Opinion ID: 303371
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Requirements of Sec. 109(a)

Text: 17 The Secretary's approval of plans for a federally-assisted highway project is conditioned on a determination that the proposed facility will adequately meet the existing and probable future traffic needs and conditions in a manner conducive to safety, durability, and economy of maintenance. 43 The District Court held that planning for the Three Sisters Bridge had not proceeded to a sufficient degree for the responsible officials to determine that the planned facility is structurally feasible. 44 Accordingly, the Court enjoined construction of the bridge until the planning had advanced to a stage where structural feasibility was assured. We find the District Court's judgment consistent with the statute and the facts presented, and it is therefore affirmed. 18 Plaintiffs also argue, however, that the project was approved before the Secretary could be certain, first, that river bed conditions would support the bridge, and second, that no safety hazard would arise from the increase in air pollution attributable to traffic on the bridge. Again, we are unable to accept the District Court's disposition. With regard to river bed conditions, the District Court noted that 19 [b]efore the construction of a bridge, it is necessary to make extensive investigations of subsurface conditions to determine if they are sufficient to support the foundations for the bridge piers. This is done primarily by means of borings.    At the time Mr. Hall approved the plans, specifications and estimates for the pier construction, these borings had not been completed, and subsequently problems developed so that the plans for the project had to be modified. 45 20 Called to testify before the District Court, Mr. Hall still could not be certain that the present planned foundation is adequate. 46 Nevertheless, the District Court found compliance with Sec. 109(a) because of Mr. Hall's testimony that there is no question that the piers can be built to support the bridge as presently planned. 47 The Department of Transportation is obviously unwilling to construct a bridge known to be unsafe, and during the course of construction the Department would surely verify the suitability of the river bed conditions. But Sec. 109(a) requires not only that the bridge be safe, but also-and no less important-that its safety be ascertained before the Secretary approves the project. That requirement minimizes the safety hazards and at the same time insures that public funds will not be squandered on a demonstrably unsafe proposal. Where planning reveals defects in design or location, those defects can be corrected on paper rather than on steel and concrete. 21 The District Court's findings are not entirely clear as to whether questions about the safety of river bed conditions could be more fully resolved before construction resumes. We hold that if such questions do exist, the Secretary must take steps to resolve them to the fullest practical extent before granting approval of the project under Sec. 109(a). 22 Plaintiffs' second contention under Sec. 109(a) concerns the dangers of air pollution. The District Court concluded that evidence of a potential air pollution hazard was insufficient to support a finding that the defendants are required to undertake a study of such [air pollution] effects. 48 We can find no basis in the statute's language or purpose for the conclusion that certain hazards are, as a matter of law, immaterial to the Secretary's evaluation of a project's safety. The District Court would surely agree that Congress did not intend to permit construction of a bridge in a situation, however rare, where air pollution would be a significant threat to safety. It does not follow, of course, that air pollution will be a significant hazard in all-or even any-highway projects. And the District Court apparently concluded that no extraordinary dangers are likely to arise from the Three Sisters Bridge. Still, the gathering and evaluation of evidence on potential pollution hazards is the responsibility of the Secretary of Transportation, and he undertook no study of the problem. His staff has far greater resources and expertise on this matter than the District Court, and it is possible that a study by the Department would reveal significant dangers which had escaped the attention of the District Court. Inquiry into this issue cannot be foreclosed merely because the District Court found no significant evidence of air pollution hazards. That determination must be made in the first instance by the Secretary of Transportation. 49