Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell has developed a nationwide practice representing clients in the approval process for large transportation, development and infrastructure projects. This has included extensive experience representing the proponents and opponents of these projects and affected government agencies, giving Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell lawyers an unmatched ability to understand and anticipate the strategies of all of the relevant parties in an environmental review process. Because many of the projects Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell attorneys work on have a federal nexus, they generally require the preparation of federal environmental documents (including environmental impact statements (EISs)) and often require similar processes under counterpart state laws.

In work relating to public and private projects, the firm's lawyers have addressed impacts to the complete range of environmental, historic and social resources in settings from dense urban areas to wilderness. The firm's lawyers have substantive expertise regarding the environmental issues that arise in all of these areas and how they affect the review process, including air quality, noise, environmental justice, wetlands, historic impacts, endangered species, water quality, community impacts, and coastal resources.



Unlike most firms, Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell regularly represents both project proponents and project opponents. For project proponents, the firm's experience representing opponents translates into an ability to anticipate potential litigation issues opponents likely will raise, to work with clients to develop solutions to opponents' concerns, to understand their potential legal arguments, and -- most importantly -- structure the EIS process in a way which should reduce the chance of a successful legal challenge. When representing project opponents, the firm is able to understand what hurdles represent mere inconveniences for a project and what hurdles could give project opponents substantial leverage over approval of the ultimate project.

Among the types of public sector projects the firm's attorneys provide counsel regarding are:

Airport infrastructure. The firm's lawyers have worked on the preparation of EISs, related environmental documentation and/or responsive comments for many of the nation's largest airport projects, including airports in Las Vegas, Chicago, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Denver, Dallas/Fort Worth, Seattle-Tacoma, Burbank, West Palm Beach, Homestead, Florida and Raleigh-Durham. These projects have included runway development, terminal infrastructure, access roads, drainage facilities, collateral development and other airport projects. The firm's lawyers have also worked on environmental reviews for new Greenfield airports in Denver, Las Vegas, and Sun Valley, Idaho. The firm's lawyers have a deep understanding of the substantive issues at stake, the process in which such issues arise, the political context in which they take place and the practical business issues affecting them.

Highways. The firm's attorneys have developed and implemented effective strategies for the approval of or opposition to highway projects throughout the country. This experience has included work in diverse settings, from intermodal facilities in dense urban settings to greenfield sites in environmentally sensitive locations, with the full range of environmental issues. The firm's attorneys have often addressed the complicated intersection between these highway projects and other major projects, such as real estate developments, airports, and base facilities. The project on which the firm's attorneys have worked range from controversial highway interchanges and highway expansion to new freeways and urban road projects.

Airspace and air traffic procedures. The firm's attorneys have represented airports and local communities in the assessment of proposed airspace changes arising from both airport-initiated programs to reduce noise impacts and FAA-initiated capacity enhancement efforts. The firm's attorneys have developed and implemented effective strategies to help their clients meet their objectives in these different settings.

Water and utility projects. Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell attorneys have amassed considerable experience on projects for the development of water and other infrastructure throughout the country. For example, for Denver Water, the firm assisted in securing a federal environmental assessment through an innovative applicant-led procedure that saved the client considerable time and reduced the controversy and mitigation requirements that would have been required had a full federal EIS been required. The firm's lawyers have worked on EISs for FERC-licensed power facilities including in Maine, Nebraska and Colorado and for water supply projects in Nebraska and Colorado.



The environmental impact statement (or state counterpart) requirements for private sector projects present particularly difficult legal and policy problems. The firm's lawyers are expert in using the environmental review process to the best advantage of the client - whether the client is seeking to promote a project or seeking to halt a project. For both project proponents and opponents, the scope of an environmental review document is critical: the breadth and depth can determine whether the project is subject to substantial government and public scrutiny of proprietary matters. The firm's lawyers frequently are called upon to assist in the earliest stages of a project - to assist in defining and narrowing the scope of environmental review (in the case of project proponents) or to help ensure the broadest and most comprehensive environmental review (for the firm's clients who are opposing a project).

The firm's lawyers' experience with the federal government -- both as government officials and representing clients -- has been particularly valuable for the firm's private sector clients. This experience, coupled with Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell's unusual mix of public and private sector clients, enables the firm to provide private sector clients with a clear understanding of the policy and legal constraints which should guide the preparation of EISs, EIRs (under California law) and other state environmental disclosure documents.

For example, the firm's lawyers assisted the real estate development affiliate of the PGA Tour in matters relating to several large real estate development projects. In one of these projects, the firm's lawyers directed the preparation of a federal EIS necessitated by a federal land transfer and federal wetlands permits. It was particularly important in this case that the EIS be sufficiently narrow in scope so that it addressed only those elements of the project which had a federal nexus and avoided disclosure of the complex and confidential business arrangements which underlay the proposal.

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell worked closely with several federal agencies on every element of the EIS -- from the original notice that an EIS would be prepared, through the scoping process, the drafting of the EIS, the public input process, and the preparation of the final EIS. The firm's lawyers coordinated the federal EIS process with a concurrent state EIR, the scope of which was considerably broader than the federal EIS. Careful drafting and skilled negotiation with officials at the highest levels of the federal government made it possible to prepare an EIS which satisfied all applicable federal requirements without forcing the client to reveal sensitive development plans and business data.

For project proponents, the firm's experience representing opponents translates into an ability to anticipate the issues which opponents likely will raise, to understand their potential legal arguments, and -- most importantly -- to structure the EIS process in a way that should reduce the chance of a successful challenge.



Laws protecting historic and archeological resources are complex and frequently not well understood. They are enforced by a dedicated and highly specialized network of federal, state and local government officials. Because neither the procedures nor the criteria used to implement these laws are generally understood outside the specialized field of historic preservation, historic preservation issues may not be identified or adequately addressed at the critical planning phase of large land use projects. Similarly, local governments may miss opportunities to protect the social, cultural and economic health of their communities by using historic preservation laws to guide local development.

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell has built a national practice representing development interests, local governments, and individuals. The firm's lawyers have assisted local governments in availing themselves fully of the protections afforded by historic preservation laws, counseled project proponents on their obligations and on the best way to design projects to accommodate historic concerns, and litigated historic preservation issues in the federal courts.

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell lawyers have developed expertise in helping their clients understand the procedural labyrinth of the historic preservation regulations and alerting them to the pitfalls and opportunities which these laws present. The firm's experience includes past service with the federal, state and local governments implementing their respective historic preservation regulations.

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell also has developed a reputation for our ability to bring about innovative applications of historic preservation laws. Representing a federally chartered corporation, Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell lawyers helped it avoid the inadvertent triggering of burdensome regulatory procedures under federal and state historic preservation laws. Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell lawyers have assisted one of the oldest towns in central Texas in invoking federal historic preservation laws in order to preserve its downtown commercial and residential core, and have helped a major Florida airport respond to well-funded opposition that attempted to use historic preservation laws as a tool to curtailing airport growth. Working with local historians, the firm's lawyers have helped draft National Register nominations and have helped structure real estate transactions to avoid historic preservation difficulties. The firm has helped negotiate programmatic agreements and MOUs with state and tribal historic preservation officials.



Federal approval of transportation projects often triggers the requirements of Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f), which strictly limits the federal government's ability to approve transportation projects that take parks or historic properties of significance. The firm's lawyers have successfully used the Section 4(f) protections as a tool to oppose projects and have successfully navigated the statutory and regulatory maze to secure project approval. The firm's lawyers used Section 4(f) protections to forestall construction of an airport runway that could have seriously damaged the historic commercial district of a small Texas town. The firm's lawyers litigated over Section 4(f) protections for Missouri city whose principal golf course, park and City center facilities were to be taken for an airport expansion. As a result of this involvement, the city was able to secure additional mitigation measures. The firm has advised clients and undertaken litigation regarding the application of Section 4(f) to highway projects that affect historic sites, open space and other resources. For a proponent of a large amusement park complex in the eastern United States, the firm's lawyers helped develop a strategy that would have allowed the construction of a new interstate highway interchange that was near (and arguably affected) a prominent Civil War battlefield park.

In all these cases, the firm's lawyers have applied a combination of deep understanding of the applicable law with ingenuity and creativity to help the client use the protections of Section 4(f) to its best advantage.



Cases

Friends of Marolt Park v. U.S.D.O.T., (pending, 10th Cir.) (challenge under Section 4(f) to use of community open space and historical area for highway realignment)

City of Bridgeton v. FAA, 212 F.3d 448 (8th Cir. 2000) (represented local government in challenge to EIS for new runways through city parks)

City of Des Moines v. Puget Sound Regional Council, 988 P.2d 27 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (represented coalition of local governments in challenge to land use approval for new runway project)

City of Los Angeles v. FAA, 138 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 1998) (represented City in challenge to EIS for new airport terminal)

Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Busey, 79 F.3d 1250 (1st Cir. 1996) (represented local government in Clean Air Act challenge to military base conversion)

City of Grapevine, Tex. v. Department of Transportation, 17 F.3d 1502 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (represented municipality in challenge to EIS for airport expansion)

Colorado Environmental Coalition v. Lujan, 803 F. Supp. 364 (D. Colo. 1992) (represented citizens' organization in successful NEPA challenge to Bureau of Land Management's wilderness designation process in three western states)

Sierra Club v. Baker, 1990 WL 116845 (D.D.C. 1990) (established duty of a public international organization to comply with domestic environmental laws, overcoming various immunity claims)

Projects

Relicensing of Gross Reservoir, Boulder County, CO

Expansions at Chicago O'Hare, Los Angeles International and Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airports

Construction of new greenfield airports in Hailey (Sun Valley), Idaho and Clark County (Las Vegas), NV

Removal of Edwards Dam, Kennebec River, ME

Environmental Review of Airspace Changes in Phoenix, Seattle, Detroit, Las Vegas and West Palm Beach

Highway and road projects in Northern Virginia, suburban Denver, South California, suburban Cleveland