Park & River Alliance, Inc. v. Slater

No. 98-2795MN (177 F.3d 1062) (8th Cir. May 25, 1999)

The court holds that an environmental group's Department of Transportation Act § 4(f) challenge to a proposed five-mile highway corridor in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is time barred. Although a statement made in the district court's opinion is a "new circumstance," it does not have anything to do with the statute of limitations. The district court simply observed that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) did not consider the impact of reconstruction on certain areas. The absence from the draft EIS of any discussion of that impact has been evident from the time that the draft EIS was prepared, and it cannot have the effect of reviving a claim barred by the statute of limitations.

Counsel for Appellant
Grant J. Merritt
Kalina, Wills, Gisvold & Clark
941 Hillwind Rd. NE, Ste. 200, Minneapolis MN 55432
(612) 789-9000

Counsel for Appellee
William R. Sierks, Ass't Attorney General
Attorney General's Office
102 State Capitol, St. Paul MN 55155
(612) 296-6196

Before Gibson and Bowman, JJ.

[29 ELR 21289]

Arnold, J.:

This is a suit under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. § 303(c). The plaintiffs allege that aspects of a proposed five-mile highway corridor in Minneapolis, Minnesota, known as the Hiawatha Avenue Corridor, violate this statute. The District Court¹ dismissed the suit, holding it barred by the six-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). On appeal, the plaintiff, Park and River Alliance, Inc., alleges that an observation in the District Court's opinion is a "new circumstance" causing the limitations period to begin running anew. Having considered the briefs and heard oral argument, we are constrained to disagree. Of course the statement in the District Court's opinion is a new circumstance, in the sense that it did not exist before the opinion was filed, but it is not, in our view, a circumstance that has anything to do with the statute of limitations. The District Court simply observed that a draft environmental impact statement prepared in 1982 and 1983 "did not review the impact of the proposed reconstruction on Fort Snelling State Park or the Coldwater Springs Historic District." Park and River Alliance, Inc. v. Rodney Slater, No. 96-CIV-985, slip op. 3 (D. Minn., opinion filed May 19, 1998). The absence from the draft environmental impact statement of any discussion of the impact of the proposed highway on the Fort Snelling State Park or the Coldwater Springs Historic District is a fact that has been evident from the beginning, ever since the statement was prepared. It cannot have the effect of reviving a claim barred by limitations.

For this reason, and the others given in the opinion of the able district judge, the judgment is

Affirmed.

1. The Hon. Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.