Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/06/1995

Home

Page 4 -- May 1995 Z.B. Wetlands M Park Service Exchanges Parkway Interchange for Wetlands Tract Daingerfield Island Protective Society v. Babbitt, 40 F..3d 442 (District of Columbia) 1994 In 1970, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior signed a land exchange agreement with a private company that gave the National Park Service title to a wetlands tract along the Potomac River. In return for that land, the Park Service had to grant the company an easement to build an interchange over the George Washington Parkway. The Park Service and other federal agencies had to approve any design for the interchange. The Park Service got the deed to the wetlands tract in 1971, but a design for the proposed interchange was not approved until 1983. During the approval process, the Park Service rejected several designs because of their effect on traffic, wetlands, and nearby Daingerfield Island. Initially, the Park Service found the interchange should not be built at all. However, the decision was overridden because the Park Service legally had to' provide access tO Potomac Green, a proposed commercial and residential complex. Both the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and National Capital Planning Commission approved the final design. In 1986, the Daingerfield Island Protective Society sued the Park Service, claiming the exchange agreement and the interch, ange design violated the National Park Service Organic Act, the National Historic Preservation Act} the National Capital Planning Act,' and Executive Order. No. 11988. After a series of proceedings, the court granted the Park Service judgment without a trial because the case was time-barred (the Protective Society had six years from the date of the exchange agreement to challenge it). It also found that the interchange design did not violate any federal law. · The Protective Society appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of the Park Service. The lower court properly decided the case was time-barred. The ex- change agreement that obligated the Park Service to grant the easement was signed in 1970. The Protective Society had six years to challenge it, but did not do so until 16 years later. The Park Service was in charge of protecting park resources, and its decision would,be upheld unless it was arbitrary. The Park Service thor- oughly reviewed the interchange design, and got the required approvals from other agencies. Even so, the Protective Society's arguments were not that the particular design approved in 1983 was flawed, but that any interchange would break the law. This was actually an attack on the exchange agreement, which was time-barred. Dainge~fieId Island Protective Society v. Babbitt, 823 F. Supp. 950 (1993). Dainge~field Island Protective Society v. Lujan, 797 F. Supp. 25 (1992).