Case Law Details
Concerned Citizens Alliance v. Slater
Project Description:
PennDOT and FHWA proposed to replace a bridge over the Susquehanna River in Danville, Pennsylvania. Existing access to the bridge was via Mill Street, the main commercial street through the Danville Historic District. All alternatives used contributing resources within the historic district. The Mill Street (MS) alternative and the Factory Street Underpass (FSU) alternative both required use of historic resources within the district. FHWA rejected detailed consideration of the Mill Street plus Bypass (MSB) alternative, which would replace the existing bridge and relieve traffic congestion by constructing an additional bridge to the north of Danville. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) favored the MS alternative over the FSU alternative, noting that traffic was not “out of character” with the historic district. FHWA selected the FSU alternative, concluding that it best minimized harm to the historic district while meeting purpose and need.
176 F. 3d 686
176 F. 3d 686
U.S. Court of Appeals – 3rd Circuit
05/14/1999
Danville-Riverside Bridge Replacement
Highway
Case Summary
Plaintiffs, Concerned Citizens Alliance, filed suit in federal district court alleging violations of Section 4(f) of the DOT Act, and NEPA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the FHWA, and plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals upheld the grant of summary judgment. It found that FHWA properly followed Section 4(f)(2) of the DOT act because all alternatives required some use of the historic district. The court of appeals also found that FHWA’s decision not to consider the MSB alternative in detail in the EIS was not arbitrary or capricious.
Key Holdings
Section 4(f)
Determination of Least Harm. The court upheld FHWA’s determination that the FSU alternative resulted in the least harm to the protected 4(f) resources. The court found that the FHWA considered a large number of studies on possible effects on the historic district likely to be caused by the various alternatives and adequately weighed the results of those studies in selecting the FSU alternative.
Deference to ACHP Comments. The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that FHWA failed to take comments by the ACHP into consideration in approving the project. The court held that FHWA is not obligated to give comments from ACHP so much weight that FHWA is foreclosed from making its own decision. The court found that the record clearly indicated that the FHWA gave serious consideration to the ACHP’s comments.
Determination of Imprudent Alternative. The court upheld FHWA’s determination that the MSB alternative was not prudent, and thus not required to be considered in FHWA’s 4(f) analysis and decision. The court found that the FHWA properly considered higher costs of the alternative, low predicted traffic volume on the bypass, and high construction impacts in determining that the MSB alternative was not prudent.
NEPA
Range of Alternatives. The court rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the EIS was inadequate because it did not consider the MSB alternative. The court found that the FHWA properly determined not to consider the MSB to be a “reasonable” alternative for NEPA because it did not meet the purpose and need of the project. The court also noted that the same reasons that made the alternative not prudent for purposes of Section 4(f) supported the determination that the alternative was not reasonable for NEPA purposes.
File Attachment
Download the decision