## Facts

- River Fields, Inc., a nonprofit preservation organization, sued Mary E. Peters in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, challenging federal approval of a project involving the historic, one-lane Harrods Creek Bridge near Louisville, Kentucky.
- The bridge had two-lane approaches on both ends, creating a mismatch between roadway width and the single-lane crossing.
- Because the project was federally approved and involved a historic resource, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act applied to the agency’s decision-making.
- For certain limited impacts on historic properties, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) used pre-established programmatic Section 4(f) evaluations as an alternative to preparing an individual, project-specific Section 4(f) evaluation.
- FHWA approved the Harrods Creek Bridge project using the historic-bridges programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation rather than drafting an individual Section 4(f) evaluation.
- River Fields argued the programmatic evaluation did not apply to this project and that FHWA was required to prepare an individual Section 4(f) evaluation.
- River Fields identified an alternative that would keep the bridge one lane and use traffic-control devices (such as signals and related measures) to manage traffic and address safety concerns while avoiding widening of the historic structure.
- FHWA rejected the one-lane traffic-control alternative, concluding it would not best address safety and operational concerns for a bridge with two-lane approaches.
- The administrative record included a safety report indicating that standard traffic-control devices could improve safety, but also stating that one-lane bridges with approaches wider than the bridge can pose hazards for motorists.
- The case came to the district court on cross-motions for summary judgment under Administrative Procedure Act (APA) review of FHWA’s Section 4(f) decision.

## Issues

1. Whether FHWA acted unlawfully under Section 4(f) by applying the historic-bridges programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation to the Harrods Creek Bridge project instead of preparing an individual Section 4(f) evaluation.
2. Whether FHWA’s rejection of the one-lane traffic-control alternative, and its approval of widening the bridge to two lanes, was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under the APA.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for the defendants and denied River Fields’ summary-judgment request.
- The court upheld FHWA’s reliance on the historic-bridges programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation for this project.
- The court concluded Section 4(f) did not require FHWA to prepare an individual Section 4(f) evaluation on the record presented.
- The court held FHWA reasonably rejected the one-lane traffic-control alternative based on the safety analysis and the agency’s evaluation of the mismatch between the two-lane approaches and the single-lane bridge.
- FHWA’s Section 4(f) approval remained in effect, allowing the project to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, a court reviews whether the agency considered the relevant factors and whether its decision was arbitrary or capricious; the court may not substitute its own judgment for the agency’s.
- Section 4(f) limits approval of transportation projects that “use” historic sites, allowing approval only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm.
- FHWA may rely on a programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation for a qualifying category of actions when the project fits the program’s criteria and the agency’s application is supported by the administrative record.
- When the record shows the agency considered an avoidance option and explained why it did not meet project needs (including safety considerations), the court will generally uphold that determination if it is reasoned and record-based.
- Technical and safety judgments reflected in reports and supporting data may support an agency’s alternatives analysis and are reviewed deferentially under the APA when adequately explained.

## Conclusion

In *River Fields, Inc. v. Mary Peters*, the Western District of Kentucky upheld FHWA’s decision to use the historic-bridges programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation to approve widening the Harrods Creek Bridge and found that FHWA’s safety-based rejection of a one-lane traffic-control alternative was adequately supported by the administrative record and was not arbitrary or capricious under APA review.


River Fields, Inc. v. Mary Peters, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63620 (2009)