NEPA

Evaluation of Alternatives. The District Court held that FHWA’s evaluation of alternatives to the project was insufficient. The court noted that the FEA included two alternatives, a “Build” option and a “No-Build” option, but did not include a discussion of options for the “Build” option. The court also noted that FHWA’s future commitment to investigate build alternatives was insufficient to show compliance with Section 4(f) absent evidence on the record that such investigation actually occurred.

Section 4(f)

Mitigation of Harm. The District Court held that FHWA failed to meet its obligation under Section 4(f)(2) to ensure that all possible planning was performed to minimize harm prior to approving the project. The court reasoned that FHWA failed to consider alternatives that resulted in less or less-drastic use of a Section 4(f) resource and failed to present mitigation measures that compensate for residual impacts. The court noted that although FHWA’s commitment to satisfy these requirements in the future was not itself impermissible, FHWA failed to take any steps to ensure that the future commitments had been accomplished before approving the final design for the project. The court stated that absent evidence in the record that FHWA satisfied its future commitments, FHWA could not rely on those commitments to show compliance with Section 4(f)(2).

Litigation Procedure

Eleventh Amendment. The District Court denied the Commissioner of ConnDOT’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court rejected the Commissioner’s argument that the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution barred the plaintiffs’ claims against him. The court acknowledged that many courts had considered and granted injunctive relief against a state highway commissioner in cases involving Section 4(f) and NEPA issues. The court also noted that ConnDOT was integral to the plaintiff’s claims, as “the Commissioner and FHWA [were] acting in concert” to design and construct the project.

Supplementation of Administrative Record. The District Court granted the defendants’ motion to supplement the administrative record. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ restrictive view of the scope of the administrative record, stating that all ConnDOT records relating to the project should be considered part of the administrative record before FHWA. The court reasoned that “the complete administrative record consists of all documents and materials directly or indirectly considered by the agency” and should not be limited to documents located in FHWA files or proven to have been in the possession of FHWA officials.

Injunction. The District Court deferred entry of an order on injunctive relief and ordered the parties to inform the court as to whether they would continue the voluntary moratorium on construction or, if not, the appropriate scope and duration of injunctive relief. The court held that if the parties could not agree to continue the voluntary moratorium, an injunction would be warranted because if the construction proceeded, protected historic resources would be irreparably harmed.