## Facts

- GDOT and USDOT were involved in a federally funded road-widening project in Georgia that would require removal of a large live oak tree known as “Friendship Oak.”
- Local residents and preservation advocates sued, arguing the federal funding approval violated § 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act because the project would “use” a historic resource without satisfying § 4(f)’s restrictions.
- Whether § 4(f) applied turned on whether Friendship Oak qualified as a “historic site,” including whether it was listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
- In earlier proceedings, the district court issued a preliminary injunction after finding that the Secretary of Transportation’s approval of federal funds violated § 4(f) because the Secretary had been improperly prevented from deciding NRHP eligibility: GDOT’s application materials contained no information about Friendship Oak.
- The court remanded the matter to the Secretary for a determination of whether Friendship Oak was eligible for the NRHP and therefore entitled to § 4(f) protection.
- On remand, GDOT conducted an extensive study of the tree’s historic value under NRHP criteria, researching possible associations in multiple contexts, including Native American history, early trails and roads, land surveys, the Civil War, lynchings, landmark-tree registers, the Spanish-American War, and general local significance.
- GDOT found no evidence of direct or significant historic associations that would support NRHP eligibility and submitted its evaluation and supporting material to the Secretary.
- The Secretary conducted an independent review of GDOT’s evaluation and made an independent determination that Friendship Oak was not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
- After the ineligibility determination, the agencies moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction and dismiss the action.

## Issues

1. Whether the Secretary’s post-remand determination that Friendship Oak was not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under the Administrative Procedure Act.
2. If the determination was valid, whether § 4(f) provided any basis to keep the project enjoined, or whether the preliminary injunction should be dissolved and the case dismissed.

## Decision

- The court upheld the Secretary’s determination that Friendship Oak was not eligible for listing in the NRHP.
- The court concluded the administrative record showed an adequate investigation by GDOT and an independent eligibility determination by the Secretary.
- Because the tree was not a § 4(f)-protected historic site, § 4(f) did not restrict the project’s approval on the theory advanced by plaintiffs.
- The court granted the agencies’ motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction.
- The court dismissed the action.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, a court reviews the agency’s decision using a deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard, asking whether the agency considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the record and its decision.
- § 4(f) limits approval of transportation projects that “use” protected properties, including historic sites of national, state, or local significance; NRHP listing or NRHP eligibility is a key route by which a resource is treated as a protected historic site.
- When the earlier basis for injunctive relief is that the Secretary was prevented from making a required § 4(f)-related determination, the defect can be cured through remand if the agency develops an adequate record and the Secretary makes an independent decision on the required question.
- If the post-remand determination eliminates the factual or legal predicate for § 4(f) protection (here, NRHP eligibility), continued injunctive relief is not warranted and dismissal may follow.

## Conclusion

Hatmaker v. Georgia Department of Transportation held that, after remand, GDOT’s detailed historical study and the Secretary’s independent review supported a reasoned determination that Friendship Oak was not eligible for the NRHP; with no § 4(f)-protected historic site at issue on plaintiffs’ theory, the court dissolved the preliminary injunction and dismissed the case.


Hatmaker v. Georgia Department of Transportation, 973 F. Supp. 1058 (1997)