Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-05301/USCOURTS-caDC-97-05301-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 23, 1998 Decided February 9, 1999

No. 97-5301

Corridor H Alternatives, Incorporated, et al.,

Appellants

v.

Rodney Slater, Secretary,

U.S. Department of Transportation, et al.,

Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 96cv02622)

Andrea C. Ferster, with whom Thomas R. Michael was on

the briefs, for appellants.

Elizabeth S. Merritt, with whom Paul W. Edmondson,

Laura S. Nelson, Thomas S. Martin, and Thomas B. Wilner

USCA Case #97-5301 Document #414876 Filed: 02/09/1999 Page 1 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

were on the brief, for amici curiae National Trust for Historic

Preservation, et al.

Sheila D. Jones, with whom Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant

Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, John A. Bryson, and Marta Hoilman, Attorneys, U.S. Department of

Justice, Brett J. Gainer, Attorney-Advisor, Federal Highway

Administration, and William G. Malley were on the brief, for

appellees. Greer S. Goldman, Attorney, U.S. Department of

Justice, and Eliot R. Cutler entered appearances.

Before Wald and Tatel, Circuit Judges, and Buckley,

Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the court filed by Senior Circuit Judge

Buckley.

Buckley, Senior Judge: Corridor H Alternatives, Inc., and

several other environmental and public interest groups (collectively, "CHA") challenge a highway project in West Virginia that had been developed and approved by various federal

and state agencies. Specifically, they assert (1) that the

Federal Highway Administration violated the Department of

Transportation Act by failing to identify all the historic sites

it was charged with protecting prior to its decision approving

the route of the proposed highway and by erroneously concluding that the highway would not "use" two of the sites it

did identify; and (2) that the agency violated the National

Environmental Policy Act by failing to give adequate consideration to the improvement of existing roads as an alternative

to the construction of the new highway.

The district court held that the agencies had complied with

both statutes. Because we conclude that the Federal Highway Administration was required to identify the historic sites

that might be at risk before it issued its decision approving

the highway's proposed route, we affirm in part and reverse

in part with instructions to the district court to remand the

matter to the Administration.

I. Background

Congress enacted the Appalachian Regional Development

Act of 1965, 40 U.S.C. app. ss 1 et seq. (1994), in order to

stimulate economic development in Appalachia by providing

the "basic facilities" that were believed essential for the

region's growth. These facilities were to include an "Appalachian development highway system" and a supporting network of local access roads. See id. ss 2(a), 201(a).

Congress assigned responsibility for planning the new system to the Appalachian Regional Commission, which is composed of representatives of the Federal Government and the

participating States. Id. s 101(a). The Commission was

directed to designate "general corridor locations and termini

of the development highways." Id. s 201(b). Pursuant to

this authority, the Commission approved a plan for a 13-state

regional highway system that called for the establishment of

23 corridors, each of which would contain a highway that

USCA Case #97-5301 Document #414876 Filed: 02/09/1999 Page 2 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

would permit anticipated traffic to proceed in safety between

major termini at an average speed of 50 miles per hour,

commensurate with the terrain. See Joint Appendix ("J.A.")

at 289, 486.

The Commission did not map the corridors; it merely

identified their terminal points. The task of determining

their exact routes was left to the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA" or "Administration") and the affected

states. In the case of Corridor H, which is the subject of this

litigation, the Commission merely established that it was to

extend from Interstate 79 ("I-79") near Weston, West Virginia, eastward to Interstate 81 ("I-81") near Strasburg, Virginia. J.A. at 455.

Between 1982 and 1994, a 40-mile section of the new

Corridor H highway was built from its I-79 terminus to a

point just west of Elkins, West Virginia. In 1996 the State of

Virginia decided to withdraw from the project, with the result

that the eastern terminus is now located in West Virginia just

west of its border with Virginia. The present plan calls for

the building of approximately 100 more miles.

Federally funded highway projects must comply with a

number of statutory requirements. Those relevant here are

section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, codified

at 16 U.S.C. s 470f (1994) ("section 106"); section 4(f) of the

USCA Case #97-5301 Document #414876 Filed: 02/09/1999 Page 3 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Department of Transportation Act, codified at 49 U.S.C.

s 303 (1994) ("section 4(f)"); and the environmental impact

analysis mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act,

42 U.S.C. ss 4321 et seq. (1994) ("NEPA").

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act provides that before a federal agency may authorize the expenditure of funds for a federal or federally assisted undertaking,

it must first consider the effects of such an undertaking on

"any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register." 16

U.S.C. s 470f.

The U.S. Department of Transportation regulations implementing section 106 establish three steps that an agency must

take in order to comply with section 106. First, the agency

must identify the properties that are listed or eligible for

listing in the National Register. 36 C.F.R. s 800.4 (1998).

Next, it must evaluate the effects of the proposed undertaking on those properties. Id. s 800.5. Finally, if the agency

determines that the project would have an adverse effect on a

historic property, it must consider measures to mitigate the

potential damage. Id.

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act states

that the Secretary of Transportation

may approve a transportation program or project ...

requiring the use of ... land of an historic site of

national, State, or local significance ... 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 ... historic site resulting

from the use.

49 U.S.C. s 303(c). The Secretary has delegated this responsibility to the FHWA. 49 C.F.R. s 1.45(4) (1997). The

FHWA's regulations implementing section 4(f) identify the

historic sites that are subject to the section as "all properties

on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places."

23 C.F.R. s 771.135(e) (1998). Because the historic properties protected by section 106 are similarly defined, it follows

that the agency must complete its section 106 determinations

before it can comply with section 4(f).

The National Environmental Policy Act requires that an

environmental impact statement ("EIS") be prepared for any

"major Federal action[ ] significantly affecting the quality of

the human environment." 42 U.S.C. s 4332(C). The EIS

must include, among other things,

a detailed statement ... on--

(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,

(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot

USCA Case #97-5301 Document #414876 Filed: 02/09/1999 Page 4 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

be avoided should the proposal be implemented, [and]

(iii) alternatives to the proposed action....

Id. In a case requiring an EIS, the agency must prepare a

"concise public record of decision" that identifies all the

alternatives it has considered and describes all the factors it

has taken into account in reaching its decision. 40 C.F.R.

s 1505.2 (1998).

The U.S. Department of Transportation, the FHWA, and

the West Virginia Department of Transportation ("WVDOT")

(collectively, "the agencies") began planning for the Corridor

H project in the late 1970's. They produced a draft environmental impact statement in 1981 but suspended work on the

project until 1990. They then decided to proceed with the

environmental review in two stages, each of which resulted in

the issuance of a draft EIS.

The first of these, the Corridor Selection Draft EIS

("CSDEIS"), was issued by WVDOT in 1992. It was concerned with the demarcation of the actual 2,000-foot-wide

route that Corridor H would take from Elkins, West Virginia,

to its eastern terminus, which was then located on I-81 in

Virginia. In conducting this review, WVDOT considered five

alternatives, including: the construction of a new four-lane

highway (the "Build Alternative"), improvements of existing

two-lane roads (the "Improved Roadway Alternative"), and

the self-described "No Build Alternative." It concluded that

only the Build Alternative and the No Build Alternative

merited more detailed evaluation because the Improved

Roadway Alternative would not be able to achieve the project's speed and safety objectives. J.A. 292.

The second study, the Alignment Selection Draft EIS

("ASDEIS"), was completed two years later, in 1994. Its

purpose was twofold: to evaluate the environmental impact of

numerous 200- to 250-foot-wide "alignments" of the highway

itself, i.e., the actual ground within Corridor H that the

proposed four-lane highway would occupy, and to reexamine

the Improved Roadway Alternative. WVDOT issued its Final EIS ("FEIS") on April 8, 1996, establishing the boundaries of Corridor H and reaffirming its decision to proceed

with the four-lane Build Alternative.

The FEIS adopted a "Programmatic Agreement," earlier

entered into by the FHWA and the relevant historic preservation officials, which established the procedures that would

be followed by the FHWA in complying with the requirements of section 106. The Programmatic Agreement divided

Corridor H into 14 segments or sections and required the

FHWA to identify the historic properties in each of them in

the sequence set forth in the agreement, to assess the project's impact on the properties, and to "utilize all feasible,

prudent and practicable measures to avoid adverse effects" to

them. It also stipulated that "[n]o work shall proceed in any

section which precludes consideration of alternate alignments

in [s]ections where treatment of historic properties has not

yet been finalized." Programmatic Agreement, reprinted in

USCA Case #97-5301 Document #414876 Filed: 02/09/1999 Page 5 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

J.A. at 185-98.

Four months later, in August 1996, the FHWA issued its

Record of Decision for the Corridor H project ("ROD"). The

ROD approved the FEIS's selection of the four-lane Build

Alternative as the preferred basis for the project as well as

its adoption of the corridor route and highway alignments

favored in the CSDEIS and ASDEIS, as modified to avoid

the constructive use of the Corricks Ford and Moorefield

Civil War battlefields. The FHWA concluded that by virtue

of these modifications, the highway would not "substantially

impair" the battlefields.

USCA Case #97-5301 Document #414876 Filed: 02/09/1999 Page 6 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The ROD also incorporated the Programmatic Agreement's

segment-by-segment approach to compliance with section 106.

In recognition of the fact that the section 4(f) process could

not be completed prior to the identification of the protected

historic sites pursuant to section 106, the ROD specified that

its approval of the project was conditional only and would not

become final, as to any section of the corridor, "until the

Section 106 process has been completed for that section and

for any immediately adjacent section(s)." Record of Decision

at 16, reprinted in the J.A. at 302.

CHA challenged the approval of the Corridor H project in

district court. In considering the parties' cross motions for

summary judgment, the court observed that both parties had

advanced reasonable arguments in support of their respective

positions; but because of the deference due to agency decisions that are not arbitrary or capricious, the court felt

obliged to grant summary judgment in favor of the agencies

on all counts of the complaint. See Corridor H Alternatives,

Inc. v. Slater, 982 F. Supp. 24, 35 (D.D.C. 1997).

II. Discussion

On appeal, CHA argues that the FHWA (1) violated section

4(f) both by deferring the investigations of the historic sites

until after the issuance of the ROD and by adopting the

Programmatic Agreement's incremental, segment-by-segment

approach to implementing the section; (2) acted arbitrarily

and capriciously and contrary to section 4(f) when it determined that the project would not substantially impair the two

Civil War battlefields; and (3) violated NEPA by rejecting

the improvement of existing two-lane roads as a reasonable

alternative to achieving the objectives of Corridor H. We

address these claims in turn.

A.Section 4(f)

FHWA regulations establish the procedures that must be

followed in complying with section 4(f). We defer to the

FHWA's interpretation of its regulations unless "it is plainly

USCA Case #97-5301 Document #414876 Filed: 02/09/1999 Page 7 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation itself." Canadian Am. Oil Co. v. NLRB, 82 F.3d 469, 473 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

CHA and the agencies base their cases on different sections of the regulations. In support of their claim that the

FHWA is required to complete the section 4(f) process for the

entire Corridor H project before issuing the ROD, CHA cites

sections 771.135(b) and (l) of the agency's regulations. Section 771.135(b) directs that

[a]ny use of lands from a section 4(f) property shall be

evaluated early in the development of the action when

alternatives to the proposed action are under study.

23 C.F.R. s 771.135(b) (1998) (emphasis added). Section

771.135(l) (1998) provides that in cases requiring the preparation of an EIS, the agency "will make the section 4(f) approval either in its approval of the final EIS or in the ROD." Id.

s 771.135(l) (emphasis added).

The agencies, on the other hand, contend that sections

771.135(m) and (n) permit the FHWA to prepare separate 4(f)

evaluations after it has issued the ROD. Section (m) states in

relevant part:

Circulation of a separate section 4(f) evaluation will be

required when:

(1) A proposed modification of the alignment or design

would require the use of section 4(f) property after the

... draft EIS, or final EIS has been processed;

(2) The Administration determines, after processing

the ... draft EIS, or final EIS that section 4(f) applies to

a property;

(3) A proposed modification of the alignment, design,

or measures to minimize harm (after the original section

4(f) approval) would result in a substantial increase in the

amount of section 4(f) land used, a substantial increase in

the adverse impacts to section 4(f) land, or a substantial

reduction in mitigation measures; or

(4) Another agency is the lead agency for the NEPA

process, unless another [Department of Transportation]

element is preparing the section 4(f) evaluation.

23 C.F.R. s 771.135(m) (1998). Section (n) continues:

If the Administration determines under s 771.135(m)

or otherwise, that section 4(f) is applicable after the ...

final EIS has been processed, the decision to prepare and

circulate a section 4(f) evaluation will not necessarily

require the preparation of a new or supplemental environmental document.

23 C.F.R. s 771.135(n) (1998) (emphasis added). The agencies argue that while subsection (n) requires the FHWA to

USCA Case #97-5301 Document #414876 Filed: 02/09/1999 Page 8 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

issue a separate section 4(f) evaluation in any of the four

circumstances listed in section (m), it does not state that

these are the only circumstances in which a separate 4(f)

evaluation is permitted. They then point to the phrase "or

otherwise" in subsection (n) which, they claim, would be

meaningless if it did not permit separate analyses under

circumstances other than those described in the prior subsection. Thus, they maintain, the regulations permit the FHWA

to use a "separate evaluation" in this case.

This argument is more resourceful than persuasive. Because they do not claim that any of the four situations

described in subsection (m) apply here, the agencies are

asking us to give greater weight to their creative interpretation of "or otherwise" than to the crystalline command, in

subsections (b) and (l), that the 4(f) evaluations be made while

"alternatives to the proposed action are under study" and

that the FHWA complete the 4(f) process no later than in the

ROD. Id. s 771.135(b), (l). While deference is normally due

an agency's interpretation of its own rules, that is not the

case where "an alternative reading is compelled by the regulation's plain language." Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala,

512 U.S. 504, 512 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).

It is hard to imagine less ambiguous directives than those on

which CHA relies.

USCA Case #97-5301 Document #414876 Filed: 02/09/1999 Page 9 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Nor are we impressed by the agencies' remaining arguments. They assert that their sequential, segment-by-segment

approach is authorized by subsection (o) of the regulations,

which provides in relevant part:

(o) An analysis required by section 4(f) may involve

different levels of detail where the section 4(f) involvement is addressed in a tiered EIS.

(1) When the first-tier, broad-scale EIS is prepared,

the detailed information necessary to complete the section 4(f) evaluation may not be available at that stage in

the development of the action. In such cases, an evaluation should be made on the potential impacts that a

proposed action will have on section 4(f) land and whether those impacts could have a bearing on the decision to

be made....

(2) A section 4(f) approval made when additional design details are available will include a determination

that:

(i) The preliminary section 4(f) determination made

pursuant to paragraph (o)(1) of this section is still valid....

23 C.F.R. s 771.135(o) (1998).

This section permits a preliminary, first tier 4(f) determination in circumstances where the unavailability of critical information precludes the completion of the kind of evaluation

section 4(f) requires. Even then, the validity of the final,

second tier 4(f) approval is dependent on the ability of the

agency to affirm that the preliminary determination remains

valid. Here, however, the agencies have failed to make even

the preliminary section 4(f) determination subsection (o)(1)

requires.

Finally, we also reject the agencies' contention that section

771.105 of the regulations authorizes post-ROD compliance

with section 4(f). Section 771.105 sets forth the FHWA

policy that "[t]o the fullest extent possible, all environmental

investigations ... be coordinated as a single process...." 23

C.F.R. s 771.105(a) (1998). While there is obvious merit to

coordinating environmental reviews of the kind required by

NEPA and section 4(f), we do not read section 771.105 as

authority for the agencies to disregard the explicit requirement, in sections 771.135(b) and (l), that they complete the

section 4(f) process before the FHWA issues the ROD.

Because we conclude that the agencies have failed to

comply with section 4(f), we need not address their finding

that Corridor H will not "use" the Corricks Ford and Moorefield Civil War Battlefields.

B.NEPA

CHA also claims that the ROD failed to comply with

USCA Case #97-5301 Document #414876 Filed: 02/09/1999 Page 10 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

NEPA's requirement that adequate consideration be given to

the Improved Roadway Alternative ("IRA"). The agencies

respond that they sufficiently evaluated the IRA and decided

that it could not meet the needs of the project.

At "the heart of the environmental impact statement," 40

C.F.R. s 1502.14 (1998), is the requirement that it identify

the reasonable alternatives to the contemplated action and

present the environmental impacts of the proposal and

the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice

among options by the decisionmaker and the public.

Id. The statute, however,

directs agencies only to look hard at the environmental

effects of their decisions, and not to take one type of

action or another, [and we] correspondingly enforce the

statute by ensuring that agencies comply with NEPA's

procedures....

Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey IV, 938 F.2d 190,

194 (D.C. Cir. 1991). We have recognized that a "rule of

reason" applies both to an agency's identification of the

available alternatives and to its examination of their relative

merits, and we have declared that we will defer to its conclusions "so long as the alternatives are reasonable and the

agency discusses them in reasonable detail." Id. at 196.

We are satisfied that the agencies have met NEPA's "hard

look" requirement and that they have adequately supported

their determination that the IRA would not advance Congress's goal of providing West Virginia with the "basic facilities" essential for its economic growth. See Appalachian

Regional Development Act of 1965, 40 U.S.C. app. s 2(a). In

section II of the CSDEIS, entitled "Alternatives Considered,"

the WVDOT reviewed the merits and deficiencies of five

alternatives, including the No Build Alternative, the four-lane

Build Alternative, and the IRA in light of Congress's objective of developing a regional highway system and the design

standards established for the system by the Appalachian

Regional Commission. In its review of the IRA, the WVDOT

discussed in detail the reasons why that alternative could not

adequately address issues such as roadway deficiencies, safety considerations, and regional system linkage. We therefore

defer to the agencies' decision to proceed with the four-lane

Build Alternative.

III. Conclusion

We hold that the plain language of section 4(f) regulations

771.135(b) and (l) requires the agencies to complete the

section 4(f) process prior to the issuance of an ROD fixing the

route of the proposed four-lane highway. We also find that

the agencies took the "hard look" at the IRA that is required

by NEPA. For these reasons we affirm in part and reverse

in part the district court's grant of summary judgment for the

USCA Case #97-5301 Document #414876 Filed: 02/09/1999 Page 11 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

agencies, and we direct the court to return the matter to the

agencies with instructions to complete the section 4(f) process

before proceeding further with the Corridor H project.

So ordered.

USCA Case #97-5301 Document #414876 Filed: 02/09/1999 Page 12 of 12