Opinion ID: 202414
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Outbound Elevator

Text: 75 We also reject plaintiffs' argument that placement of the outbound elevator on the Church sidewalk triggers section 4(f). Section 4(f) is not triggered unless a project uses a historical site. Here, the parties appear to agree that the outbound elevator does not directly use a historic site. Plaintiffs nonetheless contend that placing the outbound elevator on the Church sidewalk constitutes a constructive use of an historic site. 76 Under the regulations, a constructive use occurs if the impact of locating the project near the site is so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify [it] for protection under 4(f) are substantially impaired. 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(p)(2). The regulations are ambiguous as to what constitutes a constructive use. However, the regulations provide that a constructive use does not occur when there is a finding of `no effect' or `no adverse effect' under section 106. 23 C.F.R § 771.135(p)(5)(i). Here, the FTA's `no adverse effect' finding related to the project as a whole, including the outbound elevator. In light of our conclusion that the no adverse effect finding was proper, the FTA's finding that placement of the elevator on the Church sidewalk did not constitute a use of a historic site was not erroneous.