Court Opinion

ID: 9463119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:58:28.858647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:56.415733
License: Public Domain

TONE, Circuit Judge,
with whom
PELL and BAUER, Circuit Judges, join (dissenting)-
I agree with the majority opinion except in its holding that it was improper to confine the environmental impact statement to the 15-mile segment in issue. It is important, to begin with, to understand the geography, which is shown by the following schematic map:

*376

The section of freeway marked “B” has already been built. Part of it was completed in the 1960’s long before the adoption of the National Environmental Policy Act and the remainder was completed in 1972 or 1973. The construction of this section is not claimed to have been unlawful. Its cost was over $7,100,000.
If it were not for the existence of section “B,” I would agree with the majority that the proposed federal action, determined in the light of the Federal Highway Administration’s Policy and Procedure Memorandum (PPM) 90-1, is the entire 42 miles of freeway between Peoria and Lincoln. But section “B” does exist, and no one suggests that it will not be utilized, whatever route is selected for the freeway between Peoria and Lincoln. The only alternative, unless the freeway connecting those cities is not to be built, would be to duplicate elsewhere that 3V2-mile section of freeway. No one has suggested that it would be advantageous to the environment or rational for any other reason to build another 3V2-mile section of freeway which would as a matter of geographical necessity be near section “B,” which would leave section “B” an unused expanse of concrete, and which would cost $7,100,000 plus the amount that building costs have increased since section “B” was built.
Thus, if a freeway is to be built between Peoria and Lincoln, section “B” will obviously be a part of that freeway. The Federal Highway Administration’s determination that section “B” was a “major highway control element” within the meaning of its own PPM 90-1, § 3(a) (quoted in the majority opinion, note 2) was a reasonable application of its own regulations and one to which the usual deference is due. Cf. Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Porter County Chapter of Izaak Walton League, 423 U.S. 12, 14-15, 96 S.Ct. 172, 173-174, 46 L.Ed.2d 156 (1975). In my *377opinion, the District Court was correct in sustaining this interpretation, and the majority of this court has not applied the principle it correctly recognizes when it says:
“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.”
To complete the statement of my position, I should also explain what is perhaps obvious, viz., why I have not thought it realistic to assume that an environmental impact statement covering the entire freeway between Peoria and Lincoln might lead the responsible authorities to conclude that such a freeway should not be built at all. The majority holds sufficient the EIS for the 15-mile segment on which this action focuses (section “C” on the above sketch), noting:
“In the EIS, the need for a new road was specifically explained on the basis of the growth in traffic and the expansion of the communities to be served by the highway.”
As the passage in the EIS referred to makes clear, the need considered is the need for a freeway between Peoria and Lincoln as a segment of a freeway between Peoria and Springfield. The estimated traffic growth is based on the assumption, the EIS states, that the Peoria-Lincoln segment would be “built in its entirety.” If the need for 42 miles of freeway justifies taking the 700 acres of farmland necessary for the 15-mile southern portion (section “C”) of those 42 miles, as the planners have concluded it does, it is hardly conceivable that the same need will not be found to justify taking the additional acreage necessary for the northern portion (section “A”). Environmental considerations related to section “A” other than loss of farmland may affect the routing and manner of constructing that section, but cannot realistically be viewed as potential bars to the construction of that section at all.
Accordingly, I believe the agency did not misinterpret its own regulations or the National Environmental Policy Act in determining that in the unusual circumstances of this case the 15-mile section was the appropriate subject of a separate environmental impact statement. I would therefore affirm the judgment,