Opinion ID: 195402
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Logical Termini

Text: The district court found that none of the defendants violated its respective obligations under NEPA to prepare proper Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for the Jamestown Connector highway project. In particular, the court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the defendants unlawfully segmented the geographic area of analysis in the 1987 Jamestown Connector EIS (Jamestown FSEIS) and that defendants failed to consider the cumulative impacts of highway projects all along the Route 138 Corridor. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations provide that an EIS is of proper geographic scope if the project it analyzes connects logical termini, has independent utility and does not restrict consideration of alternatives. 23 C.F.R. 771.111(f). The district court found that the Jamestown Connector project satisfied all three criteria and, as a result, the 1987 Jamestown FSEIS was of the appropriate scope. The plaintiffs take issue only with the court's determination of the first prong (the so-called logical termini prong). Termini include crossroads, population centers, major traffic generators, or similar highway control elements. 37 Fed. Reg. 21,810. The district court found that the two bridges on each side of the Jamestown Connector (entering and exiting Jamestown island) are logical enough termini to uphold the agencies' determination that the connector was a proper geographic area for environmental analysis. In particular, the -15- court accepted defendants' argument that the bridges are traffic generators or traffic control devices. Plaintiffs contend that the bridges do not qualify as crossroads or traffic generators, but instead are merely indistinguishable strips of the highway that happen to pass over water. According to the plaintiffs, because most traffic merely passes over the bridges and through the island on its way to and from cities in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and to and from various highway interchanges that are located several miles away from the bridges, the bridges themselves neither control nor generate any traffic but merely carry it. Thus, the bridges are allegedly not a beginning or end such that they could reasonably be considered termini. Plaintiffs present a strong argument, but, given that we are reviewing this case for an abuse of discretion, we cannot find that the district court erred in upholding the agencies' determination of termini. See Swain v. Brinegar, 542 F.2d 364, 369 (7th Cir. 1976) (The task of the court is not to decide where to draw the line, but to review the matter to ascertain whether the agency has made a reasonable choice.). The bridges may not control or generate traffic in the strict sense of those words, but they do represent the only way that cars can get onto and off of the island. Thus, traffic passing through southern Rhode Island is controlled by the existence and condition of those bridges. Although the FHWA is not free to consider every bridge or culvert in a highway system to be a -16- suitable end point for purposes of conducting EIS analysis, two bridges over Narragansett Bay, a considerably large body of water, can reasonably constitute a major highway control element. 37 Fed. Reg. 21,810. Ultimately, when viewed through the lens of basic common sense, two bridges on either side of an island appear to be perfectly logical termini to us. None of the authorities cited by the plaintiffs indicates that logical termini must be located at interchanges or major metropolitan areas. We do not believe that those decisions which found indistinguishable strips of highway to be improper termini for EIS purposes apply to the present case. See Swain 542 F.2d at 369-70; Indian Lookout Alliance v. Volpe, 484 F.2d 11, 19-20 (8th Cir. 1973); Patterson v. Exon, 415 F. Supp. 1276, 1283 (D. Neb. 1976). We also do not find any authority for plaintiffs' assertion that the district court erred as a matter of law by considering the geographic situation of Jamestown Island in its determination that the bridges are logical termini. Indian Lookout Alliance, 484 F.2d at 18-19, for example, says nothing about the propriety or impropriety of considering special geographic features in making logical termini analysis. Rather, the case simply states that courts should look to the nature and purpose of the project in determining which termini are logical. Id. In this case, one of the purposes of the Jamestown Connector is to facilitate traffic passing from one side of the island to the other. From this perspective, the bridges are logical endpoints. -17- The district court also considered the two other elements in 23 C.F.R. 771.111(f) (independent utility and reasonable alternatives) when it found that the Jamestown FSEIS was of the proper scope. The court found that these two factors carry more weight in this case than the logical termini prong. Plaintiffs argue that this finding is error because courts can only accord logical termini less importance where the highway project is in a major metropolitan area. The relevant cases concerning the reduced weight afforded to the logical termini prong do involve highway projects in metropolitan areas. See, e.g., Coalition on Sensible Transp. Inc., v. Dole, 826 F.2d 60, 69 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Piedmont Heights Civic Club, Inc. v. Moreland, 637 F.2d 430, 440 (5th Cir. 1981). The courts in those cases, however, did not reduce the weight afforded to the termini prong simply because the area in question was urban as opposed to rural. Rather, the courts reduced the importance of the termini factor in those cases because it was difficult to determine where projects began and ended in convoluted urban highway systems. Coalition on Sensible Transp., 826 F.2d at 69; Piedmont Heights, 637 F.2d at 440. Therefore, the district court did not err in stating that, as a matter of law, the independent utility and reasonable alternative prongs are more important where logical termini are not so easily determined. Conservation Law Found., 827 F. Supp. at 879. Although the Jamestown Connector does not involve the usual spaghetti of highway interchanges often found in urban centers, it does involve sufficient special -18- circumstances -- the traversing of an island in the middle of Narragansett Bay -- to warrant a finding that logical termini are not so easily determined.