Opinion ID: 382838
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adequacy of the Section 4(f) Determination

Text: 50 Section 18 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, 23 U.S.C. § 138, and § 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 1653(f), prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from authorizing the use of federal funds to finance the construction of highways through public parks if a feasible and prudent alternative exists. If no such route is available, the statutes allow the Secretary to approve construction through parks only if there has been all possible planning to minimize harm to the park. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. at 411, 91 S.Ct. at 821. 51 As we have said before, the existence of an unexamined but viable alternative to the adopted plan can have a dual significance; it can render the environmental impact statement inadequate and provide a basis for overturning the Secretary of Transportation's decision that parkland could be used for highway purposes under § 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. Brooks v. Coleman, 518 F.2d 17, 18 (9th Cir. 1975). 52 An improved two-lane road was never considered. 5 Because we hold that the improved two-lane road was a reasonable alternative to be considered, we find that the Secretary failed to consider all alternatives in making his § 4(f) determination, see Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, supra, and the decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). We do not hold that the two-lane alternative must eventually be chosen, only that it must be considered. Therefore, remand to the Secretary for further consideration is appropriate on this aspect of the case. 53