ELR Citation: ELR 20092
No(s). 07-2593 (D. Minn. Mar 11, 2010)

A district court granted in part and in denied in part environmental group’s motion for summary judgment with respect to their claims brought pursuant to the APA that the National Park Service (NPS) and Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) violated the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA), Organic Act and General Authorities Act, the Transportation Act, and NEPA by approving a project to build a bridge across the Lower St. Croix River. The NPS’s WSRA §7 evaluation was arbitrary and capricious because the NPS ignored its contrary position in a prior evaluation for a bridge that was generally similar—in purpose, location and physical characteristics—to the proposed bridge. A federal agency may reevaluate previous determinations and change its mind, but the agency must explain its reasons for changing its position. The NPS’s failure to acknowledge its previous contrary position, let alone explain why in its opinion a change is justified, is the hallmark of an arbitrary and capricious decision. The obligations of WSRA §10(a) did not apply, however, to the §7 evaluation since the proposed bridge is located within the state-administered portion of the Lower St. Croix. For similar reasons, the Organic Act and General Authorities Act do not apply. In addition, the NPS did not violate directives of Lower St. Croix’s cooperative management plan, NEPA, or the Transportation Act. Finally, the court granted a permanent injunction barring the federal government from funding or authorizing the proposed bridge: NPS has previously found that a substantially similar bridge would fundamentally, permanently, and negatively impact the Lower St. Croix’s outstandingly remarkable values. The NPS also previously found that no mitigation attempts would be effective. This is the definition of irreparable harm. As to the balance of the harms, there is no cognizable harm to the NPS from being enjoined from taking an action that is against the law. Without an injunction, the NPS will set in motion construction that is likely to cause irreparable injury to the Lower St. Croix. And the overriding public interest is in protecting the values of the Lower St. Croix, particularly when the significant possibility for indefinite damage to those values is created by the proposed bridge. Entry of a permanent injunction is therefore warranted.