North Buckhead Civic Ass'n v. Skinner

Decision Date26 June 1990
Docket NumberNo. 89-8633,89-8633
Citation903 F.2d 1533
Parties20 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,061 NORTH BUCKHEAD CIVIC ASSOCIATION, a Nonprofit Community Benefit Unincorporated Association; James F. Appleby, and J. Ralph Compton, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Samuel K. SKINNER, as Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation; Robert E. Farris, as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration; Leon N. Lawson, as Regional Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration; and Louis M. Papet, as Division Administrator of The Federal Highway Administration; Hal Rives, Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Transportation, and Their Successors In Office; The United States of America; and The Georgia Department of Transportation, Defendants-Appellees, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority ("MARTA"), Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

David F. Walbert, Walbert & Hermann, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Daniel A. Caldwell, III and Roland Floyd Matson, Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.

John Roger Lowery, Pursley, Howell, Lowery & Meeks, Atlanta, Ga., for MARTA.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before COX, Circuit Judge, RONEY * and SMITH **, Senior Circuit Judges.

EDWARD S. SMITH, Senior Circuit Judge.

The North Buckhead Civic Association, et al., appeal the June 13, 1989, Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denying their motions to enjoin construction of the Georgia 400 Extension, a proposed multi-lane highway with a median designed to accomodate heavy rail mass transit. Appellants oppose the highway but support the mass transit element, and contend that the district court erred in finding that the appellees complied with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.. Specifically, appellants assert that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project is inadequate for the following reasons: (1) all alternatives were not properly considered in the preparation of the EIS, (2) the administrative record does not support the traffic projections and environmental impact studies contained in the EIS, and (3) the Urban Mass Transit Administration was improperly excluded during the development of the EIS. We affirm the district court's denial of the motion for an injunction.

I. Facts and Historical Background

The Federal-Aid Highway Act 1 and the Urban Mass Transportation Act 2 set forth guidelines for the planning and development of urban highway and mass transit systems. Under these sections, the Secretary of Transportation cannot approve any state or local transportation improvement project for federal funding unless he finds "... such projects are based upon a continuing and comprehensive transportation planning process carried on cooperatively by States and local communities...." 3 The local concerns must develop transportation improvement plans which consider social, economic, environmental, and energy conservation goals; the probable effect on land use and future development must also be included in any proposal. 4

In order to implement these provisions, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) have promulgated unified regulations with which state and local planners must comply to secure federal aid for transportation projects. 5 Initially, the Governor of the State must designate a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as a planning agency and federal grant recipient for each urban area. 6 The MPO for the Atlanta area is the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). The members of ARC include local government officials such as the Mayor of Atlanta and the members of the Boards of Commissioners of each metropolitan Atlanta county. A staff of technical and policy committees report to the ARC members, who are responsible for comprehensive transportation planning in the Atlanta metropolitan region.

The ARC strategy included three plans, each with increasing specificity: (1) a prospectus and multiyear urban planning work program (RDP); 7 (2) a regional transportation plan (RTP) including both long and short term elements; 8 and (3) an annually updated transportation improvement program (TIP) developed in cooperation with state and local officials. 9

The FHWA and UMTA will approve urban transportation projects for federal funding only if the projects have been drawn from the TIP and only if the process used in identifying them has been properly certified. 10 Certification, however, only preserves eligibility for federal funding. The federal agencies are not thereby committed to funding the proposed project; likewise, the state and local governments may opt to fund particular projects with non-federal money. 11 The federal government exercises no control over the substantive aspects of the systems planning process, but is concerned only with whether the planning process complies with Part 450 of the unified regulations. 12

The need for improved transportation service within the North Atlanta Corridor has been recognized by planning agencies, transportation agencies, public officials and private citizens for over three decades. 13 These needs range from the immediate localized need for improved peak hour operating conditions to the long range provision of planned, orderly development for the metropolitan Atlanta region. 14 The extremely heavy traffic demand in the area has overburdened the surface street network, congesting major intersections and resulting in unstable traffic patterns. Early Regional Development Plans noted the inadequacy of the street system in the North Atlanta Corridor and called for the development of a multi-lane limited access highway from I-85 south of Lenox Road north to the interchange of I-285 and Georgia 400. The RDP also called for the development of an exclusive two lane busway in conjunction with the highway project. The RTP approved in August 1977 included the roadway as a long range project.

The proposed project was briefly suspended for several years to allow for completion of other highway construction in the Atlanta area, but in 1981 the North Atlanta Corridor Transportation Study (NACTS) was undertaken by the ARC staff. The NACTS was conducted within the regular transportation planning framework for the Atlanta region, with participation by all jurisdictions, agencies, and the public. The project examined various transportation alternatives which purported to solve the traffic congestion problems in the North Metropolitan area. The study recommended that a multi-lane limited access highway joining I-285 and I-85 (North Atlanta Parkway) be constructed to (1) relieve traffic congestion and reduce accidents on local streets; (2) improve access to major traffic generators and local businesses; and (3) maximize transit efficiency to encourage balanced travel. As a result of the NACTS, the ARC Board amended the RTP in 1983 to include the North Atlanta Parkway.

In June 1984, the ARC advanced the Parkway and other transportation improvements to the TIP to allow for federal funding. The RTP was finally amended in March 1985 to increase the total number of lanes in the Parkway to six and to allow for the inclusion of a MARTA rail line in the Parkway median. Before the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) would make federal funds available, however, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which conformed to the requirements of NEPA had to be prepared. The EIS, which contained information concerning the social and economic impacts as well as the physical impacts of the proposed project, was prepared by the applicant, the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), with review by the FHWA.

The preparation of the EIS is essentially a cooperative effort with a number of various agencies contributing in an area of particular expertise. Preparation began in the summer of 1984 when the GDOT initiated the scoping process. During this process, federal, state and local agencies and the general public met to identify issues which might possibly arise. Then, before a draft of the EIS was written, studies were conducted, analyses done, pertinent data accumulated, and alternative means of attaining the established project goals were considered. The draft EIS, after review by the FHWA and the Office of Environmental Policy, was circulated among other federal and state agencies and released to the public in October 1986. Comments on both substance and presentation were solicited. The final EIS contained these comments and a response. In August 1987, the Environmental Programs Manager for FHWA signed the final EIS, having concluded that proper procedures had been followed in its preparation and that the concerns of the public had been appropriately addressed. He signed only after receiving the concurrence of the Office of Environmental Policy and the Office of Secretary of Transportation. The EIS in its final form was, then, made available to the public, the Environmental Protection Agency and other governmental agencies; additional comments were also accepted. The last step, the signing of the Record of Decision by FHWA's Environmental Programs Manager, was taken in October 1987.

The alternative recommended in the EIS was the North Atlanta Parkway (Georgia 400 Extension), a proposed 6.25 mile limited access, six-lane tollway that will connect Interstate I-85 and Interstate I-285 in Northeast Atlanta. The proposed tollway included a transit median for possible inclusion of a MARTA rail line as well a new connecting road system (Buckhead Loop and Glenridge/Perimeter Connector).

In December 1988, North Buckhead Civic Association, a neighborhood organization whose members live in the project area and two individuals whose property will be affected by the highway construction, filed an action for declaratory and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
122 cases
  • D'Olive Bay Rest. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • March 15, 2007
    ...2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976). See also, Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council, 444 U.S. at 228, 100 S.Ct. 497; North Buckhead Civic Ass'n v. Skinner, 903 F.2d 1533, 1539 (11th Cir.1990)(The court should set aside administrative decisions only for substantial reasons, "not simply because the co......
  • Water Works & Sewer Bd. v. U.S. Dept. of Army
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • October 22, 1997
    ... ... North Carolina v. Hudson (Hudson I), 665 F.Supp. 428 ... In North Buckhead Civic Association v. Skinner, 903 F.2d 1533, 1538 (11th ... ...
  • Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Dep't of the NNAVY
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • September 6, 2012
  • Holy Cross Wilderness Fund v. Madigan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • April 3, 1992
    ...sufficient such that the Corps' permitting decision based thereon was not arbitrary or capricious. Cf. North Buckhead Civic Ass'n v. Skinner, 903 F.2d 1533, 1541-42 (11th Cir.1990) ("NEPA does not confer the power or responsibility for long range local planning on federal or state agencies.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Federal Wetlands Law Permits Under §404
    • United States
    • Wetlands Deskbook Part I. Clean Water Act §404 Programs
    • November 11, 2009
    ...Cir. 1985) (citing Wisconsin v. Weinberger, 745 F.2d 412, 417, 14 ELR 20744, (7th Cir. 1984)); North Buckhead Civic Ass’n v. Skinner, 903 F.2d 1533, 20 ELR 21061 (11th Cir.1990); Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of Transp., 753 F.2d 120, 126 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 385. See Louisiana v. Lee, 758 F.......
  • List of Case Citations
    • United States
    • Wetlands Deskbook Appendices
    • November 11, 2009
    ...North Buckhead Civic Ass’n v. Skinner, 903 F.2d 1533, 20 ELR 21061 (11th Cir. 1990) .................... 97 North Carolina v. Hudson, 665 F. Supp. 428, 17 ELR 21260 (E.D.N.C. 1987) ................................... 91 North Carolina Shellfish Growers Association v. Holly Ridge Association......
  • Federal Wetlands Law Permits Under §404
    • United States
    • Wetlands deskbook. 4th edition -
    • April 11, 2015
    ...(7th Cir. 1985) (citing Wisconsin v. Weinberger, 745 F.2d 412, 417, 14 ELR 20744 (7th Cir. 1984)); North Buckhead Civic Ass’n v. Skinner, 903 F.2d 1533, 20 ELR 21061 (11th Cir. 1990); Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of Transportation, 753 F.2d 120, 126 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 514. See Louisiana v.......
  • List of Case Citations
    • United States
    • Wetlands deskbook. 4th edition Appendices
    • April 11, 2015
    ...North Buckhead Civic Ass’n v. Skinner, 903 F.2d 1533, 20 ELR 21061 (11th Cir.1990) ......126 North Carolina v. Hudson, 665 F. Supp. 428, 17 ELR 21260 (E.D.N.C. 1987) ...................116 North Carolina Shellfish Growers Ass’n v. Holly Ridge Ass’n, 278 F. Supp. 2d 654 (E.D.N.C. 2003) ...........
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT