ELR Citation: ELR 20534
No(s). s. 70-2651, 72-419 (E.D. Pa. Apr 25, 1974)

In deciding whether a feasible and prudent alternative exists to construction of a federally funded highway through parkland, the Secretary of Transportation may defer to local opinion as to whether an area is a public park, but may not defer to local preference as to its use, and instead must consider parkland preservation as of paramount importance, even in decisions made by the Secretary prior to the Overton Park case. The court therefore remands the routing of Interstate Highway 78 to the Secretary for further consideration. The court finds that a highway environmental impact statement may not be attacked by judicial proceeding until the EIS has been submitted to the CEQ and has been approved by the Federal Highway Administration. The Court finds that although public notice of location and design public hearings may have been misleading and statements by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation at the hearings may have appeared unduly to restrict the scope of such hearings to economic issues only, such irregularities cannot be considered prejudicial agency error in the absence of a showing that a member of the public relied to his detriment upon such misleading notices and statements, especially where, as here, the agency provided full, correct information for public inspection at its offices.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Brian E. Appel
1427 Walnut St.
Philadelphia, PA 19102

Dowler, Mackson, Hauff, & Hettinger
First Valley Bank Building
Center Square
Allentown, PA 18101

Counsel for Defendants
Robert E. Curran U.S. Attorney
U.S. Courthouse
Philadelphia, PA 19107

John N. Hrubuvcak
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Legal Bureau
Harrisburg, PA 17123