## Facts

- Environmental organizations sued multiple federal agencies and officials, with the Florida Department of Transportation intervening, over approvals for transportation safety work on U.S. Highway 1 in the Florida Keys.
- The central project was replacement of the aging Jewfish Creek Bridge at the northern gateway to the Keys, described as structurally deficient and presenting a safety problem.
- The Federal Highway Administration and related agencies treated the bridge replacement as a discrete action reviewed through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
- Other U.S. 1 safety improvements elsewhere in the Keys were processed separately through Environmental Assessments and categorical exclusions for safety projects not increasing capacity.
- Plaintiffs alleged the agencies improperly split a single larger action to limit NEPA review and failed to adequately evaluate indirect and cumulative effects, including induced growth and impacts to wetlands, coastal resources, and protected species.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to halt or redo the approvals.

## Issues

1. Whether the agencies unlawfully segmented the Jewfish Creek Bridge replacement from other U.S. 1 safety improvements, requiring a broader NEPA review.
2. Whether the EIS and related NEPA documents adequately analyzed cumulative and indirect effects, including growth-related impacts and impacts to sensitive environmental resources.
3. Whether the agencies’ NEPA determinations were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under APA § 706(2)(A).

## Decision

- Judgment was entered for defendants, and requested declaratory and injunctive relief was denied.
- The court held the bridge replacement was not unlawfully segmented and could be reviewed as a discrete federal action.
- The court held the EIS and associated documentation sufficiently addressed cumulative and indirect impacts, including reasonably foreseeable growth-related effects.
- Applying deferential APA review, the court concluded the agencies’ decisions were not arbitrary or capricious and allowed the project to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA is procedural; it requires informed decisionmaking and public disclosure, not any particular environmental outcome.
- An EIS is required for major federal actions significantly affecting the environment; an Environmental Assessment is a briefer analysis used to determine whether an EIS is necessary.
- Segmentation is improper when agencies divide connected actions to avoid full NEPA review; relevant factors include independent utility, whether the smaller project predetermines later choices, and whether it is part of a single integrated plan requiring unified review.
- Cumulative- and indirect-impact analysis must be reasonably thorough and focused on probable environmental consequences; NEPA does not require agencies to resolve speculative development scenarios.
- Under APA review, courts do not substitute their judgment for the agency’s; agency action is upheld when the agency considered relevant factors and explained a rational connection between the record and the decision.

## Conclusion

The court upheld federal approvals for the Jewfish Creek Bridge replacement, finding the project had independent utility and was not improperly segmented from other U.S. 1 safety work, and concluding the agencies reasonably analyzed cumulative and indirect effects as required by NEPA and the APA.


Florida Keys Citizens Coal., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (S.D. Fla. 2005)