Court Opinion

ID: 9670549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:22:19.362559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:05.162235
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.
(dissenting). I dissent. This dissent makes no judgment on the merits of the *415proposed mall. Whether it should be built, however, is a decision that should be reached only after an Environmental Impact Statement has been issued. Unfortunately, because of today’s opinion, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
The department of natural resources (DNR) has determined an EIS is not necessary. It has concluded that the proposed mall will not cause a primary impact on the physical environment. The role of this court is to examine the record and determine whether the DNR’s judgment was reasonable based on that record. The majority opinion concludes that the DNR’s judgment was reasonable. I strenuously disagree.
The test to be applied by this court is correctly stated in the majority opinion. First, is there a reviewable record of sufficient depth to permit a reasonably informed preliminary judgment of the environmental consequences. I agree that such a record exists; in fact, I shall cite to it later at length to demonstrate how the DNR’s decision failed to meet the second test, namely: does their decision follow “in a manner consistent with the exercise of reasonable judgment by an agency committed to compliance with WEPA’s obligations”. WED III, 79 Wis. 2d at 425. In other words, does the agency make a convincing case that the impact is insignificant. See WED III, 79 Wis. at 425, n. 7, citing Maryland Nat. Capital Park & Planning Comm. v. Postal Service, 487 F.2d 1029, 1040 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
The majority correctly finds that in making its determination, the DNR must review the direct and indirect environmental effects of the project. It is clear that all of the law surrounding WEPA requires that both direct and indirect effects on the physical environment must be considered. Under this court’s decision in WED III, both direct and indirect environmental effects must be considered in an EIS decision: “. . . any construction limit*416ing the act to just direct effects would be contrary to [WEPA’s] manifest intent.” WED III, 79 Wis. 2d at 430, n. 16. Section 1.11(2) (c), Stats., specifically requires Wisconsin agencies to follow NEPA guidelines, which also make clear that indirect environmental effects must be considered:
“Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.” NEPA Guidelines, 40 C.F.R. sec. 1508.8(b).
The WEPA Guidelines, relied upon by the majority opinion, also make this clear. Supra, p 392.
What are the direct and indirect effects this mall will have on the physical environment ? The DNR’s Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Worksheet (EIASW), points out the following direct and indirect effects of the mall on the physical environment:
This proposed mall is to be located on a 114 acre tract at the southwest corner of U.S.H. 10-41, three miles west of Appleton. It will include approximately one million square feet of building, and parking for about 5,500 cars. The channels of both Mud Creek and its tributary will be relocated. A 4.2 acre stormwater detention basin will collect runoff from the parking lot and hold it so “some” sediments will settle. The rest of the sediments including oil, grease and other automobile related hydrocarbons, chloride from road salting, and metals such as lead, zinc, and cadmium will be discharged to the original stream bed below the mall site. Four access roads are to be constructed. The mall will consume approximately 60,000 gallons of water per day. It will discharge approximately 60,000 gallons of sanitary waste *417water a day. Carbon monoxide from the concentrations of vehicles would be the predominant pollutant, about 1,000 tons of CO per year on a worst case estimate. “From the air quality degradation standpoint, it is estimated that in 1992 the mall (plus the background concentration) would use up about 80% of the air quality resource for CO. . . .” EIASW p. 10. Solid waste will approximate 480 cubic yards of compacted paper and food wastes per month. Nearly all terrestrial vegetation would be removed from the site, and the terrestrial animals now using the site could be eliminated and displaced. Aquatic flora and fauna would be destroyed when the two streams are moved, and the increased pollution from parking lot runoff could bring the streams limited aquatic life. Finally, and of great significance, on page 18 of the EIASW, under the title “Evaluation”, the DNR lists “other events or actions [which] will happen that may significantly affect the environment” as a result of the mall:
“If the mall were developed as proposed, accelerated development could occur in the vicinity due to the customer drawing power of, and services provided by the mall. Several developers appear to be planning office complexes near the mall site (Outagamie County Planning/Energy and Zoning Administration). Other possible secondary development could include single and multi-family housing, as well as commercial development such as fast food restaurants, gas stations, banks, auto parts stores and similar establishments.
“This secondary development could lead to even greater CO and other emissions associated with increased vehicle traffic. Such development could also lead to increased water pollution in local streams, increased waste-water loading to local sewage treatment facilities and increased solid waste loadings to local landfills. Other associated secondary impacts could include accelerated farmland losses, increased traffic and noise, a change in the overall aesthetic quality of the area, and additional *418losses of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife due to habitat degradation of loss.”
These are the direct and indirect effects on the physical environment listed in the DNR’s own EIASW. Un-disputably, these must be taken into account by the DNR in making its determination.
The DNR concluded that an EIS was not necessary. It concluded that the mall will not cause a primary impact on the physical environment. The majority opinion finds those conclusions reasonable. I couldn’t disagree more. For the DNR to determine that these effects are minor, that these effects do not even reach the status of having a primary impact on the physical environment, and for the majority to agree with the DNR’s decision and find it reasonable, is to ignore the obvious.
I would hold that the facts recited above by themselves indicate that the proposed mall is a “major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” within the meaning of 1.11(2) (c), Stats., and that therefore an EIS must be prepared.
Because I conclude that these facts by themselves require an EIS, I do not reach the question of whether the DNR was required to consider the socioeconomic effects in its decision.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Nathan Heffernan and Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson join in this dissent.