting
construction to continue on the first three phases. Plaintiffs
appeal. In addition, the court enjoined construction of the
fourth phase of the Project pending a remand to the agency on
the remaining Section 4(f) claims. There is no appeal with
respect to Phase 4.
We first deal with Defendants’ objection to appellate
jurisdiction, and we then affirm on the merits.
7. HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
7
II. BACKGROUND
Federal law requires long-range planning for a federally
funded transportation system in order to identify local
purposes and stating federal objectives.
On December 7, 2005, the FTA published its Notice of
Intent (“2005 NOI”) to prepare an EIS and Alternatives
Analysis (“AA”) for transit service in Oahu’s corridor linking
Kapolei with Waikiki and the University of Hawaii campus
at Manoa. An AA is required for federal funding under the
Department of Transportation’s New Starts Program. See
49 U.S.C. § 5309. The AA process proceeded in three steps.
First, on October 24, 2006, the City prepared an
“Alternatives Screening Memo” identifying the Project’s
purpose and need as providing improved mobility in the
highly congested east-west transportation corridor; providing
faster, more reliable public transportation services in the
corridor than those currently operating in mixed-flow traffic;
providing an alternative to private automobile travel;
improving mobility for travelers; improving transportation
system reliability; and improving transportation equity for all
travelers. It identified several alternatives to consider for
meeting the City’s objectives, including No Build, a Fixed
Guideway alternative (public transportation using a separate
right-of-way), Transportation Systems Management
(improvements to the existing transportation system,
including optimizing bus service), and a Managed Lanes
Alternative (“MLA”) (a new roadway for buses and other
high-occupancy vehicles), and several others.
Second, the City prepared an Alternatives Analysis
Report for the Honolulu City Council. That report evaluated
8. 8
HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
the alternatives that had survived the City’s screening
process, concluding that the Transportation Systems
Management alternative would not offer community or
environmental benefits. It also identified several concerns
with the MLA, including the possibility of congestion on
local roadways near entrances and exits to managed
lanes, project costs and eligibility for federal funding,
and integration of managed lanes with transit service. The
Report concluded that the Fixed Guideway alternative was
the most effective alternative in accommodating longer
corridor transit trips and increased work commutes, reducing
travel time, and consuming the least energy.
Third, the City Council formed a “Transit Advisory Task
Force” to “review the AA and [] make findings and
recommendations to assist the Council in the selection of a
Locally Preferred Alternative.” 49 U.S.C. § 5309(d)(2)(A)(i)
(requiring selection of a locally preferred alternative pursuant
to NEPA). The City Council passed an ordinance in January
2007 selecting an elevated Fixed Guideway system as its
preferred alternative, stating that “a fixed guideway system is
the best selection for the long-term needs and demands of our
growing island population.”
On March 15, 2007, the FTA published a Notice of Intent
to prepare an EIS (“2007 NOI”). The NOI requested public
comment on five possible transit technologies: light rail, rapid
rail (steel-wheel-on-steel-rail), rubber-tire guided, magnetic
levitation, and monorail. Experts appointed by the City
Council reviewed responses to that request, as well as twelve
responses from transit vehicle manufacturers, and selected
steel-wheel-on-steel-rail as the technology for the Project.
Honolulu voters subsequently approved a City Charter
Amendment establishing such a system.
9. HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
9
The City and the FTA then prepared a draft EIS and a
final EIS (“FEIS”). The FEIS evaluated a No Build option
and three development alternatives, including a Fixed
Guideway option from Ala Moana Center to Kapolei via the
airport, that was ultimately selected as the preferred
alternative. The FEIS stated that other alternatives had been
eliminated because Fixed Guideway best met the Project’s
purpose and need and because the City Council had selected
it as the locally preferred alternative pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
§ 5309(d)(2)(A)(i).
The Project’s proposed route would bring it close to
several historic sites. The Project thus implicated Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, which requires
that the use of land of a historic site may be approved only if
“(1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using the
land;” and (2) the 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). “Use” is construed broadly, applying not
only to areas physically taken, but also to those “significantly,
adversely affected by the project.” Adler v. Lewis, 675 F.2d
1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 1982).
The draft EIS for the Project had been subject to a public
review period that engendered many comments concerning
both the chosen system and the impact on historic sites. The
FEIS analyzed more than 40 historic sites as potentially
affected. Because the MLA would have had a lesser impact
on historic sites than the alternative chosen for the Project,
numerous commenters objected to the FEIS’s rejection of the
MLA.
10. 10
HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
The FEIS’s final “Section 4(f) Evaluation,” relating to
historic sites, concluded that most of the sites would not be
used or would be subject only to de minimis use.
Specifically, the FEIS concluded that the Project would use
the Chinatown Historic District and the historic Dillingham
Transportation Building, because stations would be
constructed on those properties, but would not use Mother
Waldron Park because the proximity of the Project route to
that site would not directly affect its design or public use.
On January 18, 2011, the FTA issued a Record of
Decision (“ROD”) approving the Project. The ROD included
a finding that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to
the Project’s use of the Chinatown Historic District and the
Dillingham Transportation Building. The ROD also found
that the MLA failed to meet the Project’s “Purpose and Need”
because it would not support forecasted population and
employment growth and would provide little transit benefit at
a high cost.
Plaintiffs filed this action on May 12, 2011, seeking to
enjoin construction on the ground that the FEIS and the ROD
approving the Project did not comply with the requirements
of NEPA, Section 4(f), and the regulations implementing
those statutes. After the parties filed cross-motions for
summary judgment, the district court in November 2012
issued an order dismissing all of the NEPA and NHPA
claims.
As to the Section 4(f) claims, the district court granted
summary judgment for Plaintiffs on three, ruling injunctive
relief was appropriate. The Project includes four phases,
defined geographically. The three Section 4(f) claims on
which Plaintiffs prevailed affect only Phase 4. The court held
11. HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
11
that Defendants had failed to complete reasonable efforts to
identify above-ground Traditional Cultural Properties
(“TCPs”) prior to issuing the ROD. The court also held that
Defendants had failed adequately to consider the Beretania
Street Tunnel alternative prior to eliminating it as imprudent,
and that Defendants had failed adequately to consider
whether the Project will constructively use Mother Waldron
Park.
After holding a hearing on the appropriate remedy for the
Section 4(f) claims, the district court issued its judgment,
which it described as its “final Judgment, which shall include
partial injunctive relief,” on December 27, 2012. The
judgment incorporated the prior orders granting summary
judgment to Defendants on all the NEPA and NHPA and
most of the Section 4(f) claims, and to Plaintiffs on three of
the Section 4(f) claims. The court enjoined construction of
Phase 4 pending remand of the three Section 4(f) claims to
the FTA. The court instructed the agency to “complete their
identification of above ground TCPs within the corridor,
reconsider their no-use determination for Mother Waldron
Park . . . ” and “fully consider the prudence and feasibility of
the Beretania tunnel alternative . . . .”1
1
The order provided in full as follows:
After briefing, hearing, and disposition of this case
on the merits, see HonoluluTraffic.com v. Fed. Transit
Admin., 2012 WL 1805484 (D. Hawaii 2012) (partial
grant of summary judgment); Order on Cross-Motions
for Summary Judgment, filed Nov. 1, 2012 (“Summary
Judgment Order”), the parties and the court addressed
the appropriate remedy. The parties submitted
additional briefing on the scope of any remedies,
including any equitable relief. The remedy phase was
12. 12
HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
fully argued and heard on December 12, 2012. After
due consideration of those arguments, briefs, and the
record, the court now enters its final Judgment, which
shall include partial injunctive relief, as set forth below.
As reflected in its prior orders, the court granted
summary judgment to Plaintiffs on three of their § 4(f)
claims – claims arising under § 4(f) of the Department
of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 303. The court
granted summary judgment to Defendants on all other
claims raised by Plaintiffs, which include Plaintiffs’
remaining § 4(f) claims, all claim[s] arising under the
National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321
et seq., and all claims arising under § 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470f.
In entering its partial permanent injunction, the court
has considered the well-recognized equitable factors
that apply, see, e.g., Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed
Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743, 2756 (2010), and finds that, to
the extent Defendants[’] actions are enjoined, the fourfactor test, on balance favors Plaintiffs, including:
(1) irreparable injury[;] (2) the inadequacy of monetary
relief; (3) the balance of hardships; and (4) the public
interest.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ADJUDGED that this
matter is remanded to the Federal Transit
Administration, but without vacatur of the Record of
Decision, to comply with the court’s Summary
Judgment Order.
DEFENDANTS, their officers, agents, servants,
employees, and attorneys; and all other persons who are
in active concert or participation with them, are hereby
restrained and enjoined from conducting any
construction activities and real estate acquisition
activities in Phase 4 of the Honolulu High-Capacity
Transit Corridor Project (the “Rail Project”). This
injunction on Phase 4 construction activities shall
13. HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
13
Since the district court granted summary judgment to
Plaintiffs on three of the claims affecting Phase 4, and
granted Plaintiffs’ request to enjoin construction of that phase
pending further agency proceedings, Plaintiffs do not appeal
the injunction. There is no cross-appeal. Phase 4 is thus not
involved here.
terminate 30 days after Defendant Federal Transit
Administration files with the court notice of
Defendants’ compliance with the Summary Judgment
Order and evidence of such compliance, unless
Plaintiffs file an objection within said 30-day period
specifying how the Federal Transit Administration has
failed to comply with the Summary Judgment Order.
If such objection is timely filed, this injunction shall
remain in effect pending the court’s resolution of
Plaintiffs’ objection(s).
This injunction shall not prohibit, and Defendants
may prepare, Phase 4 engineering and design plans,
conduct geotechnical training, and conduct other
preconstruction activities, including any activities that
are appropriate to complete the additional analysis
required by the Summary Judgment Order. This
injunction shall not apply to Phases 1 through 3 of the
Rail Project.
Within 150–180 days of the issuance of this
Judgment, and every 90 days thereafter, Defendants
shall file a status report setting forth the status of
Defendants’ compliance efforts with the terms of the
Summary Judgment Order. Either by stipulation of all
parties or upon noticed motion, Defendants may apply
to except any activity otherwise prohibited by this
injunction from its terms.
In the exercise of its discretion, the court
determined that each party shall bear its own costs.
14. 14
HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
Plaintiffs timely appeal the dismissal of the remainder of
their claims. Plaintiffs contend that the district court should
not have dismissed the NEPA claims, or Plaintiffs’ other
Section 4(f) claims.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
appellate jurisdiction, arguing that the judgment was not an
appealable final order.
We consider the jurisdictional issue first.
III.
DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction
Defendants challenge our appellate jurisdiction,
contending that the judgment is not appealable as a final
judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (authorizing appeals as of
right from district court judgments). Defendants argue that
the statute does not apply because the judgment not only
granted summary judgment for the government on the bulk of
the claims that Plaintiffs now appeal, but also granted
summary judgment for Plaintiffs on three Section 4(f) claims
and enjoined Phase 4 of construction pending reconsideration
of the claims by the agency on remand. A remand does not
finally dispose of a claim, but ordinarily does confer appellate
jurisdiction for purposes of a government appeal. See Alsea
Valley Alliance v. Dep’t of Commerce, 358 F.3d 1181,
1184–86 (9th Cir. 2004).
Here, Defendants could have appealed the remand order
but did not. Plaintiffs are not even aggrieved by it. Since no
party wants us to review the remand of the Section 4(f)
claims, the remand should not defeat our jurisdiction to
15. HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
15
review the unquestionably final dismissal of the remainder of
the claims. We have said that the final judgment rule “deals
in practice, not theory.” Sierra Forest Legacy v. Sherman,
646 F.3d 1161, 1175 (9th Cir. 2011). As a practical matter,
the work of the district court as to the dismissed claims is
complete, and review of those claims is appropriate under
§ 1291.
Moreover, even if the judgment were not appealable as a
matter of finality, it would be reviewable under § 1292(a)(1)
as an appeal from the grant or refusal of injunctive relief.
Indeed, this litigation has always been about injunctive relief,
i.e., stopping construction of the rail system. This is apparent
when we look back on the nature of the underlying dispute
and the district court’s resolution of it. When Plaintiffs
initiated litigation in 2011, their complaint in its title said it
sought “injunctive and declaratory relief.” In the body of the
complaint, Plaintiffs requested injunctive relief requiring
Defendants to halt progress on the Project, withdraw the
ROD, and withhold re-approval until the requirements of
NEPA and Section 4(f) had been met and all reasonable
alternatives had been considered. The district court’s entry of
summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the NEPA
claims thus denied Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief on
all of the dismissed claims.
Defendants’ jurisdictional argument concerns the lack of
technical finality of the order under § 1291. The argument
does not mention § 1292(a)(1), which Plaintiffs correctly
point out is an alternative basis for appellate jurisdiction in
this case. Work on the rail system is going forward and the
issues need to be resolved. Since all of Plaintiffs’ claims
were for injunctive relief, we have appellate jurisdiction
under § 1292(a)(1). We hold that we have jurisdiction under
16. 16
HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
either § 1292(a)(1) or § 1291 (or both). We therefore turn to
the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.
B. NEPA Claims
Plaintiffs’ challenges under NEPA are directed principally
to the choice of the steel-wheel-on-steel-rail Fixed Guideway
system. Plaintiffs contend that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment on their NEPA claims because
Defendants (1) unreasonably restricted the Project’s purpose
and need, and (2) did not consider all reasonable alternatives
as required under that Act and its regulations.
An EIS must state the underlying purpose and need for
the proposed action. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.13. Courts
evaluate an agency’s statement of purpose under a
reasonableness standard, id., and in assessing reasonableness,
must consider the statutory context of the federal action at
issue, see League of Wilderness Defenders v. U.S. Forest
Serv., 689 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2012). Agencies enjoy
“considerable discretion” in defining the purpose and need of
a project, but they may not define the project’s objectives in
terms so “unreasonably narrow,” that only one alternative
would accomplish the goals of the project. Nat’l Parks &
Conservation Ass’n v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 606 F.3d 1058,
1070 (9th Cir. 2010). The EIS would then become merely a
foreordained formality. Id. Plaintiffs claim the EIS
objectives were too narrow.
The FEIS describes the Project’s purpose as follows:
(1) “to provide high-capacity rapid transit in the highly
congested east-west transportation corridor between Kapolei
and University of Hawaii Manoa;” (2) “to provide faster,
more reliable public transportation service in the study
17. HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
17
corridor than can be achieved with buses operating in
congested mixed-flow traffic;” (3) “to provide reliable
mobility in areas of the study corridor where people of
limited income and an aging population live;” (4) “to serve
rapidly developing areas of the study corridor;” and (5) to
“provide additional transit capacity [and] an alternative to
private automobile travel, and [to] improve transit links
within the study corridor.” It describes the need for transit
improvements as follows: (1) “Improve corridor mobility;”
(2) “Improve corridor travel reliability;” (3) “Improve access
to planned development to support City policy to develop a
second urban center;” and (4) “Improve transportation
equity.”
The purpose was defined in accordance with the
statutorily mandated formulation of the transportation plan
that preceded the FEIS. That plan was the 2004 Oahu
Metropolitan Planning Organization, Regional Transportation
Plan (“2004 ORTP”). The stated objectives comply with the
intent of the relevant federal statutes. Specifically, the Safe
Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (“SAFETEA-LU”) provides that a
federally-funded transportation plan’s purposes may include
“achieving a transportation objective identified in an
applicable . . . metropolitan transportation plan.” See
23 U.S.C. § 139(f)(3). The 2004 ORTP had concluded that
a high-capacity, high-speed transit project connecting west
Oahu with downtown Honolulu was necessary to implement
Oahu’s land use policies. It also identified a Fixed Guideway
system as a central component of that plan. Moreover, the
statute authorizing the federal New Starts transportation
program states that it is in the interest of the United States to
foster transportation systems that maximize safe, secure, and
efficient mobility of individuals, minimize environmental
18. 18
HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
impacts, and minimize fuel consumption, 49 U.S.C.
§ 5301(a), and that one of the purposes of the program is to
provide financial assistance to state and local governments in
order to improve mobility for elderly and economically
disadvantaged individuals, 49 U.S.C. § 5301(f)(4). The
Project’s stated objectives are consistent with all these
purposes.
Viewed in its statutory context, the Project’s objectives
are not so narrowly defined that only one alternative would
accomplish them. The statement of purpose and need is
broad enough to allow the agency to assess various routing
options and technologies for a high-capacity, high-speed
transit project. The district court therefore properly
concluded that it is reasonable, stating: “Because the
statement of purpose and need did not foreclose all
alternatives, and because it was shaped by federal legislative
purposes, it was reasonable.”
NEPA also requires an EIS to discuss, among other
things, alternatives to the proposed action. 42 U.S.C.
§ 4332(2)(C). The range of alternatives that an EIS must
consider is “dictated by the nature and scope of the proposed
action.” Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne, 520 F.3d
1025, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008). “Judicial review of the range of
alternatives considered by an agency is governed by a ‘rule of
reason’ that requires an agency to set forth only those
alternatives necessary to permit a ‘reasoned choice.’” State
of Cal. v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 767 (9th Cir. 1982). “An
agency is under no obligation to consider every possible
alternative to a proposed action, nor must it consider
alternatives that are unlikely to be implemented or those
inconsistent with its basic policy objectives.” Seattle
19. HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
19
Audubon Soc’y v. Moseley, 80 F.3d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir.
1996).
Plaintiffs contend that the EIS did not properly consider
all reasonable alternatives and should have considered
alternatives the state had earlier rejected. In this case, the EIS
did not expressly consider alternatives that had earlier been
ruled out in the screening process conducted by the state.
Plaintiffs therefore argue that the City and the FTA
improperly relied on the AA process to exclude certain
alternatives such as the MLA and light rail from detailed
consideration.
We have held, however, that an agency does not violate
NEPA by refusing to discuss alternatives already rejected in
prior state studies. Laguna Greebelt, Inc. v. Dep’t of Transp.,
42 F.3d 517, 524, n.6 (9th Cir. 1994). Under applicable
federal regulations, a state-prepared AA may be used as part
of the NEPA process as long as it meets certain requirements,
including that (1) the federal lead agency furnished guidance
in the AA’s preparation and independently evaluated the
document, 23 U.S.C. § 139(c)(3), and (2) the AA was
conducted with public review and a reasonable opportunity to
comment, 23 C.F.R. § 450.318(b)(2)(ii)–(iii).
The City prepared the AA with the benefit of public
comment and federal guidance. The district court cited
evidence in the record that the FTA furnished guidance
during the AA’s preparation and independently evaluated it,
including letters between the City and the FTA about funding
for alternatives considered in the AA, the ROD’s approval of
the AA, internal FTA discussions about AA logistics, and the
FTA’s indication that it would review the AA prior to
publication. The district court also pointed to the many
20. 20
HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
opportunities for public comment that generated over 3,000
comments from the public on the AA before the City selected
the locally preferred alternative. The district court properly
concluded that Defendants did not err in relying on the AA
prepared by the state to help identify reasonable alternatives
as part of the NEPA process.
Plaintiffs’ real quarrel with the process is that it failed to
consider Plaintiffs’ proposed three-lane MLA alternative.
The MLA alternative proposed construction of lanes
dedicated for use by buses, high-occupancy vehicles, and tollpaying single-occupant vehicles, managed to maintain freeflowing speeds between Waiawa Interchange and Iwilei.
Variations of the alternative included a two-lane plan versus
a three-lane plan, and reversible lanes to allow higher
capacity during peak hours. The Defendants did consider a
two-lane alternative that the FEIS specifically addressed and
rejected for cost reasons. The three-lane MLA plan would
have been even more costly. The district court determined
that the estimates in the AA analysis were reasonable, and the
Director of the City and County of Honolulu’s Department of
Transportation Services specifically stated that the three-lane
alternative would increase costs.
Plaintiffs contend on appeal, as they did before the district
court, that Defendants should have used a Tampa, Florida
project for purposes of cost comparison, and should not have
assumed that the MLA would be ineligible for federal
funding. However, the City Council’s Transit Advisory Task
Force had concluded that the AA’s cost estimates were “fairly
and consistently prepared, and that they may be used for both
planning and cost comparisons,” and that the Tampa project
was not a good cost comparator because of the many
21. HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
21
differences between the two projects. The district court
correctly ruled this was not unreasonable.
Plaintiffs finally maintain that Defendants arbitrarily and
capriciously excluded the light-rail alternative from the EIS.
Here too, Defendants properly relied on the AA process to
eliminate alternatives, including corridor-wide light rail and
light rail in the downtown portions of the corridor. The FEIS
explained that those alternatives lacked feasability and
desired capacity:
Corridor-wide at-grade light-rail transit was
rejected because it would have required
conversion of traffic lanes to rail throughout
the corridor, thereby substantially reducing
roadway capacity since no abandoned or
undeveloped alignments are available in the
study corridor. At-grade light-rail would have
required either the acquisition and removal of
buildings throughout the corridor or the
conversion of two or more traffic lanes.
The EIS’s identification of the project objectives and
analysis of alternatives satisfied NEPA’s requirements.
C. The Dismissed Section 4(f) Claims
The Department of Transportation Act is intended to
preserve historic sites as far as practicable. Section 4(f)
allows a federal project “requiring the use of land of an
historic site” to be approved only if “(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
22. 22
HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.” 49 U.S.C.
§ 303(c). An alternative is not prudent if, among other things,
it “compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable
to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and
need.” 23 C.F.R. § 774.17.
Plaintiffs contend that the FTA’s approval of the Project
violated Section 4(f) by (1) failing to adopt the MLA or bus
rapid transit alternative in order to avoid the use of historic
sites; and (2) failing fully to identify and evaluate Native
Hawaiian burial sites before approving the Project.
Defendants concluded that the MLA and bus rapid transit
alternatives were not prudent because they did not meet the
Project’s stated purpose and need. The record supports the
reasonableness of that conclusion. The MLA failed to meet
the purposes of the Project because, according to the City and
FTA’s expert analysis, it would actually increase transit
times, would not improve corridor mobility or travel
reliability, and would not reduce congestion, support planned
concentrations of future population and employment growth,
or substantially improve service or access to transit for
transit-dependent communities. Buses would still have to
operate in mixed traffic, and would not alleviate roadway
congestion. Moreover, there was no identified funding source
for bus rapid transit.
Plaintiffs point to a study showing that the MLA would
reduce drive times even for people who never used the lanes.
They contend that Defendants acted arbitrarily and
capriciously by ignoring that evidence. That evidence,
however, was contrary to the studies by the government. The
FTA is entitled to rely on the opinions of its own experts, and
23. HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
23
thus its decision was not arbitrary or capricious. See Marsh
v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378 (1989).
The FTA was not required to further document its
determination that the MLA and bus rapid transit alternatives
were imprudent. It did not have to make explicit findings as
to all the data presented. Section 4(f) itself does not require
any formal findings, and the implementing regulations
require only “sufficient supporting documentation to
demonstrate why there is no feasible and prudent avoidance
alternative.” See 23 C.F.R. § 774.7; see also Adler v. Lewis,
675 F.2d 1085, 1095 (9th Cir. 1982) (disregarding possible
technical deficiencies in a Section 4(f) evaluation because
“[w]hether or not the reports and studies use the ‘magic’
terminology, there has been a reasonable and thorough
review”); Hickory Neighborhood Def. League v. Skinner,
920 F.2d 159, 163 (4th Cir. 1990) (holding that the rejection
of an alternative as imprudent was amply supported by the
record, even though it was not expressly stated). The FTA
was entitled to rely on the findings and studies that preceded
the decision to construct the Project.
Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants should have
completed their Section 4(f) identification and evaluation of
Native Hawaiian burial sites before approving the Project.
Federal regulations require that Section 4(f) property be
identified and evaluated for potential use “as early as
practicable in the development of the action when alternatives
to the proposed action are under study.” 23 C.F.R.
§ 774.9(a). Sites are identified as eligible so long as they are
included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places. See C.F.R. §§ 774.11(f), 774.17. The
process for identifying historic sites for the National Register
is outlined in Section 106 of the National Historic
24. 24
HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
Preservation Act. 16 U.S.C. § 470f (“Section 106”). Section
106 requires the agency official to “make a reasonable and
good faith effort to carry out appropriate identification
efforts.” 36 C.F.R. § 800.4(b)(1).
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ failure to completely
identify all Section 4(f) sites prior to approval of the Project
constituted an improper “phased” approach to the required
identification and evaluation. See N. Idaho Cmty. Action
Network v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 545 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir.
2008) (finding a violation of Section 4(f) where an agency
approved a project when analysis had only been conducted
for one of the project’s four phases and the remaining phases
would be analyzed only after the project had begun). In this
case, Defendants did not conduct Archaeological Inventory
Surveys (“AIS”) to identify undiscovered burial sites along
the entire twenty-mile length of the Project prior to its
approval, even though it is likely that construction may
disturb some of such sites.
Yet there was a good reason for Defendants’ reluctance to
conduct the surveys. The exact route and placement of the
support columns had not yet been determined, and the
surveys themselves were likely to disturb burial sites. Any
changes to the plans would then result in repetition of the
surveys and more disturbance to burial sites than would
otherwise be necessary. Instead, Defendants commissioned
an Archeological Resources Technical Report, which used
soil survey data, archeological records, land survey maps, and
field observations to identify unknown burial sites and predict
the likelihood of finding additional burial sites during
different phases of the Project. Additionally, Defendants
entered into a programmatic agreement with the State
Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on
25. HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM V. FTA
25
Historic Preservation, and other federal entities outlining the
procedures for burial sites that are discovered during
construction, including requiring archaeological inventory
surveys prior to the final engineering and design phase of the
Project and providing specific protocols for addressing
burials or other archaeological resources that are discovered.
See 73 Fed. Reg. 13368–01, 13379–80 (2008)
(recommending such an agreement as “appropriate and
desirable”).
Burial sites are eligible for Section 4(f) protection only
insofar as they are identified under the Section 106 process
for identifying historic sites. Defendants need only “make a
reasonable and good faith effort” to identify those sites as
required by Section 106. 36 C.F.R. § 800.4(b)(1); See also N.
Idaho Cmty. Action Network, 545 F.3d at 1159 (noting that a
Section 4(f) evaluation necessarily requires the agency to
follow the Section 106 identification process); City of
Alexandria v. Slater, 198 F.3d 862, 871 (D.C. Cir. 1999)
(noting that a Section 4(f) evaluation is predicated on
completion of a Section 106 identification process).
Defendants have made a good faith and reasonable effort to
identify known archaeological sites along the proposed
Project route and have developed an appropriate plan for
dealing with sites that may be discovered during construction.
Defendants have not violated Section 4(f).
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiffs’
NEPA and Section 4(f) claims is AFFIRMED.