|
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER August 4, 1997 DANIEL E. GEER, JR., ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, ET AL., Defendants. ) Civil Action No. 95-10147-DPW ___________________________________________ CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, ET AL., Defendants ) Civil Action NO. 95-1500-DPW
In a Record of Decision dated June 9, 1994, the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") approved the design selection made by the Massachusetts Department of Highways ("MHD") for crossing the Charles River as part of the Central Artery/Tunnel ("CA/T") Project now underway to upgrade the highway system in the city of Boston. Innumerable design alternatives were considered for the Charles River Crossing. The design selected is known as the Non-River Tunnel ("NRT") alternative and consists of two parallel bridges. One bridge is a ten-lane cable-stayed mainline bridge; the other is a four-lane girder bridge The FHWA contends that the NRT is the best overall alternative for the Charles River Crossing because it is safe, environmentally appropriate, and minimizes harm to parkland and historic resources. The FHWA argues in this connection that an extensive ancillary program of parkland creation will improve blighted industrial areas of the lower Charles River. By contrast, the plaintiffs in these consolidated actions contend a crossing that substitutes tunnelling under the Charles River for the girder bridge is a more appropriate alternative because it would reduce impacts on parklands administered by the Metropolitan District Commission ("MDC"). The decision not to select such an alternative, plaintiffs argue, was the consequence of the failure of the FHWA to follow the directives of environmental regulatory schemes enacted by Congress. Before me are cross-motions for summary judgment presenting two basic questions: 1. Whether the FHWA complied with the National Environment Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ("NEPA"), in its selection of the NRT alternative; and 2. Whether the NRT alternative complied with the requirements imposed by 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act* for the protection of parklands. After providing a chronological overview of the project planning leading to the selection of the NRT and a procedural history of the case, I will address the two questions in order. These questions implicate distinct Congressional approaches. Evaluating compliance with NEPA is essentially a procedural analysis. Congress was not concerned with securing particular substantive decisions through NEPA; rather the intent was to insure that decision-making was fully informed by the relevant environmental considerations. "NEPA itself does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process." Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989). The focus sharpens and the perspective changes considerably when compliance with 4(f) is evaluated. There, in addition to certain procedural concerns, Congress sought to establish an important substantive goal: a national policy "that special effort would be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreational lands." 49 U.S.C. 303 (a). After extended and systematic review of the massive record in this case, I am satisfied that the selection of the NRT was in compliance with both NEPA and 4(f). Accordingly. I will allow defendants' motions for summary judgment. _____________ * What is commonly referred to as 4(f), now recodified at 49 U.S.C 303, see also 23 U.S.C. 138, provides: (a) It is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites.... (c) The Secretary may approve a transportation program or project ... requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) only if-- (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and (2) the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use. |
||
|
[ Scheme Z chronology | CA/T documents | Contributed articles | Plans and pictures | Vertical file ] |
||