ELR Citation: ELR 21429
No(s). 90-2641 (4th Cir. Aug 8, 1990)

The court rules that the Secretary of Transportation properly determined under §4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act that alternatives to widening a North Carolina highway through a historic neighborhood were not prudent. The court first rules that the Secretary properly determined that none of the alternatives was prudent in light of Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 1 ELR 20110 (1971). The Secretary's failure to specifically state that there were unique or extraordinary problems with the alternatives does not compel a finding that he violated §4(f) and Overton Park. The court also holds that the record demonstrates enough evidence to reject the alternatives as not prudent.

[Previous decisions in this litigation are published at 20 ELR 20540 and 20719.]

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

Counsel for Defendants-Appellees
Jacques B. Gelin, Richard B. Stewart, Anne S. Almy, Robert L. Klarquist
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000

Thomas J. Ashcraft, U.S. Attorney
Clifford C. Marshall, Ass't U.S. Attorney
306 U.S. Courthouse, 100 Otis St., Asheville NC 28801-2611
(704) 259-0661

Before PHILLIPS, SPROUSE, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.