ELR Citation: ELR 21289
No(s). 98-2795M (8th Cir. May 25, 1999)

The court holds that an environmental group's Department of Transportation Act §4(f) challenge to a proposed five-mile highway corridor in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is time barred. Although a statement made in the district court's opinion is a "new circumstance," it does not have anything to do with the statute of limitations. The district court simply observed that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) did not consider the impact of reconstruction on certain areas. The absence from the draft EIS of any discussion of that impact has been evident from the time that the draft EIS was prepared, and it cannot have the effect of reviving a claim barred by the statute of limitations.

Counsel for Appellant
Grant J. Merritt
Kalina, Wills, Gisvold & Clark
941 Hillwind Rd. NE, Ste. 200, Minneapolis MN 55432
(612) 789-9000

Counsel for Appellee
William R. Sierks, Ass't Attorney General
Attorney General's Office
102 State Capitol, St. Paul MN 55155
(612) 296-6196

Before Gibson and Bowman, JJ.