Geer v. Federal Highway Admin., Civil Action No. 95-10147-DPW.
| Decision Date | 04 August 1997 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 95-10500-DPW.,Civil Action No. 95-10147-DPW. |
| Citation | 975 F.Supp. 47 |
| Parties | Daniel E. GEER, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Raymond Miyares, Thomas J. Harrington, Pickett & Miyares, Boston, MA, for Daniel E. Geer, Jr., Andreas Aeppli, Robert L. Bencher, Robin Bencher, Mark Browne, Mary Ellen Coyle Browne, Catherine A. Burke, David P. Burns, Renee DiPrima Burns, William Cavellini, Katherine J. Coffey, Vincent Lawrence Dixon, Astrid A. Dodds, Douglas W. Dodds, Jr., R. Philip Dowds, K. Dun Gifford, Mark H. Jenkins, Dean R. Johnson, Joseph Joseph, Rosemary A. Keverek, Daniel T. King, Elaine Kistiakowsky, Catherine A. Lewis, Anne R. Lindsay, Louise Lewis, Henry Lukas, John W. MacDonald, Donald Maciver, George McCray, Debra McManus, Peter Murtha, Frederick C. Reece, S. Rivitz, Peter W. Roudebush, Rose Marie A. Ruggerio, Hugo Salemme, Phillip Sego, Bette L. Task, Anne Rawlings Toop, Joanne J. Turnbull, T. Underwood, Richard J. Vendetti, Melinda L. Walch, Cambridge Citizens for Liveable Neighborhoods, Inc., Charles River Watershed Association, Committee for Regional Transportation, Priscilla McMillan.
Edward F. Lawson, Weston, Patrick, Willard & Redding, Boston, MA, for Cambridge, City of, Consolidated Plaintiff.
George B. Henderson United States Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, Phyllis N. Crockett, Pierce O. Cray, Attorney General's Office, Boston, MA, for Federal Highway Administration, Rodney E. Slater, Stephen A. Moreno, Massachusetts Highway Department, Laurinda T. Bedingfiled, Donald Hammer, William Weld, James J. Kerasiotes, Metropolitan District Commission and David Balfour.
In a Record of Decision dated June 9, 1994, the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA")1 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 tunneling 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 Act2 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, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 1845-46, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (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 country-side 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.
The CA/T Project underwent more than a decade of administrative environmental review process. That process is perhaps most easily understood when presented as a chronology focussing on review of the Charles River Crossing evaluations.
1982: FHWA and MHD3 issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Report ("DEIS/R"")4 regarding the Project.
1983: The agencies issued a Supplemental DEIS/R ("SDEIS/R"").
August 1985: The Final EIS/R for the Project was published ("1985 FEIS/R"). This document identified a preferred alternative for the Charles River Crossing component. This preferred alternative design had four bridges, including two I-93 mainline truss bridges, one on either side of the existing bridge, which rejoined I-93 north of the Gilmore Bridge in Charlestown; and ramps connecting the Central Artery to Storrow Drive/Leverett Circle in a tunnel under the North Station commuter rail tracks and along and partly in the south bank of the Charles River.
The 1985 FEIS/R included a § 4(f) analysis regarding two identified parkland resource areas: first, the Charles River Basin Reservation along Storrow Drive, including the Charles River upstream of the Old Charles River Dam; and second, Paul Revere Landing Park, on either side of the river next to the New Charles River Dam. The FEIS/R also noted that the Metropolitan District Commission ("MDC") had plans to acquire land downstream of the old dam to the New Charles River Dam. The Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Construction ("EOTC") and the MHD agreed to work with the MDC to facilitate park acquisitions in order to mitigate impacts to Paul Revere Landing Park. The document outlined mitigation measures for the land between the old and new dams.
Upon review, the Secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs ("EOEA") directed that the Charles River Crossing be reexamined.
May 1990: A ten-volume DSEIS/R was issued ("1990 DSEIS/R"). It described changes to the project and addressed issues left outstanding in the 1985 FSEIS. In addition, it noted that thirty-one design options had been evaluated as alternatives to the 1985 Charles River Crossing design.
The May 1990 DSEIS/R listed three basic crossing design options for further detailed review:
1. Scheme S Modified consisting of tunnels in the vicinity of North Station acting as Storrow Drive/I-93 southbound connections with a main line bridge and viaducts for other connections;
2. Scheme T Modified consisting of tunnels under the North Station area, with a tunnel under the Charles River for connections between Storrow Drive and I-93 north;
3. Scheme Z Modified consisting of viaducts and bridges for all connections.
Alternatives 1 and 2 posed safety deficiencies resulting from the necessity for substantial lane changing maneuvers. In large part because Alternative 3 — Scheme Z — was found not to present these problems, it became the recommended alternative.
The § 4(f) evaluation for the 1990 DEIS/R identified two § 4(f) resource areas in addition to those identified in the 1985 FEIS/R: a parcel of land on Nashua Street along the river adjacent to Leverett Circle and a parcel of land on the north bank of the Charles River which the MDC had acquired from the United States General Services Administration ("GSA") in 1989. It was the MDC's stated objective to extend the Esplanade along both river banks and complete the bicycle/pedestrian path. Landscaping between important park resources upstream of the Museum of Science and downstream of the North Washington Street bridge was noted, as were MHD commitments regarding open space development in the Central Artery North Area ("CANA") and its agreement to convey land on the north side of the river to the MDC when the highway projects were completed.
November 1990: MHD issued its 11-volume FSEIR, pursuant to requirements of MEPA.
January 1991: FWHA issued a 2-volume FSEIS, pursuant to NEPA.5 A modified Scheme Z was presented in this document as the chosen Proposed Action because it was viewed as the best solution to traffic operations, more constructable, and substantially less disruptive to vehicular and commuter railroad traffic than other alternatives; and because it avoided the negative construction period impacts to the Charles River and parkland associated with the river tunnel alternative.
Noting that the designation of § 4(f) properties in the May 1990 DSEIS/R had been questioned in comments suggesting that the surface of the Charles River and certain land affected by the MHD in its development of the separate but related CANA Project should have § 4(f) status, the 1991 FSEIS observed the FHWA had "engaged in extensive coordination with the 4(f) agencies with jurisdiction over" Charles River resources and took note of a November 9,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lakes Region Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Slater
...area. These justifications are proper grounds for rejecting alternatives in a section 4(f) analysis. See Geer v. Federal Highway Admin., 975 F.Supp. 47, 75 (D.Mass.1997) (observing that the agency may consider a number of factors in assessing alternatives, such as inability to accommodate f......
-
Audubon Naturalist Soc. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp.
...area. Florida Keys Citizens Coal., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs., 374 F.Supp.2d 1116, 1153 (S.D.Fla.2005); Geer v. Fed. Hwy. Admin., 975 F.Supp. 47, 52 (D.Mass. 1997). Plaintiffs must show that "the project's impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes ......
-
Stewart Park and Reserve Coalition v. Slater
...types of publicly owned land...." National Wildlife Fed. v. Coleman, 529 F.2d 359, 370 (5th Cir.1976); see also Geer v. FHA, 975 F.Supp. 47, 67 (D.Mass.1997). Here, there is no dispute that the land in question is publicly held. Indeed, it is owned by NYSDOT. The issue is whether any or all......
-
Neighborhood Ass'n, Back Bay v. Fed. Trans. Admin.
...prudent alternatives, and the other requirements of Section 4(f) were deemed not applicable to the project. See Geer v. City of Cambridge, 975 F.Supp. 47, 72-74 (D.Mass.1997). As detailed herein, the finding of "no use" was not arbitrary and capricious, and this court recommends that judgme......