ELR Citation: ELR 21082
No(s). s. 84-8894, -8924 (11th Cir. Sep 16, 1985)

The court holds that an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared in connection with the contruction of the Presidential Parkway in Atlanta adequately considered traffic and safety impacts of the proposed highway on local streets, but did not support a finding under §4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act that harm to parks and historic sites was minimized. After discussing the proper standard for review, the court holds that the agencies' consideration of traffic and safety impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is adequate. The district court properly concluded that its task was to determine whether the agencies' choice of methodology for assessing traffic impacts had a rational basis. Transcript testimony indicates that defendants' transportation experts followed established methods for determining levels of traffic flow, and plaintiffs failed to show that the methodology used was unreasonable. Nor do plaintiffs' allegations that the EIS distorted and withheld relevant safety data establish the unreasonableness of defendants' consideration of safety impacts. The court next holds that the EIS satisfies NEPA requirements that it analyze a range of reasonable alternatives. In a note, the court observes that NEPA's procedural requirements differ from the requirement of §4(f) of the DOT Act that parklands and historic sites be given paramount importance when evaluating a project. Turning to §4(f) specifically, after discussing the standard of review the court holds that the Secretary of Transportation could reasonably have concluded the no-build option did not fulfill Atlanta's need for a highway in that area and was therefore not "prudent" under the requirement of §4(f)(1) that there be no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of parklands and historic sites before the use of such sites is approved. The court then holds that the EIS has not provided sufficient information on the impacts on the affected parkland and historic sites for it to decide whether the Secretary has complied with the mandate of §4(f)(2) that all possible planning be used to minimize harm to parks and historic sites. The court remands the case for findings to be made on the impacts on parkland and historic sites of several alternatives discussed in the EIS.

Counsel for Appellant
David F. Walbert
Walbert & Hermann
Suite 500, The Equitable Bldg., 100 Peachtree St., Atlanta GA 30303
(404) 584-8238

Irwin Goldbloom
Latham, Watkins & Hills
Suite 1200, 1333 New Hampshire Ave. NW, Washington DC 20006
(202) 828-4400

Elizabeth S. Merritt, Ass't Gen. Counsel
National Trust for Historic Preservation
1785 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington DC 20036
(202) 673-4000

Counsel for Appellee
Roland Matson Sr., Ass't Attorney General
Department of Law, 1312 State Judicial Bldg., Atlanta GA 30334
(404) 656-4586

William Boone, Ass't U.S. Attorney
75 Spring St. SW, Atlanta GA 30335
(404) 221-6954

Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Mary Aunita Prebula, Terence B. Adamson
Hansell & Post
3300 First Atlanta Tower, Atlanta GA 30383
(404) 581-8000

Before HENDERSON and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges, and ALLGOOD^*, District Judge.