## Facts

- Federal and state transportation officials planned an interstate highway project (H-3) on Oʻahu along a route that would pass through Moanalua Valley.
- Environmental and historic-preservation groups sued to stop construction, alleging noncompliance with § 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act and the parallel Federal-Aid Highway Act provision.
- The Secretary of the Interior issued a published determination that Moanalua Valley was eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, indicating at least local historical significance.
- The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation found the valley’s cultural and historical importance warranted preservation, citing its role in Hawaiian tradition and royal history.
- Hawaii officials characterized the valley as only marginally significant and not entitled to protection under state historic-preservation law.
- Relying on the state view, the Secretary of Transportation treated § 4(f) as inapplicable and did not perform the statutory analysis required when a protected site is “used” by a federally funded highway.
- The district court initially enjoined construction but later dissolved the injunctions after concluding § 4(f) did not apply because the valley was not sufficiently significant under the state assessment.
- The plaintiffs appealed from the order dissolving the injunctions.

## Issues

1. Whether Moanalua Valley qualified as an “historic site of national, State, or local significance” within the meaning of § 4(f).
2. Whether the Secretary of Transportation could treat § 4(f) as inapplicable by relying on a state characterization of only marginal significance, despite federal preservation findings.
3. If § 4(f) applied, whether the highway could proceed absent findings that there was no feasible and prudent alternative and that all possible planning had been undertaken to minimize harm.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order dissolving the injunctions.
- The court held Moanalua Valley qualified as an historic site of at least state or local significance for § 4(f) purposes.
- Because § 4(f) applied, the Secretary of Transportation was required to conduct the § 4(f) analysis before approving federal funding for a route that would use the valley.
- The effect of the reversal was to bar proceeding on the challenged route unless and until § 4(f)’s prerequisites were satisfied.

## Legal Principles

- Section 4(f) expresses a strong federal policy favoring preservation of historic sites in federally funded transportation projects.
- Once an area is an historic site of national, state, or local significance, the Secretary may approve a project using that site only if (1) no feasible and prudent alternative exists and (2) all possible planning to minimize harm has been completed.
- In determining “state or local significance,” the Secretary may not evade § 4(f) by adopting a dismissive characterization from project proponents when preservation authorities’ determinations support protected status.
- Formal actions by federal preservation authorities—such as a published National Register eligibility determination and Advisory Council findings—are substantial evidence of at least local significance sufficient to trigger § 4(f).

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Moanalua Valley was an historic site protected by § 4(f), so transportation officials could not proceed on a federally funded highway route using the valley without first making the statute’s required no-alternative and harm-minimization determinations.


Stop H-3 Ass'n v. Coleman, 533 F.2d 434 (9th Cir. 1976)