## Facts

- The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) planned the Copley Station Accessibility Improvement Project to provide elevator access and meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for a designated “key station.”
- The project site lies within Boston’s Back Bay Historic District and adjacent to the Boston Public Library and Old South Church, both historically significant properties.
- Because the project used Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding, the FTA had to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), including consultation obligations under § 106 and harm-minimization obligations under § 110(f) for affected landmark properties.
- MBTA retained a preservation consultant to analyze project effects on historic resources and propose design and mitigation measures.
- The consultant concluded the elevator plan would have “no adverse effect” on the historic properties.
- FTA adopted a “No Adverse Effect” finding and obtained concurrence from the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), acting as the State Historic Preservation Officer.
- Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay and Boston Preservation Alliance sued to stop the project, alleging NHPA and Massachusetts historic-preservation violations and asserting the federal decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The district court denied preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether FTA complied with NHPA § 106’s requirement to consider effects on historic properties and consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer before approving and funding the project.
2. Whether FTA’s “No Adverse Effect” finding was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful under the APA.
3. Whether FTA and MBTA failed to comply with applicable Massachusetts historic-preservation requirements such that injunctive relief was warranted.
4. Whether NHPA § 110(f) required additional or different measures to minimize harm to protected landmark properties beyond what the agencies adopted.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the denial of injunctive relief and allowed the project to proceed.
- The court held plaintiffs did not show any violation of NHPA §§ 106 or 110(f) or of relevant Massachusetts historic-preservation law.
- The court held FTA’s “No Adverse Effect” determination, reached through consultation and supported by the administrative record and MHC concurrence, was not arbitrary or capricious under the APA.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of NHPA compliance in this context proceeds under the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard; the court asks whether the agency considered relevant factors and reasonably explained its decision.
- NHPA is primarily procedural: it requires identification, evaluation, and consideration of effects on historic properties through consultation, but it does not compel selection of the most preservation-protective alternative.
- An agency may reasonably rely on technical studies and the consultative record, including the State Historic Preservation Officer’s concurrence, when making a “no adverse effect” determination under NHPA § 106.
- NHPA § 110(f) requires agencies, to the maximum extent possible, to take steps to minimize harm to protected landmark properties; satisfying this duty depends on reasonable mitigation in light of project objectives and constraints, not a prohibition on proceeding.
- Where the record shows consultation, consideration of effects, and mitigation efforts, courts will not substitute their judgment for agency and preservation officials on technical siting and design questions.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld FTA’s approval and funding of MBTA’s ADA-driven Copley Station elevator project, concluding that the agency followed NHPA consultation requirements, reasonably sought to minimize harm, and made a supported “No Adverse Effect” finding that withstood APA review, leaving no basis for an injunction.


Neighborhood Ass'n of the Back Bay, Inc. v. Fed. Transit Admin., 463 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2006)