You are here

Update: Judge Rules Against Environmental Upgrades for Bridge Project in Congaree National Park

Share

Published Date

May 11, 2011

A federal judge has ruled that a defective bridge over the Congaree River in central South Carolina can be replaced without correcting environmentally harmful features of the causeway-like bridge approach built long ago on floodplain land now within the borders of Congaree National Park.  Environmentalists and park advocates are keenly disappointed, not least because the judge assigned no significance to the fact that the environmentally harmful bridge approach is in a national park.  

South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) plans for replacing the Highway 601 bridge over the Congaree River call for rebuilding several miles of causeways on the Congaree River flood plain within Congaree National Park.  Although no one objects to replacing the badly deteriorated span, which poses serious safety hazards, critics of the plan filed suit in 2006 to force changes to the bridge approach section of the project.  They wanted some sections of the four-mile long bridge approach causeway replaced with short bridges so as to remove existing impediments to water flow and wildlife movement, preserve wetlands, and improve access to the national park.

In 2008 a federal court ruling compelled the Federal Highway Administration to do a more thorough environmental assessment of the project.  The park advocates and environmental groups who spearheaded this legal action -- Friends of Congaree Swamp, the South Carolina Wildlife Federation, and the National Audubon Society -- filed a second lawsuit in September 2010 after deeming the Federal Highway Administration's revised EA to be no better than the original.

Work on the Congaree River span itself was allowed to proceed while this second suit was pending.  However, most construction on the bridge approach was suspended.

On April 27, 2011, federal judge Margaret Seymour put an end to the legal wrangling by deciding in favor of the SCDOT.  Judge Seymour ruled that the revised Environmental Assessment was adequate, that SCDOT should not be compelled to repair environmental damage caused by the original design of the bridge approach, and that special care need not be taken just because the bridge approach lies within a national park.

An appeal of the ruling is being considered.  Barring additional delays, SCDOT expects to complete the bridge project, originally budgeted at $37 million, in 2013.

Support National Parks Traveler

Your support for the National Parks Traveler comes at a time when news organizations are finding it hard, if not impossible, to stay in business. Traveler's work is vital. For nearly two decades we've provided essential coverage of national parks and protected areas. With the Trump administration’s determination to downsize the federal government, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s approach to public lands focused on energy exploration, it’s clear the Traveler will have much to cover in the months and years ahead. We know of no other news organization that provides such broad coverage of national parks and protected areas on a daily basis. Your support is greatly appreciated.

 

EIN: 26-2378789

Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places

A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.

Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:

  • Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
  • Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
  • Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
  • North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
  • Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
  • Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
  • Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.

Comments

Not sure how I feel about this.  On the surface it sounds bad, but it may be more damaging to build new bridges than to just repair the current causeways.  Can't they put culverts for water flow?  I'm betting something is already there for that.


That is disappointing.  Last week I visited Congaree NP for the first time, and had an amazing time.  Paddled Cedar Creek from Bannister's Bridge to the second oxbow lake past Cedar Creek landing.  Then, hiked the King Snake Trail.  Great trees and wildlife.  And great rangers and volunteers--one of my favorite parks.  (Okay, so I'm a pretty off-topic here.)


Questions:
Was the bridge and road before or after the park?
Is there ever an adequate EA that does not state exactly what the Enviromental groups want it to?
What does the SCDOT have to say as to why yhey want to just make repairs to the causeway?
Was there a public comment and response period concerning this action and was the NPS satisfied with the results?
Did NPS and any of the mentioned organizations offer to contribute to the cost of desired improvements?
Was SELC involved?
 
Just curious.

Rno (obxguys)


Ron, the Park Service always listed an "environmentally preferrable alternative." It's required to under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Park Service does not always recommend or adopt this alternative. Indeed, Cape Hatteras officials did not recommend, and eventually adopt, the environmentally preferrable alternative for ORV management on the seashore. It also has never adopted the environmentally preferrable alternative for snowmobile use in Yellowstone.

Which raises an interesting question: When has the NPS endorsed and adopted an environmentally preferrable alternative?


Kurt,
Response well taken.
However, Is this a situation of what we would like to doioh as opposed to what we can afford. The article paints a picture. Is there another side to this story. There often is.
I still stand by my statement concerning environmental groups and EAs. I do not include NPS in this group. Their politics are completely different. I'll not go there.

Hope you are doing well,
Ron


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Your urgent support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.