ELR Citation: ELR 20540
No(s). 89-2328 (4th Cir. Jan 2, 1990)

Under the Department of Transportation Act, the court remands a highway project through a historic site to the district court to decide whether the Secretary determined that the proposed alternatives were not prudent, and holds that the Secretary's determination not to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement is supported by the record. The administrative record must show that the Secretary determined that there were unique problems or that the disruption associated with the alternatives reached extraordinary magnitudes. The Secretary may reject alternatives that are imprudent without further inquiry into the ramifications of their implementation. A supplemental environmental impact statement is unnecessary where the final environmental impact statement adequately and thoroughly considered the impact on the environment, the economy, and the history of the area.

Counsel for Defendants-Appellees
Jacques B. Gelin, Robert L. Klarquist
Land and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 633-2762

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant
Mary V. Carrigan, Michael Smith Scofield
United Carolina Bank Bldg., Ste. 980, 212 Tryon St., Charlotte NC 28281
(704) 331-9348

Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and MacKENZIE, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.