Court Opinion

ID: 9469107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:32:16.221276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:13.522228
License: Public Domain

SNEED, Circuit Judge,
Concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion, save for section II.B. With respect to it I concur in its result and add these observations.
I.
Under section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. § 1653(f) (1970), the Secretary of Transportation, as Judge Anderson points out, may not approve any highway project which uses parkland unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park resulting from its use. A project which does not take parkland by condemnation nonetheless may “use” the park, provided the proximity of the project to the park impairs its value in terms of its prior significance and enjoyment. Stop H-3 Association v. Coleman, 533 F.2d 434 (9th Cir. 1976) (Hawaiian stone monument with religious significance); Brooks v. Volpe, 460 F.2d 1193 (9th Cir. 1972) (alpine campground encircled by highway); D. C. Federation of Civic Associations v. Volpe, 459 F.2d 1231, 1239 (D.C.Cir.1971) (parkland under bridge over Potomac). Application of section 4(f), therefore, requires a three-part test:
(1) Does the project use (either by actually taking or by impairing the significance and enjoyment of) a public park?
(2) Is there a feasible and prudent alternative to such use (typically, not building the highway or choosing a different route)?1
(3) If there are no reasonable and prudent alternatives, does the project include all possible planning to minimize harm?
II.
APPLICATION TO 1-90 SEATTLEBELLEVUE CORRIDOR
The Secretary here complied with the requirements of section 4(f). The Secretary’s “4(f) Analysis” properly determined that more than twenty of the fifty potentially protected sites would be “used” by the proposed highway. The Secretary’s “4(f) Determination,” when considered in conjunction with the planned “greenbelt,” adequately established that no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed corridor exists, and that the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to affected parkland.
Although a small number of the more than twenty sites listed as “used” in the “4(f) Analysis” are not discussed in the “4(f) Determination,”2 the final Environmental Impact Statement, dated March 9, 1978, does in fact consider these sites rather exhaustively, and indicates that planning to minimize harm to them took place. The admonition that we must avoid “fly-speeking” environmental impact statements, Lathan v. Brinegar, 506 F.2d 677, 693 (9th Cir. 1974) (en banc); Isle of Hope Historical Association, Inc. v. United States Army *1100Corps of Engineers, 646 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1981); Columbia Basin Land Protection Association v. Schlesinger, 643 F.2d 585, 611 (9th Cir. 1981) (dissent); Citizens for Mass Transit, Inc. v. Adams, 630 F.2d 309, 313 (5th Cir. 1980), is also appropriate in this context. While the decision makers conducting the 4(f) review might have organized their analysis in a better manner, the documentation read as a whole requires that we affirm.
The conclusion that all possible planning to minimize harm has been undertaken is strengthened by the fact that affirmative actions to enhance the project environmentally constitute a prominent feature of the project. The size, topography, and measures for revegetation incorporated in the planned greenbelt will greatly.mitigate the loss of parkland from the project. Together with other planning incorporated in the section 4(f) documentation, the conclusion that all possible planning to minimize harm is proper. Section 4(f) has been satisfied.

. This prong gives section 4(f) teeth. An alternative is “feasible” unless “as a matter of sound engineering it would not be feásible to build the highway along any other route.” Citizens To Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 411, 91 S.Ct. 814, 821, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). A route is “prudent,” despite greater economic costs or community disruption, unless the costs or disruption reach “extraordinary magnitudes” or there are “truly unusual factors” present in a particular case. See id. at 413, 91 S.Ct. at 822.
The reason that Overton Park makes it so difficult to uphold a finding that no “feasible and prudent alternative” exists is explained therein. Under usual circumstances, building a highway through a park will always be the least disruptive and cheapest route for the government. The purpose of section 4(f) is to protect parkland from highway use in spite of the “reasonableness” of such use in the absence of the statute. Id. at 411-13, 91 S.Ct. at 821-22.

. See note 13 supra (majority opinion).