Opinion ID: 164789
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consideration of properties in their entirety

Text: 66 Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that the FHWA adopted too narrow a focus by limiting its analysis to buildings and structures and failing to consider larger property boundaries and character-defining features in the identification of the historic buildings within the project's area of potential effects. Aplts' Br. at 42. The District of New Mexico found nothing in the record to support Plaintiffs' argument that Defendants focused mostly on buildings themselves and did not consider natural and topographical features that are part of an historic site. Valley Cmty. II, 246 F.Supp.2d at 1174. We agree with this assessment of the record. 67 The FHWA's Supplemental Draft EIS explained that [e]ligible buildings include the building and its immediate environment, including all acreage historically associated with the building that is within the current property boundary and any historic landscape feature considered to be contributing to the eligibility of the building. Aplts' App. vol. II, at 456-57. Similarly, the ROD noted that [t]he boundaries as well as the character-defining features of each property were considered in the evaluation process for visual effects. Id. at 538. The Plaintiffs suggest that this language is simply lip-service and that the schematic drawings appended to the Cultural Resources Survey confirm, by omission that the focus was on the buildings and not the surrounding environment. Aplts' Br. at 42. We cannot conclude from the fact that some schematic drawings focused on the buildings themselves that the FHWA did not take into account the environment and character-defining features of the properties within the area of potential effects. The Plaintiffs have thus failed to demonstrate that the FHWA's decision to apply a 150-foot area of potential effects was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.