Did the National Parks Service properly define the term "water resources project" under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to include bridge construction? Sierra Club North Star Chapter v. Pena, 1 F. Supp.2d 971 (D. Minn. 1998) The Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Transportation sought to build a bridge across the St. Croix River, which is part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (WSRS). The Department of Interior (DOI), acting through the National Parks Service (NPS), blocked issuance of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits required for construction of the bridge under § 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This statute prohibits the United States government from providing financial aid for the construction of a "water resources project" on a wild and scenic river if it will have a "direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river was established. The NPS defined the term "water resources project" as "any type of construction which would result in any change in the free-flowing characteristics of a [wild and scenic] river." MNDOT disputed the NPS's designation of the bridge construction project as a "water resources project." MNDOT argued that the NPS had inconsistently applied section 7 to bridge projects in general and to this particular project and that it had failed to adopt and/or publish statements of general policy for the term "water resources project" in the Federal Register as required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The court determined that Congress had delegated to the DOI the authority to define the term, and hence that under Chevron, the DOI interpretation would be upheld if it was a permissible construction. The court found the NPS interpretation reasonable and permissible considering the Act's purpose of preserving the rivers in their free-flowing condition. It dismissed MNDOT's argument that this definition had been inconsistently applied to the present project. The court looked to the record, which showed numerous NPS communications from as early as 1988 and throughout the environmental review process expressing concern about possible adverse effects of the project under section 7. Finally, the court determined that the DOI's failure to publish its interpretation of the term in the Federal Register was not fatal under the Administrative Procedures Act because MNDOT had "actual and timely notice" of the interpretation. The court then found the NPS determination to be supportable on the facts. First, the NPS finding of "adverse impacts" appropriately considered scenic impacts, as the river was designated in part due to its scenic values. Secondly, the determination was not arbitrary and capricious but was based on "detailed, well-reasoned findings."
|
||
 |
||