May 2017 - Parks & Recreation - 31

(i) The ability to mitigate adverse impacts
to each Section 4(f) property (including
any measures that result in benefits to the
property);
(ii) The relative severity of the remaining
harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, attributes, or features that
qualify each Section 4(f) property for protection;
(iii) The relative significance of each Section
4(f) property;
(iv) The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property;
(v) The degree to which each alternative
meets the purpose and need for the project;
(vi) After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources
not protected by Section 4(f); and
(vii) Substantial differences in costs among
the alternatives 23 C.F.R. § 774.3(c)(1).
The regulatory intent of such balancing is to total " the harm caused by each
alternate route to Section 4(f) areas " and
select " the option which does the least
harm. " That being said, the secretary
is " free to choose among alternatives
which cause substantially equal damage
to parks or historic sites. "
Supreme Court Precedent
In the landmark case of Citizens to Preserve
Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402
(1971), the Supreme Court of the United
States recognized that the language of
Section 4(f) is " a plain and explicit bar to
the use of federal funds for construction
of highways through parks - only the
most unusual situations are exempted. "
As characterized by the Supreme
Court, Section 4(f) was " Congress's response to growing public concern over
the preservation of our nation's parklands, recreation areas, wildlife and
waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. "
Accordingly, Congress provided " clear
and specific directives " for the construction of federally funded roads and

highways through public lands to ensure
" paramount consideration " be given to
land protected by Section 4(f).
Given economic realities, Congress
had recognized the political vulnerability
of public parkland and the need to enact
" so high a bar " in Section 4(f) to preserve
these lands:
In most cases considerations of cost, directness of route, and community disruption
will indicate that parkland should be used
for highway construction whenever possible.
There will always be a smaller outlay required
from the public purse when parkland is used
since the public already owns the land and
there will be no need to pay for right-of-way.
And since people do not live or work in parks,
if a highway is built on parkland no one will
have to leave his home or give up his business.
Bridge Project 4(F) Case Study
In the case of Conservation Alliance of
St. Lucie County, Inc. v. U.S. Department
of Transportation, 2017 U.S. App. LEX-

whose mission is " to protect the water,
soil, air, native flora and fauna upon
which all the Earth's creatures depend
on for survival. " Many of its members
regularly visit the Halpatiokee Trail to
hike, sightsee and take pictures.
District Court Complaint
In its complaint, Conservation Alliance claimed the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) through
the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) had violated Section 4(f) by
failing to identify and adopt, as " feasible and prudent, " a bridge project alternative which would " completely avoid
the use " of Section 4(f) properties.
The avoidance alternative preferred by
the Conservation Alliance (Alternative
6A) would have involved " spliced-beam
support structures " for the proposed
bridge. Spliced-beam construction uses
multiple pre-stressed concrete beams to
span longer lengths.

...when a federally funded transportation project requires
the use of publicly owned park or recreation land, the
Secretary of Transportation must determine that " there is
no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land. "
IS 1922 (11th Cir. 2/3/2017), environmental groups challenged the Secretary
of Transportation's decision to approve
a planned path for a new bridge spanning the North Fork St. Lucie River
(NFSLR). The proposed bridge project
would impact three properties protected
under Section 4(f) - the North Fork St.
Lucie River Aquatic Preserve (AP), the
Savannas Preserve State Park (SPSP)
and Kiwanis Park.
Plaintiff Conservation Alliance of St.
Lucie County is a nonprofit corporation

The FHWA had rejected this alternative because " the amount of land used for
spliced-beam support structures would be
far greater than pile-bent support structures, causing harm to neighboring wetland habitats. " Spliced-beam construction
does not require piers in the riverbed,
but would require placing footings in the
wetlands on the banks of the river that
are 15 times greater than the supports required for pile-bent construction.
For this particular bridge project,
the FHWA had concluded pile-bent

W W W. PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N . O R G | M AY 2 0 1 7 |

Parks & Recreation

29
May 2017 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of May 2017 - Parks & Recreation
