Opinion ID: 428381
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Feasible and Prudent Alternatives

Text: 22 The Foundation argues that the Secretary violated section 4(f) in choosing Alternative Seven because there are feasible and prudent alternatives to that route that are less costly, less destructive and do not affect section 4(f) land. 23 The combined FEIS/4(f) Statement considered six alternatives to the West Papago route. All of the proposed routes were considered feasible, but only the West Papago alternative was considered prudent and feasible. The FEIS/4(f) Statement determined that only the West Papago alternative would achieve the dual goals of the project: (1) to close the gap in I-10, and (2) to provide improved traffic service for central Phoenix. 24 The Foundation contends that the administrative record does not disclose the existence of a dual purpose. Specifically, the Foundation alleges that improved traffic service for central Phoenix was not a primary purpose. The Foundation asserts that the DOT's reference to a two-fold purpose is merely a post hoc rationale aimed at justifying the DOT's selection of the West Papago alternative. 25 The administrative record before us supports the conclusion that improved traffic service for central Phoenix was a stated purpose and an integral part of the highway project. The combined FEIS/4(f) Statement concluded that the West Papago alternative would provide better transportation service in a corridor of high demand, thereby reducing congestion on the major street system. 10 26 The record contains several specific instances in which traffic service is mentioned as an integral purpose of the highway project. In order to consider and balance the environmental factors involved in the construction of the project, the Secretary authorized an exhaustive traffic service study of all the proposed alternatives which concluded that Alternative 7 would provide acceptable traffic service. None of the other alternatives would provide an adequate level of service. See FEIS/4(f) Statement, Vol. II, pp. 3-15. 27 Although the Foundation questions certain data and conclusions relied upon in the preparation of the FEIS/4(f) traffic service survey, we note that disagreement among experts will not serve to invalidate an EIS. Life of the Land v. Brinegar, 485 F.2d 460, 472 (9th Cir.1973). 28 The Secretary's Decision Document of October 2, 1978, further belies the Foundation's position. The Secretary stated: 29 The West Papago Inner-Loop will close the gap in I-10 and is an integral part of broader city-wide development planning and the regional transportation plan. The long-range transportation needs of the Phoenix area will be best met by a highway-transit facility in the West Papago Inner Loop corridor because it serves the downtown area and provides direct cross-town access to Sky Harbor Airport. Although the Durango alternative [Alternative 2] would close the I-10 gap, it would not relieve projected congestion on city streets or provide as ready access to the central business district or to the expanded airport facility currently under construction. 11 30 In the alternative, the Foundation argues that assuming traffic relief was a purpose of the project, the Durango route was never properly considered. The administrative record, however, clearly establishes that the Durango route [Alternative 2] was thoroughly evaluated in light of the project's dual purpose. The combined FEIS/4(f) Statement and the Secretary's Decision Document specify that although Alternative 2 would close the gap in I-10 it would not provide an adequate level of traffic service. 12 Furthermore, in explaining why Alternative 2 was not considered to be prudent, the FEIS/4(f) Statement provides that [a]lthough all the Alternative 2 combinations were technically feasible, none were considered prudent because they did not provide the necessary transportation service and relief of traffic congestion in central Phoenix. FEIS/4(f) Statement Vol. III pp. 3-16, 17. 31 The evidence presented reveals that only the West Papago alternative fulfills the dual purpose satisfactorily. Alternatives that do not accomplish the purposes of the project may properly be rejected as imprudent. See, e.g., Adler v. Lewis, 675 at 1094; Monroe County Conservation Council, Inc. v. Adams, 566 F.2d 419, 424 (2d Cir.1977). 32 We are satisfied that the FEIS/4(f) Statement reflects a reasonably comprehensive selection of alternatives, made in good faith. In reviewing an FEIS/4(f) Statement, we are not empowered to substitute our judgment for that of the Secretary. Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 416, 91 S.Ct. at 823. Adler v. Lewis, 675 F.2d at 1094. We are persuaded that the Secretary properly considered the relevant factors and reasonably found that there were no feasible or prudent alternatives to the West Papago Alternative. Therefore, the Secretary's decision was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. 33 The Foundation also contends that both Las Colinas and La Cuidad contain structures that warrant preservation in place and that the data recovery program will be insufficient to protect these sites. The Secretary, however, has fully complied with section 4(f) regarding the archeological sites. As discussed above, the Secretary properly found that there were no feasible and prudent alternatives to use of these sites. The Secretary then proposed an excavation and data recovery program designed to preserve the archeological information contained in the sites for the benefit of the public. The Foundation suggests no further protective measures that would minimize harm to the sites consistent with construction of Alternative Seven.